“The Constitution is not an instrument for the government to restrain the people, it is an instrument for the people to restrain the government –
lest it come to dominate our lives and interests.” ―Patrick Henry.
What a perfect quote to contradict the difference between the core ideals
of Republicans and Democrats. Amazing citizens don’t understand that our founders wrote the Constitution to prevent the government from controlling every aspect of Americans after living through British rule.
Our Constitution embodied a UNIQUE IDEA. Nothing like it had ever been done before. The power of the idea was in the recognition that people’s rights are granted directly by the Creator – not by the state – and that the people, then, and only then, grant rights to government. The concept is so simple, yet so very fundamental and far-reaching.
America’s founders embraced a previously unheard-of political philosophy which held that people are “…endowed BY THEIR CREATOR with certain unalienable rights..” This was the statement of guiding principle for the new nation, and, as such, had to be translated into a concrete charter for government. The Constitution of The United States of America became that charter. Other forms of government, past and present, rely on the state as the grantor of human rights.
America’s founders, however, believed that a government made up of imperfect people exercising power over other people should possess limited powers. Through their Constitution, they wished to “secure the blessings of liberty” for themselves and for posterity by limiting the powers of government. Through it, they delegated to the government only those rights they wanted it to have, holding to themselves all powers not delegated by the Constitution.
They even provided the means for controlling those powers they had granted to the government. This was the unique American idea. Many problems we face today result from a departure from this basic concept. Gradually, other “ideas” have influenced legislation which has reversed the roles and given government greater and greater power over individuals. Early generations of Americans pledged their lives to the cause of individual freedom and limited government and warned, over and over again, that eternal vigilance would be required to preserve that freedom for posterity.
Suppose you’re supervising a group of 25 randomly chosen able-bodied people. You organize an informal game of softball among them. Chances are that most participants will have a good time, and no one will be injured.
Now change the rules to those of tackle football. A few might enjoy themselves, but many will not, and several participants might get hurt.
Now alter the rules yet again so that the same group plays the game called Russian Roulette. The consequences will be horrific.
This simple example shows how different rules even among the same people can lead to drastically different results.
The same principle applies to larger society. The rules governing a society can lead to good or bad results.
A society’s political rules are its constitution. (The word ultimately derives from the Latin verb constituere, meaning to arrange or decide.) A good set of rules, honestly and fairly applied, can encourage prosperity, progress, and freedom. A bad set or a good set not honestly and fairly applied can lead to poverty, stagnation, and tyranny.
Moreover, if a constitution improves, outcomes generally improve. But if its good features erode, outcomes deteriorate. American history illustrates this.
Lecture 1: The Dangers of Democracy | The Constitution Is The Solution!
The American Founders—those who drafted and ratified the U.S. Constitution—understood the importance of good rules. This was a subject they studied in great detail. They examined how earlier societies had fared under all sorts of constitutions. They found the histories of Great Britain and the ancient Greek and Roman republics particularly useful. But they also scrutinized the experiences of other nations, and of the previous 150 years of American colonial history.
One lesson they learned was that a constitution should be in writing. Eight centuries of English constitutional documents, such as the Magna Carta, the Habeas Corpus Act, and the English Bill of Rights, taught them that. So they decided to put their state and federal constitutions in writing as well.
Having learned what works and what doesn’t, the American Founders deliberately incorporated the best features into the federal Constitution, at least to the extent politically feasible.
Specifically: They granted the central government enough power to keep peace among states, to provide for common defense and foreign policy, and to address some other common concerns.
They limited the central power to itemized functions, leaving the remainder with states, localities, families, and individuals.
They added other restrictions to forestall bad governmental practices and to prevent federal and state politicians from oppressing individual rights.
They outlined key federal institutions, such as Congress, the president, and the courts, and erected checks and balances among them.
They added useful administrative details.
Were they successful? We can judge by the historical record.
Although much of the Constitution remains effective today, during the 1930s and 1940s some of its key safeguards—particularly the limits on federal power—began to erode. Politicians and courts increasingly disregarded those safeguards. Most have not been restored, and the damage has become permanent.
But aside from temporary aberrations during the Civil War and World War I, the Constitution was in full effect from its adoption in 1789 until about 1930—
a term of 141 years.
What was the record of that 141 years?
First, other than one four-year stretch (the Civil War), the states remained at peace with each other. This situation was very different from the intermittent warfare among the countries of Europe and South America.
Additionally, the United States expanded enormously, both in population
and geography. Economic growth was also explosive, attaining an annual rate of 9 percent in some years. (Today, 3 percent is considered good.)
During this period America adopted the British Industrial Revolution and ultimately overshadowed it. Americans wrought stupendous improvements in commerce, agriculture, transportation, communication, and other technologies. Living standards soared, not just for the wealthy, but for almost everyone. There were unprecedented advances in medicine, health care, and life expectancy.
Economic progress was matched by social progress. The slaves were emancipated. Women were liberated and enfranchised. Education became nearly universal. Colleges and universities spread and flourished. Family structure and civic participation remained strong and probably became stronger. A web of state, local, and private programs created a powerful social safety net.
Arguably, this time period—the period the U.S. Constitution remained in full effect—represents the greatest era of progress in human history.
What of subsequent years, when the Constitution remained in partial effect but with key safeguards broken? Economic progress has continued, but at a sharply reduced rate. Some of the advances of which we are most proud, such as the computer revolution, are largely extensions of earlier achievements.
Many federal programs have been adopted in excess of the original Constitution’s limits on federal authority. They have been identified as culprits behind a number of serious social problems. Arbitrary economic meddling seems to have converted an ordinary financial crash (1929–30) into a decade-long Depression.
Some programs, particularly the “Great Society” initiatives of the 1960s, contributed to the decline of the American family. Excessive federal regulation and spending have slowed economic growth and saddled us with a huge public debt. That is why civic groups, such as the Convention of States movement, have sprung up seeking to re-establish some of the Constitution’s original safeguards.
Historian Gordon Wood unveiled his new book on #ConstitutionDay
with professors Edward Larson, Emily Pears, and Lucas Morel in @ConstitutionCtr’s #AmericasTownHall. Listen to them discuss America’s earliest constitutional debates on this week’s #LiveatNCC.
Live at the National Constitution Center: Constitutionalism in the American Revolution on Apple Podcasts
Every four years American citizens 18 years and older are eligible to cast their vote for the president of the United States. Seems simple – but many voters don’t realize they aren’t directly voting for the president. Why? Because we use a system called the Electoral College to elect the president and vice president.
What is the Electoral College?
By Jillian Seigel, RepresentUs
Power to and By The Land Owners!!
Well first thing’s first: the Electoral College isn’t a place.
The Electoral College was created by delegates in 1787 as a compromise between electing the president by a vote in Congress, or electing through a popular vote by qualified citizens.
The Founders set up the Electoral College for a few reasons:1
To balance the interests of northern and southern states
To put a buffer between the people and electing the president;
a chosen group of people would be able to object to the people’s vote
They believed that not all voters were informed enough to choose a leader
The Electoral College is a system where citizens indirectly elect the president and vice president through a body of 538 electors.
What are electors?
Electors are people chosen by their state parties prior to the general election who cast their vote for president on the first Monday after the second Wednesday in December. On Election Day, voters cast their vote for president and the winner of the popular vote in each state is awarded their party’s slate of electors.
Electors almost always cast their vote for the candidate who wins the popular vote in their state, which explains why we have election results available on Election Day. However, the Constitution does not require them to do so. There have been a few instances where electors defected from their pledged vote, but it has not changed the outcome of an election.
The number of electors for each state is equal to the number of U.S. Senators and Representatives in the state’s delegation. To win the presidency, a candidate must receive a minimum of 270 electoral votes.
What does “winner takes all” mean with electoral votes?
“Winner takes all” is implemented in all but two states: Nebraska and Maine. “Winner takes all” means all Electoral College votes will go to one candidate based on the state’s popular vote.
For example: Pennsylvania has 20 electoral votes. Regardless of how much one candidate wins the popular margin, all 20 electoral votes will go to that one candidate.
In Nebraska and Maine, Electoral College votes are assigned in part by the presidential results in each of their congressional districts.
For example: Nebraska has 5 electoral votes. Instead of “winner takes all,” two electoral votes will be allocated to the winner of the state’s popular vote and then one electoral vote to the winner of the popular vote in each Congressional district.
What happens if a candidate doesn’t receive 270 votes?
If no candidate receives 270 Electoral College votes, the president is then selected by the House of Representatives. Each state gets a single vote.
JOIN THE ANTI-CORRUPTION MOVEMENT
What is the Popular Vote?
When we receive the results from any presidential election, we are give two different results: the Electoral College and the popular vote. The popular vote is simply which candidate has received the most total votes.
Are we getting rid of the Electoral College?
The short answer is: no, not right now. However, many states are taking measures towards electing the president by a popular vote.
The National Popular Vote is a nonprofit working to implement a national popular vote for president, by creating an agreement among the states to elect by national popular vote. The compact will go into effect when enacted by states possessing a majority of the electoral votes (270).
An updated list of all the states that have passed a state-wide bill to enact the national popular vote can be found here.
When in effect, states that are in the compact will guarantee their electoral votes go to the winner of the national popular vote, guaranteeing the president of the United States will be elected by popular vote.
Why do some people want to abolish the Electoral College?
Candidates focus too much on Swing States
In the current system, there are states both Republicans and Democrats are guaranteed to win and so presidential candidates can ignore those states and focus instead on just a few “battleground” or “swing” states. Battleground states are those that are a toss-up to either candidate. Often with many electoral votes at stake, these are where candidates spend most of their time and resources competing for votes. These states have a lot of power and can decide the outcome of a presidential election.
Small states get too much power
Critics of the Electoral College claim it gives outsized power to small states because they are guaranteed three electoral votes despite lower population size.
Winning the popular vote doesn’t guarantee the presidency
Two of our last three presidents won the presidency without winning the national popular vote.
JOIN THE ANTI-CORRUPTION MOVEMENT
What states have an advantage with the Electoral College? And which states are at a disadvantage?
The makeup of the United States has changed a lot since the implementation of the Electoral College. Because of the distribution of electoral votes, some believe the Electoral College actually gives an advantage to some states.
Tara Golshan writes, “For one, there’s the way the Electoral College disproportionately props up smaller states by guaranteeing every state three electors. In other words, 4 percent of the United States’ population in the country’s smallest states gets 8 percent of the Electoral College.”
Meanwhile, people in states that have a large population but are not battleground states lose the value of their own vote because electoral votes are already decided and there is less incentive for candidates to spend time campaigning in that state. This perception of a loss of the value of their vote can decrease voter turnout.
Discussions around the Electoral College and a popular vote have promising arguments on each side. For now, the Electoral College is here to stay but the power of the states is on the rise.
1 Not all the founding fathers held these same opinions. Ultimately, the concept of electors choosing the president was a compromise that all states could agree to, with the state legislatures deciding how those electors would be chosen because the state legislatures were the closest body to the people.
The Gerrymandering Threat is Only Getting Worse | Represent Us
The truth is that good (and bad) constitutions make a real difference.
The American Founders did an exceptionally good job in crafting theirs.
Democrats unveil billionaires’ tax as Biden plan takes shape
History Doesn’t Need to Be Rewritten. It Needs to Be Reread.
RECENT POSTS
The Responsibility Of Citizens
Will The Great American Experiment Succeed?
Do We Have A Living Constitution?
Our Ageless Constitution
Freedom Of Individual Enterprise
Checks And Balances
#America First