Love the articles and don’t want to get to pedantic; but Gary Willis’s excellent book Lincoln at Gettysburg makes a strong counter argument. Whether the Declaration or the Constitution was the key founding document was an immensely important issue in the Civil War. The South’s theory being that since the states ratified the Constitution, they could legally revoke that ratification and leave the Union. If instead the Declaration was the beginning then, as you note, the founding of the country was based on natural law and no human or legislature could undo it. Lincoln successfully settled the debate in famous but oft overlooked words, “four score and seven years ago” referring to 1776 not 1789. Of course there are multiple ways to see it, and both documents are critical to the US’s incredible 249 year run. But it is worth noting that there may be quite a bit more at stake in this seemingly simple question than meets the eye. Thanks for all of the lively, thoughtful, and insightful articles and keep em coming!
Thanks for the recommendation I will read the Wills book! Akil Amar’s book The Words That Made Us concludes (Amar is a Yale law professor) that the South did have a right to secede and it’s a lucky thing for the world that didn’t happen.
From the outside looking in, it seems to me that the Constitution has been under attack from its own government officials. I'd never thought I would see this day. I don't think I could stand in front of Abe's memorial and not weep. I hope that some sanity will prevail eventually and that America can become the land that Lincoln envisioned once again. There is a greatness that is being buried by selfish and greedy people for their own gain and their own agendas. If the madness doesn't stop there will be a collapse like the world has not yet seen.
Could also make a case that June 19th 1966 or August 26th, 1920 is a more appropriate birthday....perhaps August 26th should also be a holiday.
And yeah..in regards to the constitution standing firm from the J6 attack....well obviously the founders i think would not have believed that someone who had perpetuated and led that would be allowed to run again, let alone escape jail time....or worse.
"Even on January 6, 2021, when institutions of American democracy were assaulted from the White House itself in an inside job, the Constitution proved stronger than its attackers.|
I'm not sure this aged well.
Constitutional Amendments: Patch is a good description. Many software patches only fix the big problem but ignore the smaller related ones or create future bugs (loopholes in this analogy).
** Why did the amendment effectively granting the enslaved the right to vote not just say all citizens, male and female, get to vote?
** The 22nd Amendment is currently being scrutinized to find a way for Trump to run for a 3rd term.
SCOTUS: I may have said this here before or on another substack but I believe there should not only be term limits but they should be staggered so every POTUS gets to appoint one per term and write the language to avoid any McConley chicanery.
Secession: I understand why it was important not to let the South secede from the Union but it just strikes as weird that if you join a club, you aren't allowed to ever leave.
While your points are valid and America's Birthday might rationally be celebrated on another day, on July 4th we celebrate Independence Day: the day our land was no longer England, and we were independent of foreign rule! This is something to celebrate! No other subjugated nation in the British Empire had ever written the king and told him to stick it up his crown hole. I'm glad we celebrate this here, as our nation was a trendsetter for many many others!
The Electoral College is not “vestigial.” It changed one individual election into 50 elections, requiring a successful presidential candidate to win large geographic portions of the country. Otherwise, a candidate could dominate a few large states and become President. In other words, it’s part of Federalism. Just as we don’t have national elections for our congressional representatives, the Electoral College ensures that more local efforts matter. Also, if we had direct election, cheating (say in Texas or California) could sway the entire election, not just a piece of it.
I appreciate the idea that compartmentalizing the election process. I don't think that the Electoral College was, necessarily, designed to do just that. Honestly, the winner-take-all design of the Electoral College is what makes it counter-productive. A more democratic version of it could be proportional allocation of Electoral College electors depending on the percentage of the vote obtained in a given state. That keeps in place the whole idea of a compartmentalized federal elections system while attempting to address the deficiencies of the Electoral College.
As is, large portions of the country are already passed over because they're seen as safely for one party or the other. I, sometimes, wonder what makes a state more important than a specific region or metropolitan area within a state. Population centers are dynamic and states have set boundaries. Consider Kansas and Missouri. The KCMO area stretches across the state line into both states and people live their lives straddling the line between two states. It isn't as stark as the difference between living in, say, Gary, IN and East Chicago, IL, but it can be. It's also worth noting that the Republican controlled state legislature has control over large parts of the Democratic dominated KC Metro area. I know that this is technically a component of democracy (disagreement and compromise), but it also goes against the basic premise of a lot of Republican Party arguments about state's rights: local control is better and more responsive to the people. There is certainly a push and pull, but the usual argument about a bunch of "unelected bureaucrats" in Washington, D.C. initiating some policy could just as easily be transposed to the state legislature or governor's mansion when they do something that a city doesn't like.
Honestly, the whole system could use a nice makeover to make it more responsive, but some of those updates break federalist system no-nos. A federal database of who is registered to vote in what state and a standardized way of keeping it up to date would be nice, but that would take power away from states. Getting every state to agree to participate in something like that would be like herding house cats.
The head says we became a nation of laws when the Constitution was ratified in 1791; ah but the heart thrills at raising the fist against the King of Great Britain and his taxes, dressing like “Indians” and dumping tea in Boston harbor. Heart wins every time. Happy Independence Day to all!
Love the articles and don’t want to get to pedantic; but Gary Willis’s excellent book Lincoln at Gettysburg makes a strong counter argument. Whether the Declaration or the Constitution was the key founding document was an immensely important issue in the Civil War. The South’s theory being that since the states ratified the Constitution, they could legally revoke that ratification and leave the Union. If instead the Declaration was the beginning then, as you note, the founding of the country was based on natural law and no human or legislature could undo it. Lincoln successfully settled the debate in famous but oft overlooked words, “four score and seven years ago” referring to 1776 not 1789. Of course there are multiple ways to see it, and both documents are critical to the US’s incredible 249 year run. But it is worth noting that there may be quite a bit more at stake in this seemingly simple question than meets the eye. Thanks for all of the lively, thoughtful, and insightful articles and keep em coming!
Thanks for the recommendation I will read the Wills book! Akil Amar’s book The Words That Made Us concludes (Amar is a Yale law professor) that the South did have a right to secede and it’s a lucky thing for the world that didn’t happen.
From the outside looking in, it seems to me that the Constitution has been under attack from its own government officials. I'd never thought I would see this day. I don't think I could stand in front of Abe's memorial and not weep. I hope that some sanity will prevail eventually and that America can become the land that Lincoln envisioned once again. There is a greatness that is being buried by selfish and greedy people for their own gain and their own agendas. If the madness doesn't stop there will be a collapse like the world has not yet seen.
Happy 4th of July!
Could also make a case that June 19th 1966 or August 26th, 1920 is a more appropriate birthday....perhaps August 26th should also be a holiday.
And yeah..in regards to the constitution standing firm from the J6 attack....well obviously the founders i think would not have believed that someone who had perpetuated and led that would be allowed to run again, let alone escape jail time....or worse.
"Even on January 6, 2021, when institutions of American democracy were assaulted from the White House itself in an inside job, the Constitution proved stronger than its attackers.|
I'm not sure this aged well.
Constitutional Amendments: Patch is a good description. Many software patches only fix the big problem but ignore the smaller related ones or create future bugs (loopholes in this analogy).
** Why did the amendment effectively granting the enslaved the right to vote not just say all citizens, male and female, get to vote?
** The 22nd Amendment is currently being scrutinized to find a way for Trump to run for a 3rd term.
SCOTUS: I may have said this here before or on another substack but I believe there should not only be term limits but they should be staggered so every POTUS gets to appoint one per term and write the language to avoid any McConley chicanery.
Secession: I understand why it was important not to let the South secede from the Union but it just strikes as weird that if you join a club, you aren't allowed to ever leave.
While your points are valid and America's Birthday might rationally be celebrated on another day, on July 4th we celebrate Independence Day: the day our land was no longer England, and we were independent of foreign rule! This is something to celebrate! No other subjugated nation in the British Empire had ever written the king and told him to stick it up his crown hole. I'm glad we celebrate this here, as our nation was a trendsetter for many many others!
The Electoral College is not “vestigial.” It changed one individual election into 50 elections, requiring a successful presidential candidate to win large geographic portions of the country. Otherwise, a candidate could dominate a few large states and become President. In other words, it’s part of Federalism. Just as we don’t have national elections for our congressional representatives, the Electoral College ensures that more local efforts matter. Also, if we had direct election, cheating (say in Texas or California) could sway the entire election, not just a piece of it.
I appreciate the idea that compartmentalizing the election process. I don't think that the Electoral College was, necessarily, designed to do just that. Honestly, the winner-take-all design of the Electoral College is what makes it counter-productive. A more democratic version of it could be proportional allocation of Electoral College electors depending on the percentage of the vote obtained in a given state. That keeps in place the whole idea of a compartmentalized federal elections system while attempting to address the deficiencies of the Electoral College.
As is, large portions of the country are already passed over because they're seen as safely for one party or the other. I, sometimes, wonder what makes a state more important than a specific region or metropolitan area within a state. Population centers are dynamic and states have set boundaries. Consider Kansas and Missouri. The KCMO area stretches across the state line into both states and people live their lives straddling the line between two states. It isn't as stark as the difference between living in, say, Gary, IN and East Chicago, IL, but it can be. It's also worth noting that the Republican controlled state legislature has control over large parts of the Democratic dominated KC Metro area. I know that this is technically a component of democracy (disagreement and compromise), but it also goes against the basic premise of a lot of Republican Party arguments about state's rights: local control is better and more responsive to the people. There is certainly a push and pull, but the usual argument about a bunch of "unelected bureaucrats" in Washington, D.C. initiating some policy could just as easily be transposed to the state legislature or governor's mansion when they do something that a city doesn't like.
Honestly, the whole system could use a nice makeover to make it more responsive, but some of those updates break federalist system no-nos. A federal database of who is registered to vote in what state and a standardized way of keeping it up to date would be nice, but that would take power away from states. Getting every state to agree to participate in something like that would be like herding house cats.
Good points
The head says we became a nation of laws when the Constitution was ratified in 1791; ah but the heart thrills at raising the fist against the King of Great Britain and his taxes, dressing like “Indians” and dumping tea in Boston harbor. Heart wins every time. Happy Independence Day to all!