I think that most people who are members of the Constitution Club agree that the principles of the Declaration of Independence are the foundation upon which the United States was conceived.
Unfortunately the men who met in Philadelphia to amend the Articles of Confederation were wealthy white men who had a vested interest in writing a Constitution that would enable them to dominate the political landscape.
Who were "We the People" referred to in the Preamble? I believe that the authors of the Constitution were referring to themselves and their own offspring, not the people at large.
In the election of 1800, the population of the Untied States was over 5 million and yet only 67,000 people actually voted in the Presidential Election.
Ninety eight percent of the people living in the United States don't participate in the election. With less than two percent of the people with a voice and a vote, I think you can see the republic was in reality an oligarchy of rich, white men.
While the Constitution was an attempt to incorporate many of the principles of the Declaration of Independence, there existed still a Constitutional provision allowing the institution of slavery to co-exist in a land where all men were created equal.
Our government is broken and we will not survive if we don't alter or abolish it. The government that benefits the few at the expense of the many is a government destined for failure.
Many patriots are afraid that an Article V Convention would be potentially dangerous and that we may lose the Constitution. In case you haven't noticed, the Constitution For the united States of 1787 was abandoned and a new Constitution of the United States was established in 1791.
Replies
I love all things Lysander.
I re-read "The Lysander Spooner Reader at least once every 5-6 years. Very few books I find worth re-reading throughout my Life.
I have begun to learn a lot. This site helps some. Reading the Constitution and the Federalist papers helps much more. For instance, this article says: "In the election of 1800, the population of the United States was over 5 million and yet only 67,000 people actually voted in the Presidential Election." That statement is very instructive. It implies that millions of people should have voted. It implies that those millions who didn't vote deprived this country of getting the "right" person into the office of the Presidency. It implies that those millions would have known who would make the best President. Those implications are inane. Of the 67,000 who "actually" voted, and of the millions who "actually" did NOT vote, almost none of them knew the issues and person who should be in the Office of President. They nearly all knew only what they heard, and their vote would have been nothing but a reflection of the message some talking head gave them. The Bottom Line is that not only did the citizens NOT actually know the issues, they should have ACTUALLY known that they did not know enough to personally "pick" the best President. I emphasize the word "actually" because it is in the sentence that I quote above. I'm explaining how the theme of that sentence is worse than pointless, because it is counterproductive to our quest for good government. I now stop using the word "actually," and tell you what those millions of people who didn't vote should have been doing, and most of them were doing it. They should have been working. They also should have "wanted" the State Governments to pick Electors, and wanted the Electors(nominators) to seal names in envelopes and send the envelopes to Washington where the House would chuse a President from those names in the envelopes JUST LIKE THE CONSTITUTION REQUIRES. Now, what I expect is for some or all persons reading this to feel anger toward me because I have taken this position. But I'm glad if you feel angry about my contention, because I know this about human nature. Your ire gets raised because the human psyche gets scared and angry about having to give up some long-held notion. Read the Constitution, meditate, and soon you will be smiling about this just like I'm chuckling over it right now. The politicians hoodwinked the country into making possible their huge ego trips, by VOTING for them in response to their unrealistic grandiose claims. The court judges "say" the VOTING is Constitutional, but they know it is not, ACTUALLY. There is that vapid word again. I promise to keep heralding the goodness of the U.S. Constitution while not using that word.
Out of the 5 million people living in the United State in 1800 very few were eligible to vote. Only white men who owned a sufficient amount of property could vote.
Out of the five million people, how many were not eligible to vote because they were women, children, slaves, or indigenous people.
Please call Keith at 916-399-4881 to discuss article.
Why were People voting in a Presidential Election in 1800? They ought to have Voted for Electors and the Electors Vote for the President. Wow! Voting was Corrupted that early.
The state electors were chosen by the state legislatures and the electors were the one who actually vote for the President. The electors were all rich white men and were chosen by the rich white men who served in the state legislatures.
Oh. I thought Citizens of a given District Chosen men from among themselves in their Community in whom they knowen & trusted to examine the Presidential Candidates and vote for two; One of which could not be from their own State. By the way; What's so wrong with being rich & white? I would like to be richer. I don't want to be whiter though.
Yes, Christopher, voting by the people was introduced early which essentially killed the Electoral College function. The Electors did NOT vote. They nominated names, and the House did the voting on the top five names to chuse a President. We should do that to end this expensive, divisive farce that gets us a demagogue. The Federalist papers explain the rationale, and it is in the Constitution.
-
1
-
2
of 2 Next