Thread: President of the US of A

Originally Posted by honedright

"What answer shall we give to those who would persuade us that things so unlike resemble each other? The same that ought to be given to those who tell us that a government, the whole power of which would be in the hands of the elective and periodical servants of the people, is an aristocracy, a monarchy, and a despotism."

So the implicit answer appears to be "Vote Trump".

Because these questions sound exactly what so many people keep saying - the politicians care only about themselves, Clinton (and the younger Bushes) got there only because of her family ties, etc.

Federalist 10:

"a factious spirit has tainted our public administrations."

Originally Posted by honedright

The Declaration states that all men are created equal in their rights. It says nothing about the abilities, physical or mental, of men. It seems reasonable to me that certain characteristics, abilities, would be preferrable for a statesman. Federalist 69 seems to contradict further the creation of a ruling class as it differentiates the American executive from the British monarch:

"The President of the United States would be an officer elected by the people for four years; the king of Great Britain is a perpetual and hereditary prince. The one would be amenable to personal punishment and disgrace; the person of the other is sacred and inviolable.

What answer shall we give to those who would persuade us that things so unlike resemble each other? The same that ought to be given to those who tell us that a government, the whole power of which would be in the hands of the elective and periodical servants of the people, is an aristocracy, a monarchy, and a despotism."

While they wrote "All men are created equal" they owned slaves. So some more equal than others I guess. Women were not allowed to vote until 1920 or so.

Originally Posted by Hacker7

While they wrote "All men are created equal" they owned slaves. So some more equal than others I guess. Women were not allowed to vote until 1920 or so.

It's easy to pass judgement on people of the past by modern standards, but it is by faulty logic. Two terms may apply, either "Historian's fallacy" or "Presentism." If 200 years from now everyone is vegetarian for moral reasons, should we then be indicted or dismissed as immoral and irrelevent because we ate meat? The fact is that prior to the 19th century slavery was common amongst all cultures, and at the time the declaration was written, just about everyone of means owned slaves. In fact, the 1830 US census apparently documented over 3,000 free black owners of slaves. Also of importance, "All men are created equal" was a primary motivator to Lincoln's writting the Emancipation Proclamation, as well as the final adoption of the 13th amendment.

So fault the man, or men, if you wish, because all men, and women, are imperfect. But just because the founders were imperfect doesn't mean that their ideals were, and I believe history has proven this to be true.

Originally Posted by honedright

The Declaration states that all men are created equal in their rights. It says nothing about the abilities, physical or mental, of men. It seems reasonable to me that certain characteristics, abilities, would be preferrable for a statesman. Federalist 69 seems to contradict further the creation of a ruling class as it differentiates the American executive from the British monarch:

"The President of the United States would be an officer elected by the people for four years; the king of Great Britain is a perpetual and hereditary prince. The one would be amenable to personal punishment and disgrace; the person of the other is sacred and inviolable.

What answer shall we give to those who would persuade us that things so unlike resemble each other? The same that ought to be given to those who tell us that a government, the whole power of which would be in the hands of the elective and periodical servants of the people, is an aristocracy, a monarchy, and a despotism."

But this is exactly what the electoral college was designed to avoid.

When U.S. citizens go to the polls to "elect" a president, they are in fact voting for a particular slate of electors. In every state but Maine and Nebraska, the candidate who wins the most votes (that is, a plurality) in the state receives all of the state’s electoral votes. The number of electors in each state is the sum of its U.S. senators and its U.S. representatives. (The District of Columbia has three electoral votes, which is the number of senators and representatives it would have if it were permitted representation in Congress.) The electors meet in their respective states 41 days after the popular election. There, they cast a ballot for president and a second for vice president. A candidate must receive a majority of electoral votes to be elected president.

The reason that the Constitution calls for this extra layer, rather than just providing for the direct election of the president, is that most of the nation’s founders were actually rather afraid of democracy. James Madison worried about what he called "factions," which he defined as groups of citizens who have a common interest in some proposal that would either violate the rights of other citizens or would harm the nation as a whole. Madison’s fear – which Alexis de Tocqueville later dubbed "the tyranny of the majority" – was that a faction could grow to encompass more than 50 percent of the population, at which point it could "sacrifice to its ruling passion or interest both the public good and the rights of other citizens." Madison has a solution for tyranny of the majority: "A republic, by which I mean a government in which the scheme of representation takes place, opens a different prospect, and promises the cure for which we are seeking."

As Alexander Hamilton writes in "The Federalist Papers," the Constitution is designed to ensure "that the office of President will never fall to the lot of any man who is not in an eminent degree endowed with the requisite qualifications." The point of the Electoral College is to preserve "the sense of the people," while at the same time ensuring that a president is chosen "by men most capable of analyzing the qualities adapted to the station, and acting under circumstances favorable to deliberation, and to a judicious combination of all the reasons and inducements which were proper to govern their choice."

In modern practice, the Electoral College is mostly a formality. Most electors are loyal members of the party that has selected them, and in 26 states, plus Washington, D.C., electors are bound by laws or party pledges to vote in accord with the popular vote. Although an elector could, in principle, change his or her vote (and a few actually have over the years), doing so is rare.

Originally Posted by Brenngun

But this is exactly what the electoral college was designed to avoid.

When U.S. citizens go to the polls to "elect" a president, they are in fact voting for a particular slate of electors. In every state but Maine and Nebraska, the candidate who wins the most votes (that is, a plurality) in the state receives all of the state’s electoral votes. The number of electors in each state is the sum of its U.S. senators and its U.S. representatives. (The District of Columbia has three electoral votes, which is the number of senators and representatives it would have if it were permitted representation in Congress.) The electors meet in their respective states 41 days after the popular election. There, they cast a ballot for president and a second for vice president. A candidate must receive a majority of electoral votes to be elected president.

The reason that the Constitution calls for this extra layer, rather than just providing for the direct election of the president, is that most of the nation’s founders were actually rather afraid of democracy. James Madison worried about what he called "factions," which he defined as groups of citizens who have a common interest in some proposal that would either violate the rights of other citizens or would harm the nation as a whole. Madison’s fear – which Alexis de Tocqueville later dubbed "the tyranny of the majority" – was that a faction could grow to encompass more than 50 percent of the population, at which point it could "sacrifice to its ruling passion or interest both the public good and the rights of other citizens." Madison has a solution for tyranny of the majority: "A republic, by which I mean a government in which the scheme of representation takes place, opens a different prospect, and promises the cure for which we are seeking."

As Alexander Hamilton writes in "The Federalist Papers," the Constitution is designed to ensure "that the office of President will never fall to the lot of any man who is not in an eminent degree endowed with the requisite qualifications." The point of the Electoral College is to preserve "the sense of the people," while at the same time ensuring that a president is chosen "by men most capable of analyzing the qualities adapted to the station, and acting under circumstances favorable to deliberation, and to a judicious combination of all the reasons and inducements which were proper to govern their choice."

In modern practice, the Electoral College is mostly a formality. Most electors are loyal members of the party that has selected them, and in 26 states, plus Washington, D.C., electors are bound by laws or party pledges to vote in accord with the popular vote. Although an elector could, in principle, change his or her vote (and a few actually have over the years), doing so is rare.

The mode of electing the president changes nothing regarding his/ her status as an "officer" answerable to the people, as opposed to a sovereign "ruler" answerable to no one. We were disussing whether or not the founders were attempting to establish a ruling class, and Federalist 69 clearly answers NO.

Originally Posted by honedright

The mode of electing the president changes nothing regarding his/ her status as an "officer" answerable to the people, as opposed to a sovereign "ruler" answerable to no one. We were disussing whether or not the founders were attempting to establish a ruling class, and Federalist 69 clearly answers NO.

It seems to be a matter of differing definitions what does 'ruling class' actually mean.

Can we even talk about 'classes' if according to the law everybody is equal?

Or is that what the law says?

Originally Posted by gugi

It seems to be a matter of differing definitions what does 'ruling class' actually mean.

Can we even talk about 'classes' if according to the law everybody is equal?

Or is that what the law says?

Federalist 84:

"Nothing need be said to illustrate the importance of the prohibition of titles of nobility. This may truly be denominated the corner-stone of republican government; for so long as they are excluded, there can never be serious danger that the government will be any other than that of the people."

Not too bright this Federalist #84 bloke, is he

He shoulda known all is superseded by human nature being human nature and the heart wants what it wants. Nudge nudge, wink wink

Originally Posted by honedright

The mode of electing the president changes nothing regarding his/ her status as an "officer" answerable to the people, as opposed to a sovereign "ruler" answerable to no one. We were disussing whether or not the founders were attempting to establish a ruling class, and Federalist 69 clearly answers NO.

The mode has everything to do with it. The President is not accountable directly to the people as a whole. I know that's the popular belief but it's not how the system is structured. If that's what you want the President should be determined by the popular vote and nothing else. There should be no party or electoral college involved. The term "ruling class" doesn't refer exclusively to a monarchy. There are many forms of a ruling class but the common thread is a group or class of people who exert power to determine political agenda. That definitely sounds like a electoral college. If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck ........