"WE THE PEOPLE"

                 THE PREAMBLE TO THE CONSTITUTION

                       

                        We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union

                        establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, 

                        promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and

                        our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

"WE THE PEOPLE"

Actually, "We the People" had no direct input into writing the Constitution.  It was framed behind closed doors by a few people selected by their state legislatures to represent their interests and who were sworn to secrecy to the extent that no other officials outside of this group or people of importance were informed of its deliberations.   Beyond that, "the People" had no direct role in ratifying the Constitution as each state held its own ratifying convention attended by elected or appointed representatives.  Nevertheless, the "We the People" statement was placed at the start of the Constitution on our behalf by its framers.

Some delegates attending their state's ratification convention questioned the validity of saying "We the People," suggesting that the Preamble state "We the States" as the voting populace were not directly involved in ratifying it.  Although ratification was not subjected to a popular vote, "We the People" stuck and was ratified, an under appreciated and overlooked fact.  In Article I of the Constitution, the framers wanted to emphasize that they were thinking in terms of all the people residing within the territory of the thirteen original states, including the enslaved black and the indigenous Indian   

Slaves were not mentioned as such but are included in the "three fifths of all other persons" clause in order to secure the slave states ratification.   Indians who roamed the territories were not taxed; as such, they were not included in the population count.  It is important to realize that these clauses validate that "We the People of the United State," implies every person living within the United States.  No person outside of the Philadelphia Constitutional Convention in 1787 had a vote or any say in its development giving "We the People" broad application.  There were only fifty-five delegate from twelve original states (Rhode Island did not send any delegates) who attended that convention.   Of the fifty-five delegates only thirty-nine signed it.  

The Constitution was never ratified by "We the People of United States" but rather by the delegates sent to the ratifying conventions of the original thirteen states.  The point being that Federal Republic was designed to be a representative democracy in which the vast majority of the voting public had little to no direct say in choosing its federally elected officials.  

CONSTITUTIONAL INTENT

It is hard to determine intent when it comes to what the framers of the Constitution were thinking.  We know that the three branches of the federal government were intended to function as a check and balance to each other.  We know that the framers were concerned about detrimental effects partisanship and populism; that the "hoi polloi"  (the common masses who were too ill-informed and prone to partisan entanglement) could not be relied on to choose leaders, qualified and virtuous enough, to lead the nation as a whole.  To that end they established a limited electoral processes regarding the three branches of government.  

Originally, Article I of the Constitution addressed the legislative branch consisting of a House of Representatives elected by the voting public of each state for a two year term. The number of representatives was based on the size of a state's population.  Senators were originally elected by state legislatures for a six year term, with each state having two senators.  Senators were not chosen by popular vote until the Seventeenth Amendment in 1913. 

Article II of the Constitution addressed the Presidency, the highest singular office in the government.  To elect the President, the framers came up with the idea of state electors based on the number of their federal representatives and senators, although no representative or senator could be chosen as an elector.  The current selection of electors remains prone to sectionalism and partisanship by quashing the minority vote in each state, a result of most state electors being chosen by a nominee's party.   

Article III concerns itself with the judicial branch of the government.  In choosing Supreme Court justices, it is the President who nominates a justice and the Senate who confirms the justice.  The voting public has no direct say who will serve on the Supreme Court.  Supreme Court justices are appointed to life terms. 

THE DANGERS OF PARTISANSHIP AND POPULISM

While the founding fathers and the framers of the Constitution were wary of partisanship and populism dominating the newly minted republic's affairs, they also knew they could not prevent partisanship from occurring.  Such concerns were addressed in the Federalist Papers published in New York in 1787.   People gravitate towards like-mindedness in the form of partisan loyalties.  Democracies readily succumb to partisan politics and populism.  Political parties are prone to vie for whatever political flavors the voting public seems attracted to at the moment.  They may even create political issues to attract the attention of the voting populace.  Partisanship has a tendency to turn politics into a metaphorical blood sport that can put the Republic at risk of engaging in actual blood-letting.   

The concept of three branches of government serving as a check and balance to each other is the Constitution's attempt at immunizing the Republic from imbalances caused by overt partisanship and populist endeavors where loyalty to party and following the crowd is more important than loyalty to the Constitution.   I believe there is value in reducing the footprint of overt partisanship and extreme populism from the affairs of government.

The dangers of partisanship and populism is that they are prone to distort and erode the Republic's democratic processes at the federal level by diminishing the importance of the roles democratic processes have at the state and local level where the people have a direct voice in shaping the nation's political agenda at a foundational or root level.  Who we elect to serve at the local, county, and state levels ultimately has a direct effect on who governs at the federal level. This is evidenced by statistics that show voter participation at the local or state levels drop significantly when there is no one running for an elected federal position, like a seat in the House, the Senate, or the President.  

What seems to have been the intent of the founding fathers and Constitution's framers was for the authority of the federal government to stem from the outcome of elections at the local level and state levels where the people had a direct voice in electing those who served at such levels.  In turn, those elected at the state level had a voice in determining who served at the federal level.  Originally at the federal government was intended to become increasingly representative of "The People" with a state's representatives being the only elected federal officials directly elected by the people of a given state.  Originally those who served in the Senate, the President, and the justices of the Supreme Court were not elected by a popular vote.   The conundrum the framers appear to have struggled with was how to ensure that the best minds and the most virtuous individuals were chosen democratically to govern the nation on behalf of all the people residing in the United States. 

BARGAINING CHIPS

The framers knew what they were up against when it came to securing the Constitution's ratification by the original thirteen states who largely saw themselves independent of each other and only loosely bound to each other as a confederation.  "We the People of the United States" was largely understood as we the people of the various states, who owed allegiance more to their states than to the loosely defined union of the states.  There were all sort of potential blockades to ratification; sectionalism, the slavery issue, and ensuring that each state had an equal voice in the governance of the federal republic.  There would undoubtedly have to be some bargaining amongst the states and the framers to ensure ratification.

The biggest bargaining chips dealt with how to deal with choosing the number of representatives each state was entitled to in congress.  This, in turn, determined how many electoral votes each state would have in choosing the President.  The 3/5th's Compromise allowing southern states to compete with northern states in representation where slavery was less of an issue was an important one that led to tragic results.   The issue of slavery would eventually become a partisan issue that would thrust the nation into a civil war, something the framers feared most and Congress attempted to avoid through compromise until it was unavoidable.  In the end, the Union was saved and the slaves were emancipated and granted citizenship rights including the right to vote. 

Unfortunately partisanship was deeply entrenched in the public's mind by then and there seemed to be no interest in reviewing or revising the structural flaws (earlier compromises) that continue to haunt the Republic to this day.  By the twentieth century there was an increasing effort to ensure white voter supremacy at the poles while attempting to increase a direct say who serves in Congress by choosing Senators by popular vote in all of the states.   State electors were chosen by a nominee's party and most states as noted above had chosen to adopt a winner-takes-all approach in determining who would win the electoral votes in a state's election for the President of the United States. The exception to a winner-takes-all approach are the states of Maine and Nebraska.

  

These developments further entrenched partisanship as the dominate force driving the Republic's political decisions.  While these developments certainly gave people more of a direct voice in the political affairs of the United States at the federal level, they also opened the door for more partisanship in political affairs and divisiveness caused by populist sentiments to the point that in the twenty-first century the union is once again at risk.  This due to an abandonment of the Preamble's promise.  Justice continues to be largely biased by race. Domestic tranquility,  the common defense, and the general welfare of the people is largely perceived as a sham because partisanship has distorted their meanings.

Having a greater say by the majority of people in the United States is becoming the nightmare envisioned by the founding fathers.  It is increasingly clear that the majority of the people are not intellectually astute enough to critically assess the vast amount of information it is exposed to on a daily basis.  For the Republic to stand firm and be constitutionally sound requires that from THE PEOPLE emerges an elite few who are broadly knowledgable, have a critical understanding of the nation and the needs of its diverse population, and who are devoted, above all, to forming a more perfect union securing the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, 

In my next post, I will examine amending the failures of the past.  

  

Norm