The phrase “WE THE PEOPLE” is in the very first sentence of the United States Constitution. The entire phrase reads, “We the people of the United States...”. It would seem obvious that the phrase was referring to citizens of the United States.
To determine the original intent of the framers of the Constitution, allow me to revisit the initial use of the phrase in 1787. It is believed that Founding Father James Wilson was the first to use the phrase. Wilson was one of six men who signed both the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution. He was the first and most eloquent proponent at the Constitutional Convention. He argued that “the new government should be based on the will of the people and not some distant power made up of the rich and powerful.”
What was clear – the Constitution was not to be influenced by England, or any other country. It was to be a statement of the citizens and by the citizens. From this opening phrase, one can correctly deduce that it is the people who wield the power in this democratic republic.
In America, the power to govern comes from the people. Sometimes one wonders if some of our current narcissistic federal and local representatives should not be mandated to pursue ongoing education classes in American Civics.
Some folks may argue, then why didn’t Hillary Clinton win the election, didn’t she get about 400,000 more votes than Donald Trump? Don’t more votes represent the will of the people? Thankfully, majority vote is not the only criterion for presidency. In recent history, other candidates gained majority vote, more than Hillary Clinton, yet did not win the presidency.
If the majority vote were the sole criterion for victory, the votes of city states would always outnumber votes from rural states. In an attempt to avoid this abuse, the Founding Fathers established the Electoral College. The 538 votes of the college equitably represent states across the country. Whenever a candidate earns more than 270 votes, that candidate would have won the election. In order to earn 270 votes, a candidate would need to have majority votes in many states - in that way, representing big and small states.
Why the fuss? To ensure that the will of the people is represented and not abused. In essence, the electoral process seeks to ensure checks and balances – the will of the people must be guaranteed and protected.
In an earlier blog, I argued that the study of civics in America is under attack. I told the story of hundreds of students who walked out of classrooms around suburban Denver to protest a conservative-led school board proposal to focus history education on topics that promote citizenship, patriotism and respect for authority.
The youth protest in the state's second-largest school district followed a sick-out from teachers that shut down two high schools. Many students waved American flags and carried signs, including messages that read "There is nothing more patriotic than protest."
The school board proposal that triggered the walkouts in Jefferson County called for instructional materials that presented positive aspects of America and its heritage. The County would establish a committee to make sure materials "promote citizenship, patriotism, essentials and benefits of the free-market system, respect for authority and respect for individual rights" and don't "encourage or condone civil disorder, social strike or disregard of the law."
When interviewed, a student demonstrator at Arvada High School, said that “the nation's foundation was built on civil protests, and everything that we've done is what allowed us to be at this point today. And if you take that from us, you take away everything that America was built upon."
That sounds like some of the rhetoric I am hearing since the recent presidential election. In a civil society, the most powerful form of protest is through the ballot box. That opportunity we had a few days ago. The will of the people was expressed within the laws of civil society.
The Bible refers to this type of protest as “rebelling against what God has instituted” (Romans 13:2) - civil government and order. I believe there are cases when civil protests are necessary, within the context of one’s First Amendment rights, but this is certainly not one of those cases. “We the people” have a rite to be responsible, but not rebellious.
To determine the original intent of the framers of the Constitution, allow me to revisit the initial use of the phrase in 1787. It is believed that Founding Father James Wilson was the first to use the phrase. Wilson was one of six men who signed both the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution. He was the first and most eloquent proponent at the Constitutional Convention. He argued that “the new government should be based on the will of the people and not some distant power made up of the rich and powerful.”
What was clear – the Constitution was not to be influenced by England, or any other country. It was to be a statement of the citizens and by the citizens. From this opening phrase, one can correctly deduce that it is the people who wield the power in this democratic republic.
In America, the power to govern comes from the people. Sometimes one wonders if some of our current narcissistic federal and local representatives should not be mandated to pursue ongoing education classes in American Civics.
Some folks may argue, then why didn’t Hillary Clinton win the election, didn’t she get about 400,000 more votes than Donald Trump? Don’t more votes represent the will of the people? Thankfully, majority vote is not the only criterion for presidency. In recent history, other candidates gained majority vote, more than Hillary Clinton, yet did not win the presidency.
If the majority vote were the sole criterion for victory, the votes of city states would always outnumber votes from rural states. In an attempt to avoid this abuse, the Founding Fathers established the Electoral College. The 538 votes of the college equitably represent states across the country. Whenever a candidate earns more than 270 votes, that candidate would have won the election. In order to earn 270 votes, a candidate would need to have majority votes in many states - in that way, representing big and small states.
Why the fuss? To ensure that the will of the people is represented and not abused. In essence, the electoral process seeks to ensure checks and balances – the will of the people must be guaranteed and protected.
In an earlier blog, I argued that the study of civics in America is under attack. I told the story of hundreds of students who walked out of classrooms around suburban Denver to protest a conservative-led school board proposal to focus history education on topics that promote citizenship, patriotism and respect for authority.
The youth protest in the state's second-largest school district followed a sick-out from teachers that shut down two high schools. Many students waved American flags and carried signs, including messages that read "There is nothing more patriotic than protest."
The school board proposal that triggered the walkouts in Jefferson County called for instructional materials that presented positive aspects of America and its heritage. The County would establish a committee to make sure materials "promote citizenship, patriotism, essentials and benefits of the free-market system, respect for authority and respect for individual rights" and don't "encourage or condone civil disorder, social strike or disregard of the law."
When interviewed, a student demonstrator at Arvada High School, said that “the nation's foundation was built on civil protests, and everything that we've done is what allowed us to be at this point today. And if you take that from us, you take away everything that America was built upon."
That sounds like some of the rhetoric I am hearing since the recent presidential election. In a civil society, the most powerful form of protest is through the ballot box. That opportunity we had a few days ago. The will of the people was expressed within the laws of civil society.
The Bible refers to this type of protest as “rebelling against what God has instituted” (Romans 13:2) - civil government and order. I believe there are cases when civil protests are necessary, within the context of one’s First Amendment rights, but this is certainly not one of those cases. “We the people” have a rite to be responsible, but not rebellious.
1 comment:
Yes, we certainly need to accept the fact that:
1) God has chosen whom He wills (Dan. 4:17)
2) The people have chosen the leader they desire
3) The Electoral College has carried out the mandate of the
constitution.
Are the protesters demanding a non-existent right to void the choice the nation has made and impose instead their choice, constitutionally sound or not?
Whether we like our leaders or not is our personal choice, but we have a responsibility to respect those placed in authority.
Post a Comment