Help me understand state vs US constitution

[GaryV]

Originally Posted by Foulball

The most interesting part of the BOR (to me at least) is the preamble, which clearly notes that the BOR was for the states themselves.

"The conventions of a number of the States having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added."

I'm not quite clear whether you mean that it was made for the good of the states themselves, or to limit the states. While the preamble could be construed to mean the former, it most certainly does not mean the later. It says that, during the ratification process, several of the states made it clear that they wanted a BoR so that the powers granted in the federal constitution (to the federal government), would not be abused (by the federal government). If anything, the preamble indicates that the BoR was originally intended as a limitation only on the federal government, since the powers referred to were primarily only federal powers.

[kf6tac]

Originally Posted by GaryV

I'm not quite clear whether you mean that it was made for the good of the states themselves, or to limit the states. While the preamble could be construed to mean the former, it most certainly does not mean the later. It says that, during the ratification process, several of the states made it clear that they wanted a BoR so that the powers granted in the federal constitution (to the federal government), would not be abused (by the federal government). If anything, the preamble indicates that the BoR was originally intended as a limitation only on the federal government, since the powers referred to were primarily only federal powers.

I think the language is mostly an artifact of the fact that the Constitution was meant to establish a republic of 13 united states, not a democracy consisting of the people living in the 13 states. Through the pre-Civil War portions of the Constitution, the states -- not the people -- are consistently the unit that receive primary importance. Electoral votes are allocated by state; United States Senators were appointed by the state governments; the Constitution and any amendments are ratified by a super-majority of the states, not of the population at large; etc.

[locosway]

With an electoral college, why do we still do the popular vote? It means nothing, so I just don't get it.

Also, since we ARE in an electoral college, why do we vote one way for locals, or not vote at all for locals, but then vote or vote differently for the president?

[kf6tac]

Originally Posted by locosway

With an electoral college, why do we still do the popular vote? It means nothing, so I just don't get it.

Also, since we ARE in an electoral college, why do we vote one way for locals, or not vote at all for locals, but then vote or vote differently for the president?

The way the electoral college originally worked in the presidential elections right after ratification was that individuals put themselves on the ballot to run as electors to represent their state. People went out and voted for electors, not for presidential candidates -- although the electors themselves probably ran based on which presidential candidate they intended to vote for. Then the electors would get together and submit their electoral votes for president. The idea, again, was that the federal government represents the federation of states -- so it should be state representatives (of a sort) who elect the president.

In the time since then, though, just about all of the states have altered their election laws (perfectly legally, since the Constitution leaves the governance of elections up to the states, as long as they comply with certain boundaries set by the Constitution) so that the electors for each state are an all-or-nothing proposition -- whichever candidate wins the state gets all of the electors. It kind of guts the republican (small R) idea that was originally embodied by electoral college, but in the post-Civil War era, that is not particularly unusual.

[Cokebottle]

Originally Posted by locosway

With an electoral college, why do we still do the popular vote? It means nothing, so I just don't get it.

Also, since we ARE in an electoral college, why do we vote one way for locals, or not vote at all for locals, but then vote or vote differently for the president?

We have always voted for our local representatives.
The Presidential election is the only truly "national" election.

In the days before modern transportation, it took months for news to cross the country, so along with electing our local (including Washington) representatives, we voted for representatives who would travel to Washington to cast their vote for our candidate.
The electors could, but rarely if ever did, change their vote... so in effect, the people have never voted directly for their President, simply for delegates to elect them, the same way the primaries are handled.

Also, if the people voted directly, the candidates would have spent 100% of their time in the population centers and would make no effort to support those in rural areas/states.


Is it still needed?
States with large population centers do, and would remain to be the focus of campaigning even without the electoral college.

[GaryV]

Originally Posted by kf6tac

I think the language is mostly an artifact of the fact that the Constitution was meant to establish a republic of 13 united states, not a democracy consisting of the people living in the 13 states. Through the pre-Civil War portions of the Constitution, the states -- not the people -- are consistently the unit that receive primary importance. Electoral votes are allocated by state; United States Senators were appointed by the state governments; the Constitution and any amendments are ratified by a super-majority of the states, not of the population at large; etc.

Certainly this is true, but it is also a very plain and simple statement of known fact. The Constitution was debated and ratified by "The conventions of ... the States", and "a number of" them "expressed a desire...that further declaratory and restrictive clauses", i.e., a BoR, "should be added" "in order to prevent the misconstruction or abuse of its (the Constitution's) powers". If we just look at the plain meaning of the words, it's nothing more than a statement of historical facts surrounding the reason for the addition of the BoR - that many state representatives feared that the Constitution established a federal government with a little too much power for their liking, and that it'd be better to include some explicit limits on its power, rather than just trust that it would automatically limit itself to explicitly granted powers.

Your points express what I meant about the fact that the preamble could be read to mean that the BoR was for the benefit of the states, to protect their rights from federal infringement. As Akhil Reed Amar points out, the entire BoR originally (pre-Civil War) had a very strong "collective rights" component, as well as protecting individual rights, because, as you said, the states had more importance then than now.

[snobord99]

Originally Posted by TaxAnnihilator

Oh, and you should look into showing your kids how California's constitution can be amended on the whim of only a small percentage of citizens. 8% of Voters in the past Gubernatorial election to get it on the ballot, then a majority of voters approving it! Then its there! There is a distinction for making major changes, thankfully.

The initiative and referendum process in California is ridiculously easy and detrimental to the fiscal health of the state, in my opinion.

There's a reason we have the longest Constitution in the nation. I don't even think it should be called a "Constitution."

[Foulball]

Originally Posted by GaryV

Certainly this is true, but it is also a very plain and simple statement of known fact. The Constitution was debated and ratified by "The conventions of ... the States", and "a number of" them "expressed a desire...that further declaratory and restrictive clauses", i.e., a BoR, "should be added" "in order to prevent the misconstruction or abuse of its (the Constitution's) powers". If we just look at the plain meaning of the words, it's nothing more than a statement of historical facts surrounding the reason for the addition of the BoR - that many state representatives feared that the Constitution established a federal government with a little too much power for their liking, and that it'd be better to include some explicit limits on its power, rather than just trust that it would automatically limit itself to explicitly granted powers.

Your points express what I meant about the fact that the preamble could be read to mean that the BoR was for the benefit of the states, to protect their rights from federal infringement. As Akhil Reed Amar points out, the entire BoR originally (pre-Civil War) had a very strong "collective rights" component, as well as protecting individual rights, because, as you said, the states had more importance then than now.

That's how I read it too Gary. The states wanted certain, unassailable rights for their citizens to protect them from an encroaching federal government. Among them the right to arms. It's kind of ironic to me that some states would take some rights away from citizens and the Feds would have to help the people restore those rights. The founding fathers were afraid of too powerful a central government taking away citizens rights, not the states. I'm sure if they could re-write it now, they would include better language.