Constitution of the United States of America

Remove all ads!

Rather than having 'debates' regarding the USA Constitution in other threads perhaps we should have a separate thread. Hope springs eternal.

Link to Constitution of the USA
Wikipedia on the USA Constitution

It is not easy to amend the Constitution as 2/3 of both Houses must must agree on the proposed Amendment. Then it goes to the states and 3/4ths of the states must agree to the Amendment.

The Supreme Court does have the authority to rule on the Constitution.

Our Founding Fathers were wise enough to realize that time and situations change and the Constitution would need to change but they did not want it to be easy to do and it isn't. Amendments have been proposed but never ratified.

 

I'm impressed with the dynamism and open-mindedness of the Founding Fathers; they left options to amend or correct their magnum opus if the need arose.

They seemed to have entertained the possibility that their ideas may have proved untenable or impractical; that willingness to admit their potential for fallibility raises them in my eyes.

And aye, every Amendment I've examined has essentially two clauses; the first describing the change or addition to the Constitution, and the second something like 'this amendment shall be struck down unless it is ratified by 2/3 of state legislatures by <date>'.

All very sensible operating procedures for maintaining such a vital and central document.

 

Hmmm, I just wrote a paper on the Electoral College saying how it has always been undemocratc, and while it was necessary at the beginning of our Nation, it has outlived it's purpose. Haven't gotten it back yet, but if anyone wants to debate about the Electoral College and how our votes don't matter, I'm ready

 

In a way you're right that our votes don't matter but that only falls under the corruption in the electoral college. If the senators and representatives vot the way that the people do then our votes do matter.

On the Constitution, I have great respect for the men that wrote it and they really did have a lot of forsight in making it ammendable. If it hadn't then we would still be segregated or have gotten rid of it and written a new one.

 

Or had another bloody revolution and Blacks, Hispanics, Native Americans and Women would be in charge making their own brand of mistakes.

As to the Electoral College I am inclined to agree with Saber. I'm not sure our votes don't count since technically the people of each state vote for the Electors and IIRC the majority rules in each state. I would appreciate some clarification on this.

Our Founding Fathers kept the Constitution short and simple. If things have become more complicated it is partly because we live in more complicated times.

 

Yes, and about 99.9 percent of the time they vote the way in which they are directed by the eletorate. That makes it more democratic than many would suspect. The 2000 election was a blight on the system, although it works fairly well most of the time. 2000 was really the first meltdown since the election 1800 (iirc).

 

Cool this is the 500th AoDA topic...

I like our constitution, seems to do a good enough job of keeping me happy. The electoral college isn't that much of a problem either; I think it makes things more interesting. Generally all the electors in a state follow the majority, giving one party all the votes. Doesn't make a difference if it's a landslide or 51-49, adding a new element into the process.

 

I have just spent the last 3 hours reading about the Electoral College. The Electoral College was established to balance between Federal (State controlled) and popular power.

One of the arguments for the Electoral College which I quote from Wikipedia is:

Against the Electoral College one of the arguments is:

Now these are only two of many arguments.

If giving the decision to the people as a whole would lead to and even more massive, centralized government than we already have I would have to be in favor of keeping the Electoral College.

Gads it is 23.45 hrs my time and I have a headache.

 

The Founding Brothers, who crafted the Constitution, loved politics; they were obsessed with it. But the Constitution is a compromise (a darn good one) and an accommondation towards the less powerful states. And many of the Founders, including Hamilton and Madison, did not get the document they orginally came to the Convention with high hopes for. In the end, it was all about ratification. But it worked out pretty well, considering the many alternatives.

 

I found it fascinating how fascinated you yankiedoodles are with your constitution and your founding fathers. How come you keep both the paper and the men in such reverence?

I am honestly curious and have been for a long time, it almost seem religous how you view those two.

 

I respect and admire the men who founded our nation. I think reverence is a rather strong word. They argued a lot. It took them 13 years to come up with the Constitution of United States of America.

Maybe I do reverence the Constitution. I certainly appreciate it. It is a brilliant work of balancing the power of the National Government against the Rights of the States. I hate seeing it watered down which IMO has happened.

 

Well, the US Constitution (and Bill of Rights & Amendments) is, arguably, one of the pivotal legislative documents in the history of humankind, right along with the Magna Carta, and Hammurabi's Code of Laws.

Heck, I almost revere it myself, when it has no direct bearing on my life. I *like* that it took the writers thirteen years and much yelling to work it out, AND that it is constantly reviewed and, when necessary for the times, updated.

 

I must admit that I pretty much agree with joacqin and find it a bit strange. Now I understand that the function of the constitution is very important but I've never really understood why the opinions of long dead people still have such influence in today's politics. I mean Finland has it's own set of founding fathers who crafted the constitution and created the independent nation but I've yet to see anyone quote Ståhlberg, Svinhufvud or even Mannerheim in political debate, in America it seems to be a lot more common.

I suppose it's a cultural difference that I'm not ever going to fully understand as I'm not American.

 

Based on decisions by the Supreme Court who is the official interpreter of the Constitution I don't think that the Founding Fathers really have much influence.

As far as quoting them in political debates personally I think that is just to cover up the candidate's own lack of original thinking. Just my

 

Morgoroth,
'Alexander Hamilton said...' lends gravitas and an educated air to the utterings of even a dull dimwit, makes for a nice soundbite and it's a nice pat on the back by the orator for the orator. It's a form of political masturbation - 'constitution thumping' as in 'flag waving'.

I find it odd that despite all enthusiasm for the founding fathers and their arguments and writings, the essence of their efforts, the principles they put into the constitution, seem to have gotten out of sight. They were indeed smart and farsighted men and the product of their efforts is a high point in the development of anglo-saxon law. Remarkable.

I think that in some ways the clinging to the letter of 'ye olde constitution' rather than it's spirit (I'll spare you the x-th reiteration of my most despised Alberto Gonzales' quote) is more an obstacle than a benefit - and saying that I have the traditional electoral process in mind. It has in my view outlived its utility. Procedural law, and electoral law in particular, is always a tool to achieve a constitutional goal. It the goal cannot be achieved reliably anymore, reform the law. That doesn't mean it will be easy to do so.

The constitution clearly has long become American folklore, which is a good thing. That is one reason why reference to the founding father pulls. That said, does it suffice? It can be mocked that judging by the lack of widespread concern or outrage over the recent power grabs, it's utility for the average citizen and even the elected representatives seems to exaust itself in this. But I'll be nice and won't say that

*final edit*

[ May 27, 2007, 18:23: Message edited by: Ragusa ]

 

True, whoever wins the popular vote in each state has their board of electors chosen to vote for them (as in, if the democrats win a state, a democratic group of electors is chosen). However, if one party recieves 50.1% of the vote and the other recieves 49.9%, those in the minority lose the power of their vote. If 50.1% of a state votes Republican, then the candidate gets all the electoral votes, even if they only deserve half. Besides being obviously unfair to the losing candidate, the devaluation of half of a state's population's votes is completely undemocratic. A candidate deserves exactly the number of votes they receive, not 100% of the votes when only 50.1% of the state prefers them.

More devaluation occurs because of the Swing and Safe states. There are only a handful of states that candidates even campaign in because they assume the other states will vote one way or another. That gives more power to those in the swing states because they 'control' the election. This depresses voter turnout in safe states because if their state is already predetermined, they have no reason to vote. In addition, because the electoral votes are not tied to voter turnout, if ten people voted, they could have the same results as if ten million people had voted. In a direct vote, ten million votes is obviously more powerful than ten, and yet in the electoral college system, it is not so.

Also (yes, I keep going ), because of the way that the electoral college is set up (each state receives two votes plus an number proportional to population), smaller states are also given more power. Indeed, the District of Columbia and the five least populous states had 2.6 million voting-age residents and a total of 18 electoral votes in 2000, the same number of votes that Michigan, with 7.2 million voting-age residents, had. (Amy Otchet, "Will the College Crumble", The Unesco Courier 54, no.1 (2001).) In 2004, Wyoming, the least populated state, had one electoral vote for every 216,000 residents while Texas had one electoral vote for every 651,000 residents despite being the second most populous state. The sixteen least populated states have fifty-nine electoral votes with a population of seventeen million while California’s thirty-five millions residents only have fifty-five votes. (David I. Wells, "Degrees of Democracy (Rethinking the Electoral College)," The New Leader 87, no. 6 (Nov.- Dec. 2004):8-11)It is certainly not an election indicative of popular will if some of the population is given a more powerful voice than the rest of the country. The issue of disproportionate power is further aggravated if the election does not provide a majority winner. In such a case, the election is thrown into the House of Representatives, where each state has one vote. By putting each state on the same level, the smaller states are given far too much power in the election.

As well, third parties do not have a chance to ever make a difference in an election (putting the idea that Nader screwed up the 2000 election by stealing Gore's votes... I can try to refute that later if you want ) because for them to have any electoral votes, they need to win an entire state over the two traditional parties. This is not likely to occur at all, as very few third party candidates have received a significant amount of electoral college votes (if you want specific stats, I can provide them). If a direct popular vote were to be put in place instead, third party candidates could receive what they deserve, which while it would not be enough to elect them president, could have a larger effect on the election. (Besides, it perpetuates the two party system, which I am not a fan of...)

Each candidate deserves to have the exact percentage of the vote that the people vote for. It is not democratic for halves of states to be ignored, or only have Swing states be campaigned to. It is not democratic for small states to have a higher proportional vote than larger states because it devalues the people in the larger states. And it is not democratic for candidates to be snubbed because they cannot win an entire state, even if they do have support in the state. The electoral college needs to be removed if we want to be a democracy.

 

Thank you, Ragusa and Saber. Who says that an old dog can't learn new things?

In my own research of this subject I ran across some interesting things which are related in a sense to the Constitution.

Now here is a trick question.

1) Who was the first President of the United States of America?

Originally the USA was the Confederacy of the United States of America. During the Civil War the name became the Federal Union of the United States of America.

edit: Corrected an error.

 

it IS democratic for each state to be equal to every other state. otherwise you marginalize the smaller states.
i personally con't see how you can say that one states votes should be worth more than another states just because they have more citizens

 

Ah, but doing it that way marginalizes the citizens of the larger states. If a 100-citizen state (just for the sake of smaller numbers) gets the same number of votes as a 200-citizen state, then the latter state's citizens are only getting half a vote! That's why they did it both ways: the Senate helps the little guys by making it 2 Senators per state, while the House of Representatives makes it one Representative per x number of voters. Then the two groups combine for presidential votes, so a tiny state like Rhode Island gets 3 votes (when by population it would only get 1), but a big'un like Texas gets into double digits so as not to make Texans "worth less". It's a fair compromise, I think.