Is the United States ready for a President who speaks to the populace like adults?

[C1ay]

Originally Posted by Freddy

Really, have you read the Preamble of the US Constitution? It says,

"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."

It does not say, "We the States". It was the people of the US at 13 separate conventions who ratified the Constitution and not 13 state legislatures.

It was indeed the States that ratified their union through their delegates to the United States Constitutional Convention which signed below:

Done in Convention by the Unanimous Consent of the States present the Seventeenth Day of September in the Year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and Eighty seven and of the Independence of the United States of America the Twelfth. In Witness whereof We have hereunto subscribed our Names. Note

Go Washington - President and deputy from Virginia

New Hampshire - John Langdon, Nicholas Gilman

Massachusetts - Nathaniel Gorham, Rufus King

Connecticut - Wm Saml Johnson, Roger Sherman

New York - Alexander Hamilton

New Jersey - Wil Livingston, David Brearley, Wm Paterson, Jona. Dayton

Pensylvania - B Franklin, Thomas Mifflin, Robt Morris, Geo. Clymer, Thos FitzSimons, Jared Ingersoll, James Wilson, Gouv Morris

Delaware - Geo. Read, Gunning Bedford jun, John Dickinson, Richard Bassett, Jaco. Broom

Maryland - James McHenry, Dan of St Tho Jenifer, Danl Carroll

Virginia - John Blair, James Madison Jr.

North Carolina - Wm Blount, Richd Dobbs Spaight, Hu Williamson

South Carolina - J. Rutledge, Charles Cotesworth Pinckney, Charles Pinckney, Pierce Butler

Georgia - William Few, Abr Baldwin

Attest: William Jackson, Secretary

It was the states which united and formed a federation. That's why we are the United States and not the United People of the States. You might also enjoy reading more about the history behind the Preamble.

[Freddy]

Originally Posted by C1ay

It was indeed the States that ratified their union through their delegates to the United States Constitutional Convention which signed below:



It was the states which united and formed a federation. That's why we are the United States and not the United People of the States. You might also enjoy reading more about the history behind the Preamble.

The Constitution was not ratified at the Constitutional Convention. It was simply signed by 39 of the 42 remaining delegates out of the 55 that began the Convention. It was then sent to each state for the people to ratify it.

From the link you provided:

"On September 17, 1787, the final draft of the Constitution was signed. Of the 55 people who attended the Convention, 39 actually signed. Some, such as Oliver Ellsworth, left as the Convention progressed, others refused to sign in protest, such as Mason and Gerry. The final day was one of relief for all who remained in Philadelphia. Finally, the work was done. The work of creating the Constitution. The work for ratification still lay ahead.

From the Constitution:

Article. VII. - Ratification

"The Ratification of the Conventions of nine States, shall be sufficient for the Establishment of this Constitution between the States so ratifying the Same."

In the end all 13 state conventions ratified the Constitution.

[C1ay]

Originally Posted by Freddy

"The Ratification of the Conventions of nine States, shall be sufficient for the Establishment of this Constitution between the States so ratifying the Same."

In the end all 13 state conventions ratified the Constitution.

As I said, it was ratified by the States. It matters not if those states held conventions or even a popular vote. They directed their representatives to ratify the Constitution that united the States under a federal constitution. It is a federation of states and not a national federation of the people.

BTW, do you also advocate the abolishment of the State's governments and state lines too. As far as the United States is concerned the States and the people thereof come together as a sovereign entity. In order to extend rights to the people as you wish you must take those rights from the States.

[Freddy]

Originally Posted by C1ay

As I said, it was ratified by the States. It matters not if those states held conventions or even a popular vote. They directed their representatives to ratify the Constitution that united the States under a federal constitution. It is a federation of states and not a national federation of the people.

No, you said this.

Quote by Clay,
"It was indeed the States that ratified their union through their delegates to the United States Constitutional Convention which signed below:"

The Founders purposely left the state legislatures out of ratification.

[C1ay]

Originally Posted by Freddy

No, you said this.

Quote by Clay,
"It was indeed the States that ratified their union through their delegates to the United States Constitutional Convention which signed below:"

The Founders purposely left the state legislatures out of ratification.

Yes, and they purposely avoided a popular vote because they felt that each state needed to debate the issue to make sure it was received well by each state and the people thereof.

This is irrelevant though. The Constitution that was ratified was clearly a federation of the States. It granted the people of the states no rights except for representation in the House. There was no defined federal citizenship or citizenship rights until the Bill Of Rights was added. In fact, the citizens were not given explicit federal citizenship until the 14th Amendment. The people of the states were key in ratifying the Constitution but it was not the people that they were uniting, it was their states.

[REASON]

Personally, I agree with C1ay in this particular discussion. To me it is clear that our nation is a Constitutional Republic. I prefer it stay that way. I'm concerned about increasing federal control, particularly that of a Unitary Executive, and would prefer that the individual states retain what autonomy they have.

The question is whether the Electoral College method for determining the Preident continues to be functional.

It seems since the electors of a state are going to vote based on the majority vote of the state's electorate, than in many ways the intention of the outcome is to be consistent with the majority vote nationally. But in 2000, it was revealed that the two outcomes were not in concert, exposing a flaw in the system, IMHO. The flaw was in the votes cast for third or forth party candidates. Our system is not set up to properly deal with that.

To me the solution would be to reestablish the electoral configuration into a proper distribution according to state population, and then for each state to apportion its electoral votes by voting percentage for each candidate on the ballot. It would still establish a state victory for a particular candidate, and the overall popular voting percentages would be consistent with the distribution of electoral votes. You would still have a specific number of electoral votes necessary to win the presidency, and the winner would have been elected by winning a majority of the states.

A change of this nature would have to come in the form of a Constitutional Amendment instead of being a decision individually ratified by each state legislature.

[CraigD]

Originally Posted by C1ay

Several states have tried the divide-the-electors thing, I believe Vermont still does.

Maine (4 electors) and Nebraska (5) are the two US states that currently use the “proportional” Congressional District method to distribute their electors, Maine from 1820 to 1828 and since 1972, Nebraska since 1992. This method awards one elector to the winner of each electoral district (2 in Maine, 3 in Nebraska), and the remaining two electors to the winner of the statewide popular vote. Though this allows a possible split of electors, such has never occurred in either state’s history. (source: wikipedia link above)

The end result of this is that these states become less important to the candidates since they are no longer a potential swing state. It weakens the position of these states in the federation but if it is what the citizenry of those states want and their state congress legislates it then that is their right.

Although this rationale is a common objection when state legislatures consider adopting proportional electoral voting, I’m not sure it’s valid. If several large states adopted proportional voting, it would have the effect, candidates would still need to campaign in each congressional or electoral district, as much or even more than they do now. Currently, a candidate need only focus on a sufficient number of districts to win a majority of them, while with proportional voting, they’d have an incentive to attempt to win all of them.

[C1ay]

I personally think the Electoral College is the correct approach but feel a change in resolution or graininess would most accurately reflect both the will of the states and the will of the people.

As it is now each state is alloted a number of electors equal to the number of members it has in Congress, one for each Representative of the people and one for each Senator. I would advocate that each elector a state has for each legislator vote for the winner of the popular vote in their legislative district and that each elector a state has for its Senators vote for the winner of the popular election in that State.

Since the 14th Amendment made the citizens dual citizens this would reflect their dual citizenship while maintaining a proportionate vote for the States in choosing the Executive. It would effectively apply the 14th Amendment to the 12th in the same way that 14th Amendment is interpreted to extend the Bill Of Rights to the States. This would of course require a constitutional amendment since the Constitution does not currently direct how the electors must vote. I further think that such an amendment would need to be considered by convention in the same as the Constitution itself since state legislatures may not support an increase in the people's rights at the expense of their own.

[Freddy]

Originally Posted by C1ay

The Constitution that was ratified was clearly a federation of the States. It granted the people of the states no rights except for representation in the House. There was no defined federal citizenship or citizenship rights until the Bill Of Rights was added. In fact, the citizens were not given explicit federal citizenship until the 14th Amendment. The people of the states were key in ratifying the Constitution but it was not the people that they were uniting, it was their states.

Are you sure?

From the Naturaliztion Act of 1790
Act of March 26, 1790 (1 Stat 103-104) (Excerpts) That any alien, being a free white person, who shall have resided within the limits and under the jurisdiction of the United States for the term of two years, may be admitted to become a citizen thereof, on application to any common law court of record, in any one of the States wherein he shall have resided for the term of one year at least, and making proof to the satisfaction of such court, that he is a person of good character, and taking the oath or affirmation prescribed by law, to support the Constitution of the United States, which oath or affirmation such court shall administer; and the clerk of such court shall record such application, and the proceedings thereon; and thereupon such person shall be considered as a citizen of the United States. And the children of such persons so naturalized, dwelling within the United States, being under the age of twenty-one years at the time of such naturalization, shall also be considered as citizens of the United States. And the children of citizens of the United States, that may be born beyond sea, or out of the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural born citizens: Provided, that the right of citizenship shall not descend to persons whose fathers have never been resident in the United States: . . .

Looks like Americans in 1790 were considered citizens of the United States just as we are today.

[C1ay]

Originally Posted by Freddy

Are you sure?

Yes, the Constitution conveyed no citizenship rights until the Bill Of Amendments. There were laws passed by the legislature concerning the citizenship of immigrants but they did not come from the Constitution and they granted no rights. They also conflicted with the various state laws which was the root of the problem with slavery. That's why the 14th Amendment explicitly granted federal citizenship to the citizens of the states. Prior to this slaves were only considered 2/3 a man and they had no rights.