What Agreement Did Delegates Make Over Trade
Several prominent founders are known not to participate in the Constitutional Convention. Thomas Jefferson was abroad and served as a minister in France.  John Adams was in Britain and served as a minister for that country, but he wrote at home to encourage delegates. Patrick Henry refused to participate because he felt “a rat in Philadelphia turning to the monarchy.” John Hancock and Samuel Adams were also absent. Many older and more experienced heads of state may have simply been too preoccupied with the local affairs of their states to participate in the Convention , initially intended to strengthen existing articles of Confederation, not to draft a constitution for an entirely new national government. On 4 June, delegates debated the Review Board. Wilson and Alexander Hamilton of New York disagreed with the amalgamation between the executive branch and the judiciary. They wanted the president to veto it to ensure independence from the legislature. Benjamin Franklin, of Pennsylvania, recalled that colonial governors vetoed extorting money from the legislature, refusing to give the president an absolute veto.
Gerry suggested that a two-thirds majority in both houses of Congress be able to challenge any veto of the Review Board. This was amended to replace the Council with the sole Chair, but Madison insisted on maintaining a review board and the review of the veto power was postponed.  On May 25, the assembly appeared at the Philadelphia Statehouse. George Washington was elected presidential officer. Delegates quickly decided that their discussions should not be made public and that “nothing that is said in the house is printed or published or communicated in any other way.” Because of the rule of secrecy, the public didn`t know much about what was going on at the Philadelphia Statehouse. And without the careful notes of James Madison, who attended each session and carefully transcribed the procedure, we would now know little about how the Constitution was drafted. Because English law had generally recognized that the government had two distinct functions – the legislation that is enshrined in the legislative branch and the law that is applied in the king and its courts – the separation of legislative power from the natural executive and judicial law.  [Page required] Nevertheless, the form that the executive should take, its powers and selection until the summer of 1787 would be a source of ongoing litigation.  At that time, few nations had non-hereditary leaders who could serve as role models.
The Dutch Republic was run by a city owner, but this post was usually inherited from members of the Orange House. The Swiss Confederation did not have a single ruler and the electoral monarchies of the Holy Roman Empire and the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth were considered corrupt.  After the confirmation of the legislative elections, delegates voted to allow the President to serve several terms, reversing their previous decision to limit the president to a single seven-year term. James McClurg of Virginia went further, suggesting that the president serve a life term “in good conduct.” McClurg believed it would protect executive independence, but it was rejected because he was too close to the monarchy.  Delegates used two streams of intellectual tradition and each delegate could use both or a mixture depending on the subject in question: foreign policy, economy, national government or federal relations between states. Rutledge, himself a former governor of the Land, was determined that the new state government would be stronger than the federal government, but that the national government`s power over the states would not be unlimited; and at Rutledges` request, the Committee went beyond what the Convention had proposed.