Not enough is understood about the background and reasoning that went into the development of the Electoral College. It was devised by the Founders as a method of safeguarding the highest office of the land and protecting it from being occupied by a demagogue or megalomaniac.
While desirous of having the individual citizens of each state participate in the procedure, they did not think the election of the president should be a national event! Rather, it should be the result of the careful deliberations of a select group of individuals in each state (called electors) chosen according to the procedure established by the state’s legislature. The number of electors would be equal to the total of the state’s representatives and senators in congress. The “electors” would then convene with each elector casting a vote for two individuals (one of whom must be from a different state) considered properly qualified to be the Chief Executive of the country. Remember, the citizen voted for an elector, not a President and while an elector might have a predilection toward a particular individual, the process was to insulate the citizen from the usual propaganda and publicity approach so common today.
Each state, being considered sovereign in its own right, certified the results of the balloting, which certification was sent to the seat of the Government of the United States. There, the President of the Senate, in the presence of the Senate and House of Representatives, opened all of the certificates and the votes would be counted.
Conceivably, there could be 5 or 6 nominees for the highest office. The Constitution provided that the individual receiving the highest number of votes in the Electoral College would be the President. The individual receiving the second highest number would be the Vice President.
Now let’s review exactly what was intended and why.
The idea of a national election where everybody voted for an individual was not acceptable since this would encourage the worst possible outcome of a democratic approach. The individual with the most charisma and best rhetoric could win under such a procedure, irrespective of qualifications. At this point, it must be noted that the development of the two party system has destroyed most of the benefit provided by the original concept of the Electoral College.
The reasoning of the Founding Fathers appears to have gone something like this: The average citizen would know members of his own community best. Thus, the idea in the Constitution for the individuals in each state to vote for an “elector” from their area to represent them in the state’s council of electors. These state electors were delegated the responsibility of voting for that individual they considered best qualified for the highest office in the land.
Such a procedure could easily lead to a multiplicity of names being placed in nomination and did so in several instances. To safeguard the procedure from the intrigue of politics by current office holders, no office holder in the federal government could serve as an elector in any state.
The only truly democratic element in all this was the initial voting done by the citizens in their own state for their local elector. From that point forward, the process was judgmental by those involved in casting their votes.
Article II, Sec. 1 provides all the specifics of the original procedure and should be required reading for those wishing to appreciate the genius of the Founding Fathers. Had the concept embodied therein been followed, we might have a totally different situation today. Note that Amendments XII and XX made substantive changes to the original Article and will be discussed in a subsequent writing.
Thursday, December 23, 2010
Friday, December 3, 2010
2nd Amendment in Print
“A man with a gun is a citizen. A man without a gun is a subject.” Attributed to D. Michael Wiechman, May 14, 1996.
In 1776, Thomas Jefferson said, “No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms. The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government.”
The meaning of the 2nd Amendment to the Constitution is best addressed by re-reading the actual words.
“A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”
Two words appear to be critical to an understanding of the amendment.
First, Militia. A militia in the original text refers to a citizen body capable of protecting the freedom of the state in which it resides should an invasion, attack or other hostility take place. There was no consideration at the time of “federal troops” arriving to manage the situation. Each state was expected to be capable of defending itself. In order to do so, it expected all able bodied males to be equipped with their own “arms”.
And therein lies the second word for consideration. “Arms” are undefined. Did the Founders mean “firearms” as we interpret the word so often today? In truth, “Arms” includes any implement that may be used for self-defense or defense of a community. Thus, a club, a machete, a bowing knife or even a cross-bow may be considered an “arm” in the true sense.
Perhaps the argument is really a question of whether a citizen has the right to self-defense. There do not appear to be any court decisions that would eliminate or prohibit such a right! In fact, the majority of such court decisions have come down on the side of self-defense with the defendant being cleared of any incrimination.
The point is that an individual with the right of self-defense should be able to use whatever implement is “at hand” to protect themselves against an intruder, marauder, rapist, thief or other criminal who may or may not be intent on rendering bodily harm to the citizen.
Judgment is critical on the part of every citizen with respect to when force, of any type, is required to resolve a dangerous condition or confrontation. Disagreement is not a sound basis for employing physical force.
Does any one expect a criminal to stop if the subject threatens to call 911. Yes, 911 is a great help in many emergencies, particularly those where a person’s health is involved. Many heart attack victims have been saved as a result of the emergency services provided by the 911 team. But, as an anonymous individual stated, “I carry a gun because I can’t carry a cop.”
Statistically, the number of firearms in the possession of law-abiding citizens is in the tens of millions. Yet, they don’t show up as the ones involved in criminal activities. Only a criminal seeks to have a firearm (often illegally) with which to enforce his or her desires on the victim. This supports the oft-repeated idea that if guns are taken away from the lawful citizens, only the criminals will have guns! The Founding Fathers could not anticipate modern times but they could and did recognize the importance of self-defense whether it be in the face of a criminal or a tyrannical government. Otherwise, they would never have included the 2nd Amendment.
In 1776, Thomas Jefferson said, “No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms. The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government.”
The meaning of the 2nd Amendment to the Constitution is best addressed by re-reading the actual words.
“A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”
Two words appear to be critical to an understanding of the amendment.
First, Militia. A militia in the original text refers to a citizen body capable of protecting the freedom of the state in which it resides should an invasion, attack or other hostility take place. There was no consideration at the time of “federal troops” arriving to manage the situation. Each state was expected to be capable of defending itself. In order to do so, it expected all able bodied males to be equipped with their own “arms”.
And therein lies the second word for consideration. “Arms” are undefined. Did the Founders mean “firearms” as we interpret the word so often today? In truth, “Arms” includes any implement that may be used for self-defense or defense of a community. Thus, a club, a machete, a bowing knife or even a cross-bow may be considered an “arm” in the true sense.
Perhaps the argument is really a question of whether a citizen has the right to self-defense. There do not appear to be any court decisions that would eliminate or prohibit such a right! In fact, the majority of such court decisions have come down on the side of self-defense with the defendant being cleared of any incrimination.
The point is that an individual with the right of self-defense should be able to use whatever implement is “at hand” to protect themselves against an intruder, marauder, rapist, thief or other criminal who may or may not be intent on rendering bodily harm to the citizen.
Judgment is critical on the part of every citizen with respect to when force, of any type, is required to resolve a dangerous condition or confrontation. Disagreement is not a sound basis for employing physical force.
Does any one expect a criminal to stop if the subject threatens to call 911. Yes, 911 is a great help in many emergencies, particularly those where a person’s health is involved. Many heart attack victims have been saved as a result of the emergency services provided by the 911 team. But, as an anonymous individual stated, “I carry a gun because I can’t carry a cop.”
Statistically, the number of firearms in the possession of law-abiding citizens is in the tens of millions. Yet, they don’t show up as the ones involved in criminal activities. Only a criminal seeks to have a firearm (often illegally) with which to enforce his or her desires on the victim. This supports the oft-repeated idea that if guns are taken away from the lawful citizens, only the criminals will have guns! The Founding Fathers could not anticipate modern times but they could and did recognize the importance of self-defense whether it be in the face of a criminal or a tyrannical government. Otherwise, they would never have included the 2nd Amendment.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)