Views on the US Constitution

[The Yankee]

That's one strange district. And yes, the Texas thing was a little jab, though I believe a few other states have had similar attempts. Still, it's essentially the same old thing in every state.

I wonder how a non-gerrymandered law or amendment or whatever would be passed and enforced, though. It'd be unlikely to hope for a change, so congressional electoral colleges will definitely not work well.

 

[bhsup]

And on second thought, deciding electoral votes by who wins congressional districts will be an extremely bad idea and I wish I noticed it earlier. It would mean the presidency will be the result of gerrymandering computer programs every ten years (or whenever they feel like it in Texas).

If anything, that's another reason for "One State, one vote" in the Electoral College. All State equal, that's the way it should be.

 

[IglooDame]

That's one strange district. And yes, the Texas thing was a little jab, though I believe a few other states have had similar attempts. Still, it's essentially the same old thing in every state.

I wonder how a non-gerrymandered law or amendment or whatever would be passed and enforced, though. It'd be unlikely to hope for a change, so congressional electoral colleges will definitely not work well.

An excellent point (your congressional-EC one) that hadn't occurred to me previously either.

As for anti-gerrymandering, perhaps a law specifying that congressional district borders cannot consist of more than five straight lines joined together, with no angle less than 45 degrees, and state borders count as two lines? Maybe the geometry enthusiasts can tweak that concept a bit...

 

[Commy]

Do a google search for "Articles of Confederation."

Confederation is not a state. It is union of sovereign states. So legally Articles of Confederation was not a constitution, but only international agreement.

 

[spankey]

Well who's to say that Wyoming votes should be more than say, California? One man, one vote sounds fine to me.

That is fine in theory, but lets talk practice.
Government's power is that of coercion and reward.

Coercion: They are the only entity that can use force to make things happen--pay your taxes or we will throw you in jail, take your house, etc.

Reward--Government (politicians) can earmark monies to those that they want. In the one man, one vote system where states have no role, then it would be very easy to use the governments' reward system for money dispersement. For example--lets do away with social security payments in states with small populations. We can stay in power if we please the larger, more populous states and it wouldn't even be a republican, democratic thing. Just spend all your money in New York, California, Texas, Florida, Illinois, Pennsylvania, New Jersey, Michigan and the votes would role in.
Small states would not matter. Since the United States is just that, a union of states that are united, the electoral system is the stabilizing system for small states and will remain in effect as long as US citizens have any understanding of civics.

 

[.Shane.]

The Electoral College is a good faith effort to equalize the differing interests of urban folk and rural folk.

No, its not.

What people fail to realize about the origins of the US Constitution is that it is fundamentally rooted in a distrust of humanity and of power. One of the philosophies that governs it is the idea of "checks and balances". Most people understand this, and correctly so, as how the 3 branches keep tabs on each other. For example, the President is the head of the military, but the Congress, a separate branch, funds the military. And, within Congress, funding bills must start in the House. Another example is that Congress creates and forwards laws to the President. He, in turn, signs those laws or vetoes them. And the 3rd branch, the judicial, determines their ultimate legality, etc...

But, the checks and balances extend beyond that. For instance the President being a civilian head of the military is a check on the military.

The Electoral College is a check. Its a check on the masses. You have to think about the country in 1789. There were no political parties. The Framers had NO IDEA how exactly this new system would work out. So, initially, the idea was that you don't vote for a specific person. You vote for electors who, being your social bettors, then meet and select a president on your behalf. The elector should represent your interests. In this way, the masses could not accidentally elect a tyrant or someone whom the controlling classes did not approve of.

The EC was one of the worst thought out aspects of the Constitution and, in fact, the 12th Amendment fixed a serious flaw in it that been exposed in the elections of 1796 and 1800.

Over time, as political parties evolved and the US ended up w/ a 2-party system, the EC has come to reflect the idea that small states should not be ignored since they have disproportionate influence (relative to their populations). The "conventional wisdom" is that no candidate would ever come to the Dakotas or Delaware otherwise. However, this wisdom is flawed. In practice, candidates only go to "battelground states", so they'll only visit Delaware if polling tells them its gonna be close.

We could do away w/ the EC and campaigning would not tangibly change. I live in Northern California and I've never seen a presidential candidate anywhere near me. The fact is, get rid of the EC and the candidates will do as they do now: stick to population centers and geographic areas where the race is tighest.

 

[bhsup]

Confederation is not a state. It is union of sovereign states. So legally Articles of Confederation was not a constitution, but only international agreement.

The articles of confederation, while looser than the current Federation under our current constitution, was tighter than the Confederation of Independent States...assuming that is where you are getting your idea from.

 

[.Shane.]

Confederation is not a state. It is union of sovereign states. So legally Articles of Confederation was not a constitution, but only international agreement.

You're playing a semantics game.

The AoC was a written document of self-governance for a sovereign country. It included an executive as well as laws for interaction w/ foreign nations. You may or may not have a technical argument, but it was a defacto Constitution.

 

[Caprice]

Confederation is not a state. It is union of sovereign states. So legally Articles of Confederation was not a constitution, but only international agreement.

Call it what you will. For a number of years, the Articles of Confederation was the governing document of these United States.

http://www.usconstitution.net/articles.html

The Electoral College is a good faith effort to equalize the differing interests of urban folk and rural folk.

No, its not.
<snip>
The Electoral College is a check. Its a check on the masses.

Isn't that essentially what I said?

Maybe I stated it wrong, because I hadn't really considered it a check, but you're right. My statement still stands though, because in at least one way (the way it makes the votes coming from smaller states "heavier") it is a check on the masses against itself even.

The EC was one of the worst thought out aspects of the Constitution and, in fact, the 12th Amendment fixed a serious flaw in it that been exposed in the elections of 1796 and 1800.

I'm not entirely sure I understand the problem. Yes, you end up with differing parties influence in the highest executive offices of the country, but I don't necesarily see that as a bad thing. I would argue that could have potentially been an additional check on the power of the Presidency, which is rather heavy-handed, IMO.

Not that the way we've done it since the amendment is inherently bad, I just don't think the change was absolutely necesary.

I wouldn't mind learning more about the reasons for the change if you have a moment to point me to a few resources. I can (and will) look on my own later, but I need to disappear to get ready for work. LOL

 

[Commy]

You may or may not have a technical argument, but it was a defacto Constitution.

Yes, but not de jure.

 

[.Shane.]

Isn't that essentially what I said?

Maybe I stated it wrong, because I hadn't really considered it a check, but you're right. My statement still stands though, because in at least one way (the way it makes the votes coming from smaller states "heavier") it is a check on the masses against itself even.

Not as I read it. You said "The Electoral College is a good faith effort to equalize the differing interests of urban folk and rural folk." I do not consider it a "good faith" effort. Secondly, it wasn't about the differences in urban and rural folk. The US in 1789 was 95% rural. Again, it was a check on the masses by those who had the most to lose if a radical came into office.

It has evolved into the perception that you're stating.

I'm not entirely sure I understand the problem. Yes, you end up with differing parties influence in the highest executive offices of the country, but I don't necesarily see that as a bad thing. I would argue that could have potentially been an additional check on the power of the Presidency, which is rather heavy-handed, IMO.

The presidency was not "heavy-handed" in its origins. In fact, up until Teddy Roosevelt (who largely modernized the office) only Andrew Jackson and Abe Lincoln had exercized power as we think of modern executives and in Lincoln's case it was purely out of necessity.

Not that the way we've done it since the amendment is inherently bad, I just don't think the change was absolutely necesary.

I wouldn't mind learning more about the reasons for the change if you have a moment to point me to a few resources. I can (and will) look on my own later, but I need to disappear to get ready for work. LOL

I think maybe we had miscommunication. Let me explain the why we needed the 12th Amendment...

When the Constitution was written, they had no idea that we'd evolve political parties, and a 2-party system at that. So, as written electors cast 2 votes. The problem was that no differential was made between the votes (IE 1 for pres, 1 for VP). The 2nd most votes was the Vice-President. So, in 1796, Adams won the presidency, but his VP was his rival, Thomas Jefferson. This would be like Al Gore having been made the VP in 2000 under Bush. This was because Adams had 2 VP candidates who split the vote, so the rival, Jefferson, became VP.

In 1800, Jefferson and his VP candidate, Aaron Burr, ended up in a tie, having the same # of electoral votes and with no distinction being made, this forced the issue to the House of Representatives. Burr should've deferred to Jefferson, it was obvious who the presidential candidate was, but he didn't. In the end, Jefferson did prevail and the 12th Amendment was passed in ~1804 and specified distinct votes for VP and Pres.

 

[.Shane.]

I wouldn't mind learning more about the reasons for the change if you have a moment to point me to a few resources

Oh, forgot about this part. Most of this I picked up in school (I have an MA in US History and did 1 year PhD work and have taught p/t for a few years). I've yet to come across a work on the electoral college that I think is definitive. Most stuff you find is modern and politically motivated (not good history).

Instead, I'd refer you to the Federalist Papers themselves, as well as James Madison's notes on the Convention and maybe some works on Constitutional History. One of the first, best known, and most controversial CH's is Charles Beard's "An Economic Interpretation of the Constitution." Its very interesting and is the starting point for a lot of discussion on this topic because it has elicited a wide-range of responses, of which I'll offer a couple suggestions... Forrest McDonald wrote a couple of books challenging Beard's thesis. Carol Berkin has writen a more middle-off-the-road work on the Constitution that is probably easier reading.

There also assorted good works on topics like The Constitution and slavery, the "Founding Fathers" themselves, etc.....

 

[The Yankee]

If anything, that's another reason for "One State, one vote" in the Electoral College. All State equal, that's the way it should be.

Well, no, not really, since I dislike both ideas.

Besides, if we were all equal, then we must contribute equal amounts of taxes and receive equal amounts of funding...that isn't likely! Though Alaska has been trying for years.

 

[The Yankee]

An excellent point (your congressional-EC one) that hadn't occurred to me previously either.

As for anti-gerrymandering, perhaps a law specifying that congressional district borders cannot consist of more than five straight lines joined together, with no angle less than 45 degrees, and state borders count as two lines? Maybe the geometry enthusiasts can tweak that concept a bit...

The problem is...how would you get that law?

The congressional EC would leave the presidency in the hands of 50 state legislatures and perhaps some judges and lawsuits and computer programs. But getting rid of gerrymandering altogether for the Congress would require those in the state legislature to not give patronage to their fellow partymen. Even if it were done in 2010, there's no guarantee it would continue for 2020. And I don't trust that a good proportion of the population would be up in arms over it.

 

[CaptainF]

Its just a document on how ourcountry shall be run. People like to flaunt it nowadays.

 

[Sims2789]

One thing many Europeans fail to see in the US Constitution is its system of checks and balences. Everytime one branch has tried to take over, the other branches kept it in line (For example, FDR's court-packing scheme was stopped by Congress) except during the Civil War (But right-wingers would say Lincoln's bid for power was checked with a bullet). The US system is very stable. Of course, soem would say this makes revolution very hard; in America, revolution is harder than in France, but here revolutions are not as necessary because it is harder to concentrate power in one branch. The only major drawback is the existence of the electoral college, but that was necessary when it was created. Now, sicne we are more a republic with provinces than a confederation of states, the President should be elected purely on popular vote.

 

[Atropos]

It's worth noticing, since some posters seem to be using an implied comparison of the presidential US with the parliamentary UK, that the UK system is become increasingly presidential with the growing power of the Prime Minister since Thatcher.

 

[Stylesjl]

Whats with this part here?

In suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved

Now i know that back in those days twenty dollars was a lot of money but has the courts changed their interpretation to account for inflation or is that right still preserved even today?

 

[.Shane.]

except during the Civil War, where Lincoln's bid for power was checked with a bullet.

What was his "bid for power"? Lincoln was forced into an awkward position and did a damn good job of it. Had he not been assassinated, Reconstruction could've had a much better outcome.

 

[Caprice]

In suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved

Now i know that back in those days twenty dollars was a lot of money but has the courts changed their interpretation to account for inflation or is that right still preserved even today?

This is still preserved today, as far as I can tell.

Everytime one branch has tried to take over, the other branches kept it in line (For example, FDR's court-packing scheme was stopped by Congress) except during the Civil War, where Lincoln's bid for power was checked with a bullet.

I'm not sure how Lincoln made a "bid for power." Seems to me that everything he did while in office was directly related to his duty to hold the Union together.