[Home]  [Headlines]  [Latest Articles]  [Latest Comments]  [Post]  [Mail]  [Sign-in]  [Setup]  [Help]  [Register] 

"International court’s attack on Israel a sign of the free world’s moral collapse" "Pete Hegseth Is Right for the DOD" "Why Our Constitution Secures Liberty, Not Democracy" Woodworking and Construction Hacks "CNN: Reporters Were Crying and Hugging in the Hallways After Learning of Matt Gaetz's AG Nomination" "NEW: Democrat Officials Move to Steal the Senate Race in Pennsylvania, Admit to Breaking the Law" "Pete Hegseth Is a Disruptive Choice for Secretary of Defense. That’s a Good Thing" Katie Britt will vote with the McConnell machine Battle for Senate leader heats up — Hit pieces coming from Thune and Cornyn. After Trump’s Victory, There Can Be No Unity Without A Reckoning Vivek Ramaswamy, Dark-horse Secretary of State Candidate Megyn Kelly has a message for Democrats. Wait for the ending. Trump to choose Tom Homan as his “Border Czar” "Trump Shows Demography Isn’t Destiny" "Democrats Get a Wake-Up Call about How Unpopular Their Agenda Really Is" Live Election Map with ticker shows every winner. Megyn Kelly Joins Trump at His Final PA Rally of 2024 and Explains Why She's Supporting Him South Carolina Lawmaker at Trump Rally Highlights Story of 3-Year-Old Maddie Hines, Killed by Illegal Alien GOP Demands Biden, Harris Launch Probe into Twice-Deported Illegal Alien Accused of Killing Grayson Davis Previously-Deported Illegal Charged With Killing Arkansas Children’s Hospital Nurse in Horror DUI Crash New Data on Migrant Crime Rates Raises Eyebrows, Alarms Thousands of 'potentially fraudulent voter registration applications' Uncovered, Stopped in Pennsylvania Michigan Will Count Ballot of Chinese National Charged with Voting Illegally "It Did Occur" - Kentucky County Clerk Confirms Voting Booth 'Glitch'' Shifted Trump Votes To Kamala Legendary Astronaut Buzz Aldrin 'wholeheartedly' Endorses Donald Trump Liberal Icon Naomi Wolf Endorses Trump: 'He's Being More Inclusive' (Washed Up Has Been) Singer Joni Mitchell Screams 'F*** Trump' at Hollywood Bowl "Analysis: The Final State of the Presidential Race" He’ll, You Pieces of Garbage The Future of Warfare -- No more martyrdom! "Kamala’s Inane Talking Points" "The Harris Campaign Is Testament to the Toxicity of Woke Politics" Easy Drywall Patch Israel Preparing NEW Iran Strike? Iran Vows “Unimaginable” Response | Watchman Newscast In Logansport, Indiana, Kids are Being Pushed Out of Schools After Migrants Swelled County’s Population by 30%: "Everybody else is falling behind" Exclusive — Bernie Moreno: We Spend $110,000 Per Illegal Migrant Per Year, More than Twice What ‘the Average American Makes’ Florida County: 41 of 45 People Arrested for Looting after Hurricanes Helene and Milton are Noncitizens Presidential race: Is a Split Ticket the only Answer? hurricanes and heat waves are Worse 'Backbone of Iran's missile industry' destroyed by IAF strikes on Islamic Republic Joe Rogan Experience #2219 - Donald Trump IDF raids Hezbollah Radwan Forces underground bases, discovers massive cache of weapons Gallant: ‘After we strike in Iran,’ the world will understand all of our training The Atlantic Hit Piece On Trump Is A Psy-Op To Justify Post-Election Violence If Harris Loses Six Al Jazeera journalists are Hamas, PIJ terrorists Judge Aileen Cannon, who tossed Trump's classified docs case, on list of proposed candidates for attorney general Iran's Assassination Program in Europe: Europe Goes Back to Sleep Susan Olsen says Brady Bunch revival was cancelled because she’s MAGA. Foreign Invaders crisis cost $150B in 2023, forcing some areas to cut police and fire services: report Israel kills head of Hezbollah Intelligence. Status: Not Logged In; Sign In United States News See other United States News Articles Title: FLUSH: ‘Conservative Hero’ Ben Carson To Beck: You Have No Right To Semi-Automatic Weapons In Large Cities Source: [None] URL Source: http://www.mediaite.com/tv/conserva ... matic-weapons-in-large-cities/ Published: Nov 12, 2014 Author: Andrew Kirell Post Date: 2014-11-12 12:32:26 by A K A Stone Keywords: None Views: 40285 Comments: 99 Appearing on Glenn Beck‘s radio show this past week, Dr. Benjamin Carson took a vastly different stance from most conservatives on the issue of gun control, claiming you shouldn’t be able to own semi-automatic weapons in large cities. Carson became a newfound conservative hero last month when he spoke at the National Prayer Breakfast and laid out a series of criticisms of ObamaCare, political correctness, and tax policy right in front of the president himself. Many called the speech “inappropriate” given the apolitical nature of the event, but many conservatives lauded Carson for his “bold” and “sensible” suggestions for policy reform. Asked by Beck for his thoughts on the Second Amendment, Carson gave the popular pro-gun argument: “There’s a reason for the Second Amendment; people do have the right to have weapons.” But when asked whether people should be allowed to own “semi-automatic weapons,” the doctor replied: “It depends on where you live.” “I think if you live in the midst of a lot of people, and I’m afraid that that semi-automatic weapon is going to fall into the hands of a crazy person, I would rather you not have it,” Carson elaborated. However, if you live “out in the country somewhere by yourself” and want to own a semi-automatic weapon, he added, “I’ve no problem with that.” Watch below, via TheBlaze: Post Comment   Private Reply   Ignore Thread   Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest Comments (1-38) not displayed.       .       .       . #39. To: nolu chan (#37) "Your fantasy remains without merit." Don't cite 1875 or 1975. In 1792, who were "the people" who voted in Article I, Section 2? Are you insisting that was every citizen? misterwhite  posted on  2014-11-25   19:35:01 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #40. To: misterwhite (#39) Don't cite 1875 or 1975. In 1792, who were "the people" who voted in Article I, Section 2? Are you insisting that was every citizen? The U.S. Supreme Court unanimously insisted. Deal with it. I will cite the U.S. Supreme Court when it directly destroys your specious argument. It explicitly applies to before the 14th Amendment and before the Constitution. Minor v Happersett, 88 US 162 (1875) 1. The word "citizen" is often used to convey the idea of membership in a nation. 2. In that sense, women, of born of citizen parents within the jurisdiction of the United States, have always been considered citizens of the United States, as much so before the adoption of the fourteenth amendment to the Constitution as since. 3. The right of suffrage was not necessarily one of the privileges or immunities of citizenship before the adoption of the fourteenth amendment, and that amendment does not add to these privileges and immunities. It simply furnishes additional guaranty for the protection of such as the citizen already had. [...] There is no doubt that women may be citizens. They are persons, and by the fourteenth amendment "all persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof" are expressly declared to be "citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside." But, in our opinion, it did not need this amendment to give them that position. Before its adoption the Constitution of the United States did not in terms prescribe who should be citizens of the United States or of the several States, yet there were necessarily such citizens without such provision. There cannot be a nation without a people. The very idea of a political community, such as a nation is, implies an [p166] association of persons for the promotion of their general welfare. Each one of the persons associated becomes a member of the nation formed by the association. He owes it allegiance and is entitled to its protection. Allegiance and protection are, in this connection, reciprocal obligations. The one is a compensation for the other; allegiance for protection and protection for allegiance. For convenience it has been found necessary to give a name to this membership. The object is to designate by a title the person and the relation he bears to the nation. For this purpose the words "subject," "inhabitant," and "citizen" have been used, and the choice between them is sometimes made to depend upon the form of the government. Citizen is now more commonly employed, however, and as it has been considered better suited to the description of one living under a republican government, it was adopted by nearly all of the States upon their separation from Great Britain, and was afterwards adopted in the Articles of Confederation and in the Constitution of the United States. When used in this sense it is understood as conveying the idea of membership of a nation, and nothing more. nolu chan  posted on  2014-11-25   19:53:09 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #41. To: misterwhite (#38) I'll ask you one last time. Who were "the people" in Article I, Section 2? In other words, who was allowed to vote in 1792? If you refuse to answer, I'm done with you on this forum. I see no reason to have to ask a question multiple times. I have answered you multiple times. You just don't like the answer as supported by a unanimous U.S. Supreme Court opinion. C-I-T-I-Z-E-N-S Minor v Happersett, 88 US 162 (1875) There is no doubt that women may be citizens. They are persons, and by the fourteenth amendment "all persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof" are expressly declared to be "citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside." But, in our opinion, it did not need this amendment to give them that position. Before its adoption the Constitution of the United States did not in terms prescribe who should be citizens of the United States or of the several States, yet there were necessarily such citizens without such provision. There cannot be a nation without a people. The very idea of a political community, such as a nation is, implies an [p166] association of persons for the promotion of their general welfare. Each one of the persons associated becomes a member of the nation formed by the association. He owes it allegiance and is entitled to its protection. Allegiance and protection are, in this connection, reciprocal obligations. The one is a compensation for the other; allegiance for protection and protection for allegiance. For convenience it has been found necessary to give a name to this membership. The object is to designate by a title the person and the relation he bears to the nation. For this purpose the words "subject," "inhabitant," and "citizen" have been used, and the choice between them is sometimes made to depend upon the form of the government. Citizen is now more commonly employed, however, and as it has been considered better suited to the description of one living under a republican government, it was adopted by nearly all of the States upon their separation from Great Britain, and was afterwards adopted in the Articles of Confederation and in the Constitution of the United States. When used in this sense it is understood as conveying the idea of membership of a nation, and nothing more. nolu chan  posted on  2014-11-25   19:58:59 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #42. To: nolu chan (#40) "I will cite the U.S. Supreme Court when it directly destroys your specious argument. Minor v. Happersett is a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that the Constitution did not grant women the right to vote. "It explicitly applies to before the 14th Amendment and before the Constitution." The Minor v. Happersett ruling was based on an interpretation of the Privileges or Immunities Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. You cited #1, 2, and 3. You left off 4, 5, and 6. Why? Oh, I see why. 4. At the time of the adoption of that amendment, suffrage was not coextensive with the citizenship of the states; nor was it at the time of the adoption of the Constitution. 5. Neither the Constitution nor the Fourteenth Amendment made all citizens voters. 6. A provision in a state constitution which confines the right of voting to "male citizens of the United States" is no violation of the federal Constitution. In such a state women have no right to vote. So, according to your own cites, "the people" voted, but women could not vote in 1792 (or 1875). Meaning "the people" did not include women in 1792. Will you concede that fact? misterwhite  posted on  2014-11-25   20:26:53 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #43. To: misterwhite (#42) Minor v. Happersett is a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that the Constitution did not grant women the right to vote. [...] So, according to your own cites, "the people" voted, but women could not vote in 1792 (or 1875). Meaning "the people" did not include women in 1792. Will you concede that fact? No, and please stop being deliberately obtuse. I have no idea why you keep citing 1792. The Constitutional government took effect when George Washington was inaugurated in March 1789 and a new union of eleven states came into being. Minor v. Happersett holds that the Constitution did not grant anyone the right to vote. That was a power held by the States prior to the Constitution and not delegated to the Federal government. The Federal government has been delegated the authority to stop discrimination on the basis of race or sex, and to require State due process of law. Minor v Happersett, 88 US 162 (1875) Looking at the Constitution itself we find that it was ordained and established by "the people of the United States," and then going further back, we find that these were the people of the several States that had before dissolved the political bands which connected them with Great Britain, and assumed a separate and equal station among the powers of the earth, and that had by Articles of Confederation and Perpetual Union, in which they took the name of "the United States of America," entered into a firm league of [p167] friendship with each other for their common defence, the security of their liberties and their mutual and general welfare, binding themselves to assist each other against all force offered to or attack made upon them, or any of them, on account of religion, sovereignty, trade, or any other pretence whatever. Whoever, then, was one of the people of either of these States when the Constitution of the United States was adopted, became ipso facto a citizen -- a member of the nation created by its adoption. He was one of the persons associating together to form the nation, and was, consequently, one of its original citizens. As to this there has never been a doubt. [...] The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common-law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners. Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their [p168] parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first. For the purposes of this case it is not necessary to solve these doubts. It is sufficient for everything we have now to consider that all children born of citizen parents within the jurisdiction are themselves citizens. The words "all children" are certainly as comprehensive, when used in this connection, as "all persons," and if females are included in the last they must be in the first. That they are included in the last is not denied. In fact the whole argument of the plaintiffs proceeds upon that idea. Still, to this day, the Constitution does not grant any right to vote for delegates to the Electoral College for President. See Bush v. Gore (2000) The individual citizen has no federal constitutional right to vote for electors for the President of the United States unless and until the state legislature chooses a statewide election as the means to implement its power to appoint members of the Electoral College. U. S. Const., Art. II, §1. This is the source for the statement in McPherson v. Blacker, 146 U. S. 1, 35 (1892), that the State legislature’s power to select the manner for appointing electors is plenary; it may, if it so chooses, select the electors itself, which indeed was the manner used by State legislatures in several States for many years after the Framing of our Constitution. Id., at 28–33. History has now favored the voter, and in each of the several States the citizens themselves vote for Presidential electors. When the state legislature vests the right to vote for President in its people, the right to vote as the legislature has prescribed is fundamental; and one source of its fundamental nature lies in the equal weight accorded to each vote and the equal dignity owed to each voter. Federal law requires voting law not discriminate on the basis of race or sex. See Pennsylvania constitution of 1776: VII. That all elections ought to be free; and that all free men having a sufficient evident common interest with, and attachment to the community, have a right to elect officers, or be elected into office. Massachusetts constitution of 1780: ART. IX. All elections ought to be free; and all the inhabitants of this commonwealth, having such qualifications as they shall establish by their frame of government, have an equal right to elect officers, and to be elected, for public employments. New Hampshire Bill of Rights of 1792 (amending Constitution of 1784) Art. 7. The people of this State have the sole and exclusive right of governing themselves as a free, sovereign and independent State, and do, and forever hereafter shall exercise and enjoy every power, jurisdiction, and right pertaining thereto, which is not or may not hereafter be by them expressly delegated to the United States of America, in Congress assembled. Art. 11. All elections ought to be free, and every inhabitant of the State having the proper qualifications has equal right to elect and be elected into office. nolu chan  posted on  2014-11-25   21:47:32 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #44. To: nolu chan (#43) "I have no idea why you keep citing 1792." That will become apparent when we get over this issue first. "Minor v. Happersett holds that the Constitution did not grant anyone the right to vote." We agree. Stop bringing it up. "Federal law requires voting law not discriminate on the basis of race or sex." Today. But not back in 1792. Why are you citing all this irrelevant crap? Article I, Section 2 reads that "the people" vote. According to your own citation, women could not vote in 1792. According to history, women did not vote in 1792. Meaning "the people" did not include women. You still disagree? misterwhite  posted on  2014-11-26   9:32:01 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #45. To: nolu chan (#41) You're defining a citizen. That could be a man, woman, or child. I asked you who were the voters -- "the people" -- in Article I, Section 2. misterwhite  posted on  2014-11-26   9:45:00 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #46. To: misterwhite (#44) According to your own citation, women could not vote in 1792. According to history, women did not vote in 1792. Meaning "the people" did not include women. Complete unsupported nonsense. http://www.ushistoryscene.com/uncategorized/njsuffrage/ American women did not receive the right to vote until 1920, right? This is a common misconception. A century and a half before the constitutional amendment granting all U.S. women the right to vote, women in New Jersey participated in elections for over thirty-one years. In 1776, the New Jersey Constitution ruled, “all inhabitants of this colony, of full age, who are worth fifty pounds…and have resided in the county, in which they claim a vote for twelve months…shall be entitled to vote.” ((Laws of the State of New Jersey. 1821. Reprint, Trenton: The Authority of the Legislature, 1776)) [...] Female voters in New Jersey celebrated their political rights. Federalist pamphleteer William Griffith estimated the number of unmarried women and widows to be greater than 10,000, a substantial figure, and those eligible voted in great numbers. ((Klinghoffer and Elkins, 177.)) [...] Female voters echoed Wollstonecraft’s sentiments in the 1800 presidential race between Thomas Jefferson and John Adams, when nearly every woman eligible to vote, no matter her race or class, participated in the New Jersey election. ((Bushnell, Horace. “The Report of History.” In Women’s Suffrage; Reform Against Nature. New York: Charles Scribner and Company, 1869. 111)) 60 U.S. 575-576 The fourth of the fundamental articles of the Confederation was as follows: "The free inhabitants of each of these States, paupers, vagabonds, and fugitives from justice, excepted, shall be entitled to all the privileges and immunities of free citizens in the several States." The fact that free persons of color were citizens of some of the several States, and the consequence that this fourth article of the Confederation would have the effect to confer on such persons the privileges and immunities of general citizenship, were not only known to those who framed and adopted those articles, but the evidence is decisive that the fourth article was intended to have that effect, and that more restricted language, which would have excluded such persons, was deliberately and purposely rejected. On the 25th of June, 1778, the Articles of Confederation being under consideration by the Congress, the delegates from South Carolina moved to amend this fourth article by inserting after the word "free," and before the word "inhabitants," the word "white," so that the privileges and immunities of general citizenship would be secured only to white persons. Two States voted for the amendment, eight States against it, and the vote of one State was divided. The language of the article stood unchanged, and both by its terms of inclusion, "free inhabitants," and the strong implication from its terms of exclusion, "paupers, vagabonds, and fugitives from justice," who alone were excepted, it is clear that under the Confederation, and at the time of the adoption of the Constitution, free colored persons of African descent might be, and, by reason of their citizenship in certain States, were, entitled to the Page 60 U. S. 576 privileges and immunities of general citizenship of the United States. Did the Constitution of the United States deprive them or their descendants of citizenship? That Constitution was ordained and established by the people of the United States, through the action, in each State, or those persons who were qualified by its laws to act thereon in behalf of themselves and all other citizens of that State. In some of the States, as we have seen, colored persons were among those qualified by law to act on this subject. These colored persons were not only included in the body of "the people of the United States" by whom the Constitution was ordained and established, but, in at least five of the States, they had the power to act, and doubtless did act, by their suffrages, upon the question of its adoption. It would be strange if we were to find in that instrument anything which deprived of their citizenship any part of the people of the United States who were among those by whom it was established. 88 US 178 Being unanimously of the opinion that the Constitution of the United States does not confer the right of suffrage upon any one, and that the constitutions and laws of the several States which commit that important trust to men alone are not necessarily void, we AFFIRM THE JUDGMENT. nolu chan  posted on  2014-11-26   15:49:27 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #47. To: misterwhite (#45) You're defining a citizen. That could be a man, woman, or child. I asked you who were the voters -- "the people" -- in Article I, Section 2. The premise of your question is nonsense. The voters are not "the people." The voters are whomever the state government decides them to be. That can be any subset of "the people" and may and has even included aliens, citizens of foreign nations. Federal law prohibits discriminating against certain subsets of the people to inhibit such right of suffrage which the State may choose to grant to others. The people are the C-I-T-I-Z-E-N-S. The original citizens "were the people of the several States that had before dissolved the political bands which connected them with Great Britain." 88 U.S. 166. Articles of Confederation, Article IV The better to secure and perpetuate mutual friendship and intercourse among the people of the different States in this Union, the free inhabitants of each of these States, paupers, vagabonds, and fugitives from justice excepted, shall be entitled to all privileges and immunities of free citizens in the several States.... 60 US 575 On the 25th of June, 1778, the Articles of Confederation being under consideration by the Congress, the delegates from South Carolina moved to amend this fourth article by inserting after the word "free," and before the word "inhabitants," the word "white," so that the privileges and immunities of general citizenship would be secured only to white persons. Two States voted for the amendment, eight States against it, and the vote of one State was divided. The language of the article stood unchanged.... nolu chan  posted on  2014-11-26   16:10:51 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #48. To: nolu chan (#46) In one state. And not all women. And there were prerequisites. If women had the right to vote, as you say, then why did we need the 19th amendment? BECAUSE THEY WEREN'T ALLOWED TO VOTE. misterwhite  posted on  2014-11-26   16:31:39 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #49. To: nolu chan (#47) "The voters are whomever the state government decides them to be." Correct. And those are "the people". "The people are the C-I-T-I-Z-E- N-S." "The people" were citizens with full rights. Only "the people" could vote. Not all citizens could vote. Are you claiming that they could? misterwhite  posted on  2014-11-26   16:39:08 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #50. To: misterwhite (#48) If women had the right to vote, as you say, then why did we need the 19th amendment? For possible penetration of what I actually said: 88 US 178 Being unanimously of the opinion that the Constitution of the United States does not confer the right of suffrage upon any one.... The unanimous U.S. Supreme Court held that no right of suffrage is conferred by being a citizen of the United States, per the Constitution of the United States. Women voted for over thirty years in New Jersey. The 19th Amendment was needed to prohibit sex discrimination which was not forbidden by the original Constitution. The 13th Amendment was needed to prohibit slavery which was not forbidden by the original Constitution. The 15th Amendment was needed to prohibit race discrimination which was not prohibited by the original Constitution. The 26th Amendment holds, "The right of citizens of the United States, who are 18 years of age or older, to vote, shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or any state on account of age." Minors under the age of 18 years are citizens. Those from 18 to 21 were citizens before the 26th Amendment. All of those citizens were of the people of the United States. nolu chan  posted on  2014-11-26   17:25:28 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #51. To: misterwhite (#49) "The people" were citizens with full rights. Only "the people" could vote. Not all citizens could vote. Your nonsense is based a a false premise. Not all citizens had all the rights held by others. 88 US 178 Being unanimously of the opinion that the Constitution of the United States does not confer the right of suffrage upon any one The people of the nation were not defined by all the differing State laws. The right to vote was not a Constitutional right. The Constitution did not confer that right to anyone. The people of the nation were its C-I-T-I-Z-E-N-S. 88 US 162, 166 (1875) Looking at the Constitution itself we find that it was ordained and established by "the people of the United States," and then going further back, we find that these were the people of the several States that had before dissolved the political bands which connected them with Great Britain My source is the U.S. Supreme Court. Yours appears to be some wingnut website you are too ashamed to cite. nolu chan  posted on  2014-11-26   17:26:12 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #52. To: misterwhite, nolu chan (#49) Ok they gave women the right to vote with the 19th amendment. Or maybe they already had it. But let me add this. The constitution refers to who is elibible to be President. It only says "he". It never says she. So technically a woman isn't eligible to run for President. There is no amendment changing that. A K A Stone  posted on  2014-11-26   17:30:31 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #53. To: A K A Stone (#52) Ok they gave women the right to vote with the 19th amendment. Or maybe they already had it. No, they did not give women the right to vote with the 19th Amendment. The prohibited the States from prohibiting voting based upon sex. For example, nobody has the right to vote for Presidential electors unless the State decides to grant such right. From Bush v Gore: The individual citizen has no federal constitutional right to vote for electors for the President of the United States unless and until the state legislature chooses a statewide election as the means to implement its power to appoint members of the Electoral College. U. S. Const., Art. II, §1. This is the source for the statement in McPherson v. Blacker, 146 U. S. 1, 35 (1892), that the State legislature’s power to select the manner for appointing electors is plenary; it may, if it so chooses, select the electors itself, which indeed was the manner used by State legislatures in several States for many years after the Framing of our Constitution. Id., at 28–33. The right to vote is determined by State law. The Federal law prohibits certain forms of discrimination in the applicable State laws. The constitution refers to who is elibible to be President. It only says "he". It never says she. So technically a woman isn't eligible to run for President. There is no amendment changing that. Common English usage provides that the masculine pronoun is used when a group includes both sexes. There is no question that women are eligible to run for President. A woman has already run for President, been officially on the ballot of several states, and received votes. The Constitution set the requirements for who could run and did not prohibit women. It requires one to be at least 35 years old, a natural born citizen, and fourteen years a resident in the U.S. Belva Ann Lockwood was officially on ballots in 1884, decades before the 19th Amendment. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Belva_Ann_Lockwood Belva Ann Bennett Lockwood (October 24, 1830 – May 19, 1917) was an American attorney, politician, educator, and author. She was active in working for women's rights. The press of her day referred to her as a "suffragist," someone who believed in women's suffrage or voting rights. Lockwood overcame many social and personal obstacles related to gender restrictions. After college, she became a teacher and principal, working to equalize pay for women in education.[1] She supported the movement for world peace, and was a proponent of temperance. Lockwood graduated from law school in Washington, D.C. and became one of the first female lawyers in the United States. In 1879, she successfully petitioned Congress to be allowed to practice before the United States Supreme Court, becoming the first woman attorney given this privilege. Lockwood ran for president in 1884 and 1888 on the ticket of the National Equal Rights Party and was the first woman to appear on official ballots.[2] http://www.greatwomen.org/women-of-the-hall/search-the-hall/details/2/98-Lockwood In 1884 she accepted the nomination of the National Equal Rights Party and ran for president. Although suffrage leaders opposed her candidacy, Lockwood saw it as an entering wedge for women. She polled over 4,000 votes and ran again in 1888. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_female_United_States_presidential_and_vice-presidential_candidates Belva Ann Lockwood was nominated for President by the National Equal Rights Party in 1884 and gained ballot access in 6 States and received 4,149 recorded votes. nolu chan  posted on  2014-11-26   18:23:47 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #54. To: nolu chan (#50) "Women voted for over thirty years in New Jersey." Some did. "The 19th Amendment was needed to prohibit sex discrimination which was not forbidden by the original Constitution." The 19th protected the right of women to vote. Prior to that, they couldn't vote in all the states. Are you saying women could vote in all the states in 1792? misterwhite  posted on  2014-11-26   18:29:18 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #55. To: nolu chan (#51) "Not all citizens had all the rights held by others." I'm only discussing one right now -- the right to vote. Could women vote in all the states in 1792? Why won't you answer this very simple question? misterwhite  posted on  2014-11-26   18:31:57 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #56. To: misterwhite (#54) The 19th protected the right of women to vote. More nonsense. Neither women, nor men, had a right to vote. Our rights are not granted to us by State governments. The 19th Amendment does not protect a right. It prohibits the States from discriminating on the basis of sex in laws passed that determine who is a qualified voter. The State government can equally deny men and women the "right" to vote in a presidential election. They can choose to have the legislature select the delegates to the Electoral College. Alternatively, the State legislature could appoint the Statehouse janitor to select the delegates. The State Legislature has plenary authority for that election. What law they pass cannot say the men can vote but not women or that Whites can vote but not Blacks. nolu chan  posted on  2014-11-26   18:59:55 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #57. To: misterwhite (#55) I'm only discussing one right now -- the right to vote. Could women vote in all the states in 1792? Why won't you answer this very simple question? Not all women and not all men qualified for the elective franchise in 1792 or now, or at any time in between. Neither women, nor men, had a right to vote. Our rights are not granted to us by State governments. nolu chan  posted on  2014-11-26   19:00:20 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #58. To: nolu chan (#57) Let me throw a wrench in here. The Declaration of Independence gives you the right to vote. Because it is based on natural law. It says you can't be taxes without representation. Everyone is taxed. So you have a natural right to vote. Indirectly. A K A Stone  posted on  2014-11-26   19:53:38 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #59. To: nolu chan (#56) "Our rights are not granted to us by State governments." Correct. But they are protected by state governments. Which was what I said. And, prior to the 19th amendment, the right to vote was not protected for women. Meaning that those who voted in 1792 -- "the people" -- did not include women in all the states. Do you agree? misterwhite  posted on  2014-11-27   10:20:24 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #60. To: A K A Stone (#58) "It says you can't be taxes without representation. Everyone is taxed." Each state decided who could vote, and it varied from state to state. Those voters (whoever they were) were called "the people". They were citizens with full rights, and they were the ones who were invested in the community and had the most to lose. They were freeholders -- older, white, male citizens with land. If there was a tax, they were the ones who paid it. There were some exceptions, but women and children did not own land or run for office. Voting issues didn't affect them, so there was no reaon for them to vote. misterwhite  posted on  2014-11-27   10:32:18 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #61. To: nolu chan (#57) "Not all women and not all men qualified for the elective franchise in 1792 or now, or at any time in between." On that we agree. Do we also agree that those who could vote were "the people" referenced in Article I, Section 2? misterwhite  posted on  2014-11-27   10:43:30 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #62. To: A K A Stone (#58) Let me throw a wrench in here. The Declaration of Independence gives you the right to vote. Because it is based on natural law. It says you can't be taxes without representation. Everyone is taxed. So you have a natural right to vote. Indirectly. The DOI did not give any rights to anybody. The DOI is a political declaration of the causes impelling a colonial secession of thirteen colonies from Great Britain. Declaration of Independence, July 4, 1776 When in the course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the laws of nature and of nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation. We hold these truths to be self-evident: That all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness; that, to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed; that whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles, and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shown that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same object, evinces a design to reduce them under absolute despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such government, and to provide new guards for their future security. Such has been the patient sufferance of these colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former systems of government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute tyranny over these states. To prove this, let facts be submitted to a candid world. He has refused his assent to laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good. He has forbidden his governors to pass laws of immediate and pressing importance, unless suspended in their operation till his assent should be obtained; and, when so suspended, he has utterly neglected to attend to them. He has refused to pass other laws for the accommodation of large districts of people, unless those people would relinquish the right of representation in the legislature, a right inestimable to them, and formidable to tyrants only. He has called together legislative bodies at places unusual uncomfortable, and distant from the depository of their public records, for the sole purpose of fatiguing them into compliance with his measures. He has dissolved representative houses repeatedly, for opposing, with manly firmness, his invasions on the rights of the people. He has refused for a long time, after such dissolutions, to cause others to be elected; whereby the legislative powers, incapable of annihilation, have returned to the people at large for their exercise; the state remaining, in the mean time, exposed to all the dangers of invasions from without and convulsions within. He has endeavored to prevent the population of these states; for that purpose obstructing the laws for naturalization of foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their migration hither, and raising the conditions of new appropriations of lands. He has obstructed the administration of justice, by refusing his assent to laws for establishing judiciary powers. He has made judges dependent on his will alone, for the tenure of their offices, and the amount and payment of their salaries. He has erected a multitude of new offices, and sent hither swarms of officers to harass our people and eat out their substance. He has kept among us, in times of peace, standing armies, without the consent of our legislatures. He has affected to render the military independent of, and superior to, the civil power. He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our Constitution and unacknowledged by our laws, giving his assent to their acts of pretended legislation: For quartering large bodies of armed troops among us; For protecting them, by a mock trial, from punishment for any murders which they should commit on the inhabitants of these states; For cutting off our trade with all parts of the world; For imposing taxes on us without our consent; For depriving us, in many cases, of the benefits of trial by jury; For transporting us beyond seas, to be tried for pretended offenses; For abolishing the free system of English laws in a neighboring province, establishing therein an arbitrary government, and enlarging its boundaries, so as to render it at once an example and fit instrument for introducing the same absolute rule into these colonies; For taking away our charters, abolishing our most valuable laws, and altering fundamentally the forms of our governments; For suspending our own legislatures, and declaring themselves invested with power to legislate for us in all cases whatsoever. He has abdicated government here, by declaring us out of his protection and waging war against us. He has plundered our seas, ravaged our coasts, burned our towns, and destroyed the lives of our people. He is at this time transporting large armies of foreign mercenaries to complete the works of death, desolation, and tyranny already begun with circumstances of cruelty and perfidy scarcely paralleled in the most barbarous ages, and totally unworthy the head of a civilized nation. He has constrained our fellow-citizens, taken captive on the high seas, to bear arms against their country, to become the executioners of their friends and brethren, or to fall themselves by their hands. He has excited domestic insurrection among us, and has endeavored to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers the merciless Indian savages, whose known rule of warfare is an undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes, and conditions. In every stage of these oppressions we have petitioned for redress in the most humble terms; our repeated petitions have been answered only by repeated injury. A prince, whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people. Nor have we been wanting in our attentions to our British brethren. We have warned them, from time to time, of attempts by their legislature to extend an unwarrantable jurisdiction over us. We have reminded them of the circumstances of our emigration and settlement here. We have appealed to their native justice and magnanimity; and we have conjured them, by the ties of our common kindred, to disavow these usurpations which would inevitably interrupt our connections and correspondence. They too, have been deaf to the voice of justice and of consanguinity. We must, therefore, acquiesce in the necessity which denounces our separation, and hold them as we hold the rest of mankind, enemies in war, in peace friends. We, therefore, the representatives of the United States of America, in General Congress assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the name and by the authority of the good people of these colonies solemnly publish and declare, That these United Colonies are, and of right ought to be, FREE AND INDEPENDENT STATES; that they are absolved from all allegiance to the British crown and that all political connection between them and the state of Great Britain is, and ought to be, totally dissolved; and that, as free and independent states, they have full power to levy war, conclude peace, contract alliances, establish commerce, and do all other acts and things which independent states may of right do. And for the support of this declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our lives, our fortunes, and our sacred honor. [Signed by] JOHN HANCOCK [President] [snip - additional signatures] Source: Documents Illustrative of the Formation of the Union of the American States. Government Printing Office, 1927. House Document No. 398. Selected, Arranged and Indexed by Charles C. Tansill Clearly, by the Articles of Confederation, the states continued to be free, sovereign and independent. They expressly entered into a league of friendship. As does the DOI, the Paris Peace Treaty refers to the United States in the plural, on their part, and refers to the individual states in the plural as free sovereign states and that the King treats with them as such. The free sovereign states were addressed individually, by name. For whatever reason, it seems Delaware was not individually listed in this agreement. The State political communities became recognized as free, sovereign, and independent states, plural. They organized with the people of each state being the sovereign of that state. The sovereign, by definition, is not subject to any higher power. IMHO only, any talk of divided sovereignty is political blasphemy. We are supposed to have divided powers, according to what the people chose to delegate to the Federal and State governments. The people delegated certain powers to the Federal government by the Article of Confederation. With ratification by nine states (11 by the time a government was seated), a new union was formed between the 11 states so ratifying. The Constitution delegated more power to the Federal government than had the Articles. In no case did the people delegate their sovereignty, or any part thereof, to anyone. The people of the several states delegated certain powers to their state governments. What they did not delegate, they retained to themselves. As the sovereigns, the people (the political communities organized and referred to as States) held all rights and powers not delegated. The powers of the Government are derived from the people. The rights of the people are not derived from the Government. The people are sovereign, the Government is not. Articles of Confederation, March 1, 1781 To all to whom these Presents shall come, we the undersigned Delegates of the States affixed to our Names send greeting. Articles of Confederation and perpetual Union between the states of New Hampshire, Massachusetts-bay Rhode Island and Providence Plantations, Connecticut, New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina and Georgia. I. The Stile of this Confederacy shall be "The United States of America". II. Each state retains its sovereignty, freedom, and independence, and every power, jurisdiction, and right, which is not by this Confederation expressly delegated to the United States, in Congress assembled. III. The said States hereby severally enter into a firm league of friendship with each other, for their common defense, the security of their liberties, and their mutual and general welfare, binding themselves to assist each other, against all force offered to, or attacks made upon them, or any of them, on account of religion, sovereignty, trade, or any other pretense whatever. IV. The better to secure and perpetuate mutual friendship and intercourse among the people of the different States in this Union, the free inhabitants of each of these States, paupers, vagabonds, and fugitives from justice excepted, shall be entitled to all privileges and immunities of free citizens in the several States; and the people of each State shall free ingress and regress to and from any other State, and shall enjoy therein all the privileges of trade and commerce, subject to the same duties, impositions, and restrictions as the inhabitants thereof respectively, provided that such restrictions shall not extend so far as to prevent the removal of property imported into any State, to any other State, of which the owner is an inhabitant; provided also that no imposition, duties or restriction shall be laid by any State, on the property of the United States, or either of them. If any person guilty of, or charged with, treason, felony, or other high misdemeanor in any State, shall flee from justice, and be found in any of the United States, he shall, upon demand of the Governor or executive power of the State from which he fled, be delivered up and removed to the State having jurisdiction of his offense. Full faith and credit shall be given in each of these States to the records, acts, and judicial proceedings of the courts and magistrates of every other State. [snip] The Paris Peace Treaty The Paris Peace Treaty of September 30, 1783 The Definitive Treaty of Peace 1783 In the name of the most holy and undivided Trinity. It having pleased the Divine Providence to dispose the hearts of the most serene and most potent Prince George the Third, by the grace of God, king of Great Britain, France, and Ireland, defender of the faith, duke of Brunswick and Lunebourg, arch-treasurer and prince elector of the Holy Roman Empire etc., and of the United States of America, to forget all past misunderstandings and differences that have unhappily interrupted the good correspondence and friendship which they mutually wish to restore, and to establish such a beneficial and satisfactory intercourse , between the two countries upon the ground of reciprocal advantages and mutual convenience as may promote and secure to both perpetual peace and harmony; and having for this desirable end already laid the foundation of peace and reconciliation by the Provisional Articles signed at Paris on the 30th of November 1782, by the commissioners empowered on each part, which articles were agreed to be inserted in and constitute the Treaty of Peace proposed to be concluded between the Crown of Great Britain and the said United States, but which treaty was not to be concluded until terms of peace should be agreed upon between Great Britain and France and his Britannic Majesty should be ready to conclude such treaty accordingly; and the treaty between Great Britain and France having since been concluded, his Britannic Majesty and the United States of America, in order to carry into full effect the Provisional Articles above mentioned, according to the tenor thereof, have constituted and appointed, that is to say his Britannic Majesty on his part, David Hartley, Esqr., member of the Parliament of Great Britain, and the said United States on their part, John Adams, Esqr., late a commissioner of the United States of America at the court of Versailles, late delegate in Congress from the state of Massachusetts, and chief justice of the said state, and minister plenipotentiary of the said United States to their high mightinesses the States General of the United Netherlands; Benjamin Franklin, Esqr., late delegate in Congress from the state of Pennsylvania, president of the convention of the said state, and minister plenipotentiary from the United States of America at the court of Versailles; John Jay, Esqr., late president of Congress and chief justice of the state of New York, and minister plenipotentiary from the said United States at the court of Madrid; to be plenipotentiaries for the concluding and signing the present definitive treaty; who after having reciprocally communicated their respective full powers have agreed upon and confirmed the following articles. Article 1: His Brittanic Majesty acknowledges the said United States, viz., New Hampshire, Massachusetts Bay, Rhode Island and Providence Plantations, Connecticut, New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina and Georgia, to be free sovereign and independent states, that he treats with them as such, and for himself, his heirs, and successors, relinquishes all claims to the government, propriety, and territorial rights of the same and every part thereof. [snip] D. HARTLEY (SEAL) JOHN ADAMS (SEAL) B. FRANKLIN (SEAL) JOHN JAY (SEAL) Source: Treaties and Other International Acts of the United States of America. Edited by Hunter Miller Volume 2 Documents 1-40 : 1776-1818 Washington : Government Printing Office, 1931. Over the centuries, the Constitution and the American political organization has been reinterpreted into something where the people have delegated part of their sovereignty to the Federal government, and part of their sovereignty to the State governments, each of whom is sovereign within their separate spheres of "sovereignty." Being a little bit sovereign compares to being a little bit pregnant. nolu chan  posted on  2014-12-02   1:16:51 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #63. To: misterwhite (#59) Meaning that those who voted in 1792 -- "the people" -- did not include women in all the states. Do you agree? No. This remains unmitigated crap. The people of the United States are its citizens. The Court stated in Huber v. Reily, "Congress is, indeed, empowered to make regulations for the time, place and manner of holding elections for senators and representatives, or to alter those made by the legislature of a state (except those in relation to the places of choosing senators), but here its power stops; the right of suffrage at a state election, is a state right, a franchise conferrable only by the state, which congress can neither give nor take away." Individual states decide meets, or fails to meet, the qualifications to be a voter in each state. Individual states do not decide who meets, or fails to meet, the qualifications to be a citizen of the United States. If you are a natural born citizen, you are one of the people of the United States. If you are naturalized, you are one of the people of the United States. By the Constitution, the people delegated to the Federal government the power to adopt a uniform rule of naturalization. It is a uniform rule, not fifty different rules, which determines naturalization. U.S. Supreme Court Wesberry V. Sanders, 376 U.S. 1 (1964) 376 U.S. 1, 7-8, Opinion of the Court We hold that, construed in its historical context, the command of Art. I, 2, that Representatives be chosen "by the People of the several States" 9 means that as [376 U.S. 1, 8] nearly as is practicable one man's vote in a congressional election is to be worth as much as another's. 10 This rule is followed automatically, of course, when Representatives are chosen as a group on a statewide basis, as was a widespread practice in the first 50 years of our Nation's history. 11 376 U.S. 8-9, Opinion of the Court We do not believe that the Framers of the Constitution intended to permit the same vote-diluting discrimination to be accomplished through the device of districts containing widely varied numbers of inhabitants. To say that a vote is worth more in one district than in another would not only run counter to our fundamental ideas of democratic government, it would cast aside the principle of a House of Representatives elected "by the People," a principle tenaciously fought for and established at the Constitutional Convention. The history of the Constitution, particularly that part of it relating to the adoption of Art. I, 2, reveals that those who framed the Constitution [376 U.S. 1, 9] meant that, no matter what the mechanics of an election, whether statewide or by districts, it was population which was to be the basis of the House of Representatives. 376 U.S. 12-14, Opinion of the Court The deadlock was finally broken when a majority of the States agreed to what has been called the Great Compromise, 27 based on a proposal which had been repeatedly advanced by Roger [376 U.S. 1, 13] Sherman and other delegates from Connecticut. 28 It provided on the one hand that each State, including little Delaware and Rhode Island, was to have two Senators. As a further guarantee that these Senators would be considered state emissaries, they were to be elected by the state legislatures, Art. I, 3, and it was specially provided in Article V that no State should ever be deprived of its equal representation in the Senate. The other side of the compromise was that, as provided in Art. I, 2, members of the House of Representatives should be chosen "by the People of the several States" and should be "apportioned among the several States . . . according to their respective Numbers." While those who wanted both houses to represent the people had yielded on the Senate, they had not yielded on the House of Representatives. William Samuel Johnson of Connecticut had summed it up well: "in one branch the people, ought to be represented; in the other, the States." 29 The debates at the Convention make at least one fact abundantly clear: that when the delegates agreed that the House should represent "people" they intended that in allocating Congressmen the number assigned to each State should be determined solely by the number of the State's inhabitants. 30 The Constitution embodied Edmund Randolph's proposal for a periodic census to ensure "fair representation of the people," 31 an idea endorsed by Mason as assuring that "numbers of inhabitants" [376 U.S. 1, 14] should always be the measure of representation in the House of Representatives. 32 376 U.S. 17-18, Opinion of the Court It is in the light of such history that we must construe Art. I, 2, of the Constitution, which, carrying out the ideas of Madison and those of like views, provides that Representatives shall be chosen "by the People of the several States" and shall be "apportioned among the several States . . . according to their respective Numbers." It is not surprising that our Court has held that this Article gives persons qualified to vote a constitutional right to vote and to have their votes counted. United States v. Mosley, 238 U.S. 383 ; Ex Parte Yarbrough, 110 U.S. 651 . Not only can this right to vote not be denied outright, it cannot, consistently with Article I, be destroyed by alteration of ballots, see United States v. Classic, 313 U.S. 299 , or diluted by stuffing of the ballot box, see United States v. Saylor, 322 U.S. 385 . No right is more precious in a free country than that of having a voice in the election of those who make the laws under which, as good citizens, we must live. Other rights, even the most basic, are illusory if the right to vote is undermined. Our Constitution leaves no room for classification of people in a way that unnecessarily abridges [376 U.S. 1, 18] this right. In urging the people to adopt the Constitution, Madison said in No. 57 of The Federalist: "Who are to be the electors of the Federal Representatives? Not the rich more than the poor; not the learned more than the ignorant; not the haughty heirs of distinguished names, more than the humble sons of obscure and unpropitious fortune. The electors are to be the great body of the people of the United States. . . . " 47 Readers surely could have fairly taken this to mean, "one person, one vote." Cf. Gary v. Sanders, 372 U.S. 368, 381. 376 U.S. 1, 25-26 (From dissenting opinion of Justice Harlan) In any event, the very sentence of Art. I, 2, on which the Court exclusively relies confers the right to vote for Representatives only on those whom the State has found qualified to vote for members of "the most numerous Branch of the State Legislature." Supra, p. 22. So far as Article I is concerned, it is within the State's power to confer that right only on persons of wealth or of a particular sex or, if the State chose, living in specified areas of the State. 7 Were Georgia to find the residents of the [376 U.S. 1, 26] Fifth District unqualified to vote for Representatives to the State House of Representatives, they could not vote for Representatives to Congress, according to the express words of Art. I, 2. Other provisions of the Constitution would, of course, be relevant, but, so far as Art. I, 2, is concerned, the disqualification would be within Georgia's power. How can it be, then, that this very same sentence prevents Georgia from apportioning its Representatives as it chooses? The truth is that it does not. 376 U.S. 27 (From dissenting opinion of Justice Harlan) Representatives were to be apportioned among the States on the basis of free population plus three-fifths of the slave population. Since no slave voted, the inclusion of three-fifths of their number in the basis of apportionment gave the favored States representation far in excess of their voting population. Wesberry v. Sanders, 376 U.S. 1 (1964) 376 U.S. 1, 7-8, Opinion of the Court We hold that, construed in its historical context, the command of Art. I, 2, that Representatives be chosen "by the People of the several States" 9 means that as [376 U.S. 1, 8] nearly as is practicable one man's vote in a congressional election is to be worth as much as another's. 10 This rule is followed automatically, of course, when Representatives are chosen as a group on a statewide basis, as was a widespread practice in the first 50 years of our Nation's history. 11 376 U.S. 8-9, Opinion of the Court We do not believe that the Framers of the Constitution intended to permit the same vote-diluting discrimination to be accomplished through the device of districts containing widely varied numbers of inhabitants. To say that a vote is worth more in one district than in another would not only run counter to our fundamental ideas of democratic government, it would cast aside the principle of a House of Representatives elected "by the People," a principle tenaciously fought for and established at the Constitutional Convention. The history of the Constitution, particularly that part of it relating to the adoption of Art. I, 2, reveals that those who framed the Constitution [376 U.S. 1, 9] meant that, no matter what the mechanics of an election, whether statewide or by districts, it was population which was to be the basis of the House of Representatives. 376 U.S. 12-14, Opinion of the Court The deadlock was finally broken when a majority of the States agreed to what has been called the Great Compromise, 27 based on a proposal which had been repeatedly advanced by Roger [376 U.S. 1, 13] Sherman and other delegates from Connecticut. 28 It provided on the one hand that each State, including little Delaware and Rhode Island, was to have two Senators. As a further guarantee that these Senators would be considered state emissaries, they were to be elected by the state legislatures, Art. I, 3, and it was specially provided in Article V that no State should ever be deprived of its equal representation in the Senate. The other side of the compromise was that, as provided in Art. I, 2, members of the House of Representatives should be chosen "by the People of the several States" and should be "apportioned among the several States . . . according to their respective Numbers." While those who wanted both houses to represent the people had yielded on the Senate, they had not yielded on the House of Representatives. William Samuel Johnson of Connecticut had summed it up well: "in one branch the people, ought to be represented; in the other, the States." 29 The debates at the Convention make at least one fact abundantly clear: that when the delegates agreed that the House should represent "people" they intended that in allocating Congressmen the number assigned to each State should be determined solely by the number of the State's inhabitants. 30 The Constitution embodied Edmund Randolph's proposal for a periodic census to ensure "fair representation of the people," 31 an idea endorsed by Mason as assuring that "numbers of inhabitants" [376 U.S. 1, 14] should always be the measure of representation in the House of Representatives. 32 376 U.S. 17-18, Opinion of the Court It is in the light of such history that we must construe Art. I, 2, of the Constitution, which, carrying out the ideas of Madison and those of like views, provides that Representatives shall be chosen "by the People of the several States" and shall be "apportioned among the several States . . . according to their respective Numbers." It is not surprising that our Court has held that this Article gives persons qualified to vote a constitutional right to vote and to have their votes counted. United States v. Mosley, 238 U.S. 383 ; Ex Parte Yarbrough, 110 U.S. 651 . Not only can this right to vote not be denied outright, it cannot, consistently with Article I, be destroyed by alteration of ballots, see United States v. Classic, 313 U.S. 299 , or diluted by stuffing of the ballot box, see United States v. Saylor, 322 U.S. 385 . No right is more precious in a free country than that of having a voice in the election of those who make the laws under which, as good citizens, we must live. Other rights, even the most basic, are illusory if the right to vote is undermined. Our Constitution leaves no room for classification of people in a way that unnecessarily abridges [376 U.S. 1, 18] this right. In urging the people to adopt the Constitution, Madison said in No. 57 of The Federalist: "Who are to be the electors of the Federal Representatives? Not the rich more than the poor; not the learned more than the ignorant; not the haughty heirs of distinguished names, more than the humble sons of obscure and unpropitious fortune. The electors are to be the great body of the people of the United States. . . . " 47 Readers surely could have fairly taken this to mean, "one person, one vote." Cf. Gary v. Sanders, 372 U.S. 368, 381. 376 U.S. 1, 25-26 (From dissenting opinion of Justice Harlan) In any event, the very sentence of Art. I, 2, on which the Court exclusively relies confers the right to vote for Representatives only on those whom the State has found qualified to vote for members of "the most numerous Branch of the State Legislature." Supra, p. 22. So far as Article I is concerned, it is within the State's power to confer that right only on persons of wealth or of a particular sex or, if the State chose, living in specified areas of the State. 7 Were Georgia to find the residents of the [376 U.S. 1, 26] Fifth District unqualified to vote for Representatives to the State House of Representatives, they could not vote for Representatives to Congress, according to the express words of Art. I, 2. Other provisions of the Constitution would, of course, be relevant, but, so far as Art. I, 2, is concerned, the disqualification would be within Georgia's power. How can it be, then, that this very same sentence prevents Georgia from apportioning its Representatives as it chooses? The truth is that it does not. 376 U.S. 27 (From dissenting opinion of Justice Harlan) It seems to me that we ought to pause but a moment upon the suggestion, that, in the enforcement of a law such as we have now before us for consideration, intended to secure an election of members of the House of Representatives by the giving of all legal votes and by the giving of none that are frandulent, the Government of the United States has no interest. "The Government of the United States" - what is that? It may be conceded to be an artificial thing, which men call "the Government," and which is sometimes looked upon as the source as well as the exhibition of power, and not capable of interest more than it is of thought or feeling. But, the Government of the United States, in the true sense, is the people of the United States, one and all, throughout the length and breadth of the land. And the people of the United States, here and everywhere, have not only an interest, but an interest that is vital, in the preservation of their institutions and in the preservation of all that is pure~ just and honest in the popular vote, on which, for their safety and security, their institutions and their Government rest. United States v Quinn, 2nd Cir, 8 Blatchford 48, 57-58. Undoubtedly a person may be a citizen, that is, a member of the community who form the sovereignty, although he exercises no share of the political power and is incapacitated from holding particular offices. Women and minors, who form a part of the political family, cannot vote, and when a property qualification is required to vote or hold a particular office, those who have not the necessary qualification cannot vote or hold the office, yet they are citizens. So, too, a person may be entitled to vote by the law of the State, who is not a citizen even of the State itself. And in some of the States of the Union, foreigners not naturalized are allowed to vote. United States v Quinn, 2nd Cir, 8 Blatchford 48, 61. Section 2. "The House of Representatives shall be composed of members chosen every second year by the people of the several States, and the electors in each State shall have the qualifications requisite for electors of the most numerous branch of the State Legislature." Section 4, subdivision 1. "The times, places, aud manner of holding elections for senators and representatives shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof; but the Congress may at any time, by law, make or alter such regulations, except as to the places of choosing senators." Section 5, subdivision 1. "Each house shall be the judge of the elections, returns, and qualifications of its own members." Section 8, last subdivision. "The Congress shall have power to make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers, and all other powers vested by this Constitution in the government of the United States, or in any department or officer thereof." Does the Act in question infringe the provision of the Constitution which I have read, which provides that the electors in each State shall have the qualifications requisite for electors of the most numerous branch of the State Legislature? It is argued with great ingenuity and ability, that the Act in question infringes that clause of the Constitution, because it seeks to establish a test of qualification -- seeks to affirm the evidence of qualification -- and, by so doing, ex vi termini, imposes qualification itself. We apprehend that that argument rests upon no solid basis. The Act in question neither professes, nor, by any implication, can it, we think, be construed to affect the qualification of any elector anywhere. It imposes no duty to register. It prohibits no registration that is required in the State in which the elector seeks to exercise his franchise. It touches no qualification of the elector in any other respect. It leaves the power of the State to prescribe the qualifications of electors for the most numerous. branch of the State Legislature, in the largest and fullest extent, untouched and unaffected. It says, and only says, that, when the qualification of registration is imposed by the State law, (leaving the expediency or wisdom of such a law entirely to the judgmeut of the State), it shall be an offense against the laws of the United States to contribute, by fraud and violation of the State registry laws, to the seuding of a representative to the Congress of the United States who is not clothed with the authority which a true expression of the popular will would give; and that is all. U.S. Supreme Court, 60 U. S. 393, 404 (1856) It is not to be doubted, that the power to regulate suffrage in a state, and to determine who shall and who shall not be a voter, belongs exclusively to the state itself; the constitution of the United States confers no authority upon congress, to prescribe the qualifications of electors, within the several states that compose the federal union. Congress is, indeed, empowered to make regulations for the time, place and manner of holding elections for senators and representatives, or to alter those made by the legislature of a state (except those in relation to the places of choosing senators), but here its power stops; the right of suffrage at a state election, is a state right, a franchise conferrable only by the state, which congress can neither give nor take away. If, therefore, the act now under consideration is, in truth, an attempt to regulate the right of suffrage in the state, or to prescribe the conditions upon which that right may be exercised, it must be held unwarranted by the constitution. In the exercise of its admitted powers, congress may doubtless deprive an individual of the opportunity to enjoy a right that belongs to him as a citizen of a state, even the right of suftrage; but this is a different thing from taking away or impairing the right itself. Under the laws of the federal government, a voter may be sent abroad in the military service of the country, and thus deprived of the privilege of exercising his right; or a voter may be imprisoned for a crime against the United States; but it is a perversion of language, to call this impairing his right of suffrage. Huber v Reilly, 53 Penn. St. Reports 112 (1866) nolu chan  posted on  2014-12-02   1:23:19 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #64. To: misterwhite (#61) Do we also agree that those who could vote were "the people" referenced in Article I, Section 2? No, I still think that is a load of crap. It is very clear that the people of the United States are its C-I-T-I-Z-E-N-S. United States v Quinn, 2nd Cir, 8 Blatchford 48, 57-58. Undoubtedly a person may be a citizen, that is, a member of the community who form the sovereignty, although he exercises no share of the political power and is incapacitated from holding particular offices. Women and minors, who form a part of the political family, cannot vote, and when a property qualification is required to vote or hold a particular office, those who have not the necessary qualification cannot vote or hold the office, yet they are citizens. So, too, a person may be entitled to vote by the law of the State, who is not a citizen even of the State itself. And in some of the States of the Union, foreigners not naturalized are allowed to vote. Wesberry V. Sanders, 376 U.S. 1 (1964) 376 U.S. 1, 7-8, Opinion of the Court We hold that, construed in its historical context, the command of Art. I, 2, that Representatives be chosen "by the People of the several States" 9 means that as [376 U.S. 1, 8] nearly as is practicable one man's vote in a congressional election is to be worth as much as another's. 10 This rule is followed automatically, of course, when Representatives are chosen as a group on a statewide basis, as was a widespread practice in the first 50 years of our Nation's history. 11 Id. at 17-18: In urging the people to adopt the Constitution, Madison said in No. 57 of The Federalist: "Who are to be the electors of the Federal Representatives? Not the rich more than the poor; not the learned more than the ignorant; not the haughty heirs of distinguished names, more than the humble sons of obscure and unpropitious fortune. The electors are to be the great body of the people of the United States. . . . " 47 Huber v Reilly, 53 Penn. St. Reports 112 (1866) It is not to be doubted, that the power to regulate suffrage in a state, and to determine who shall and who shall not be a voter, belongs exclusively to the state itself; the constitution of the United States confers no authority upon congress, to prescribe the qualifications of electors, within the several states that compose the federal union. Congress is, indeed, empowered to make regulations for the time, place and manner of holding elections for senators and representatives, or to alter those made by the legislature of a state (except those in relation to the places of choosing senators), but here its power stops; the right of suffrage at a state election, is a state right, a franchise conferrable only by the state, which congress can neither give nor take away. If, therefore, the act now under consideration is, in truth, an attempt to regulate the right of suffrage in the state, or to prescribe the conditions upon which that right may be exercised, it must be held unwarranted by the constitution. In the exercise of its admitted powers, congress may doubtless deprive an individual of the opportunity to enjoy a right that belongs to him as a citizen of a state, even the right of suftrage; but this is a different thing from taking away or impairing the right itself. Under the laws of the federal government, a voter may be sent abroad in the military service of the country, and thus deprived of the privilege of exercising his right; or a voter may be imprisoned for a crime against the United States; but it is a perversion of language, to call this impairing his right of suffrage. nolu chan  posted on  2014-12-02   1:33:29 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #65. To: nolu chan (#56) "The 19th Amendment does not protect a right. It prohibits the States from discriminating on the basis of sex in laws passed that determine who is a qualified voter." Thereby protecting the right of women to vote. Look. Call it whatever you want. The point is that women couldn't vote before the 19th amendment. Meaning, not all citizens were allowed to vote. Do you agree with that? misterwhite  posted on  2014-12-03   10:16:33 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #66. To: nolu chan (#63) "The people of the United States are its citizens" Article I, Section 2 says "the people" are the voters. In 1792 women didn't vote. How could they belong to "the people"? misterwhite  posted on  2014-12-03   10:22:57 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #67. To: nolu chan (#64) Words mean things. The U.S. Constitution refers to "persons", "citizens", and "the people". THOSE ARE THREE DIFFERENT GROUPS. You're saying they all mean the same thing. You're wrong. misterwhite  posted on  2014-12-03   10:27:37 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #68. To: misterwhite (#65) Look. Call it whatever you want. The point is that women couldn't vote before the 19th amendment. Meaning, not all citizens were allowed to vote. Do you agree with that? As a result of voter qualifications imposed by certain state or local laws, some men and women could not vote because they did not meet said non-federal requirements which had nothing to do with the Constitution or Federal law. It is historical fact that women did, in fact, vote prior to the 19th Amendment. It is historical fact that a woman ran for President, appeared on official ballots, and gained officially recorded votes to be President before the 19th Amendment. Also, it is historical fact that a woman was admitted to practice law before the U.S. Supreme Court, and did so practice law, before the 19th Amendment. nolu chan  posted on  2014-12-03   12:17:08 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #69. To: misterwhite (#67) Words mean things. The U.S. Constitution refers to "persons", "citizens", and "the people". THOSE ARE THREE DIFFERENT GROUPS. You're saying they all mean the same thing. You're wrong. I do not, and have not, said persons, citizens, and the people connote the same thing. Of course, you know that and are just making your best effort to repeat your incessant nonsense sourced to nothing but your vivid imagination. Not all persons are citizens. Most idiots know that. Not all persons are American people. Ditto. Not all voters have been American people. Historically, aliens could vote if state or local laws permitted. Ditto. Not all American people are voters. For example, incarcerated prisoners or freed felons are disenfranchised in multiple states. Ditto. Not all citizens are voters. For example, encarcerated prisoners or freed felons are disenfranchised in multiple states. Ditto. All U.S. citizens are American people. All of them, without exception. Ditto. nolu chan  posted on  2014-12-03   12:18:49 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #70. To: misterwhite (#66) Article I, Section 2 says "the people" are the voters. Article 1, Section 2 only says that in your spider infested mind. You are free to live within your vivid imagination. In 1792 women didn't vote. How could they belong to "the people"? Please provide your proof that women did not vote in 1792? U.S. Supreme Court Wesberry V. Sanders, 376 U.S. 1 (1964) 376 U.S. 1, 7-8, Opinion of the Court We hold that, construed in its historical context, the command of Art. I, 2, that Representatives be chosen "by the People of the several States" 9 means that as [376 U.S. 1, 8] nearly as is practicable one man's vote in a congressional election is to be worth as much as another's. 10 This rule is followed automatically, of course, when Representatives are chosen as a group on a statewide basis, as was a widespread practice in the first 50 years of our Nation's history. 11 376 U.S. 8-9, Opinion of the Court We do not believe that the Framers of the Constitution intended to permit the same vote-diluting discrimination to be accomplished through the device of districts containing widely varied numbers of inhabitants. To say that a vote is worth more in one district than in another would not only run counter to our fundamental ideas of democratic government, it would cast aside the principle of a House of Representatives elected "by the People," a principle tenaciously fought for and established at the Constitutional Convention. The history of the Constitution, particularly that part of it relating to the adoption of Art. I, 2, reveals that those who framed the Constitution [376 U.S. 1, 9] meant that, no matter what the mechanics of an election, whether statewide or by districts, it was population which was to be the basis of the House of Representatives. 376 U.S. 12-14, Opinion of the Court The debates at the Convention make at least one fact abundantly clear: that when the delegates agreed that the House should represent "people" they intended that in allocating Congressmen the number assigned to each State should be determined solely by the number of the State's inhabitants. 30 The Constitution embodied Edmund Randolph's proposal for a periodic census to ensure "fair representation of the people," 31 an idea endorsed by Mason as assuring that "numbers of inhabitants" [376 U.S. 1, 14] should always be the measure of representation in the House of Representatives. 32 It is in the light of such history that we must construe Art. I, 2, of the Constitution, which, carrying out the ideas of Madison and those of like views, provides that Representatives shall be chosen "by the People of the several States" and shall be "apportioned among the several States . . . according to their respective Numbers." It is not surprising that our Court has held that this Article gives persons qualified to vote a constitutional right to vote and to have their votes counted. United States v. Mosley, 238 U.S. 383 ; Ex Parte Yarbrough, 110 U.S. 651 . Not only can this right to vote not be denied outright, it cannot, consistently with Article I, be destroyed by alteration of ballots, see United States v. Classic, 313 U.S. 299 , or diluted by stuffing of the ballot box, see United States v. Saylor, 322 U.S. 385 . No right is more precious in a free country than that of having a voice in the election of those who make the laws under which, as good citizens, we must live. Other rights, even the most basic, are illusory if the right to vote is undermined. Our Constitution leaves no room for classification of people in a way that unnecessarily abridges [376 U.S. 1, 18] this right. In urging the people to adopt the Constitution, Madison said in No. 57 of The Federalist: "Who are to be the electors of the Federal Representatives? Not the rich more than the poor; not the learned more than the ignorant; not the haughty heirs of distinguished names, more than the humble sons of obscure and unpropitious fortune. The electors are to be the great body of the people of the United States. . . . " 47 Readers surely could have fairly taken this to mean, "one person, one vote." Cf. Gary v. Sanders, 372 U.S. 368, 381. nolu chan  posted on  2014-12-03   12:21:35 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #71. To: nolu chan (#70) "Article 1, Section 2 only says that in your spider infested mind." Article I, Section 2: The House of Representatives shall be composed of members chosen every second year by the people of the several states ... NOTE: It does not say "chosen every second year by all persons of the several states ..." Nor does it say "chosen every second year by the citizens of the several states ..." The Founders could have written that, but they chose not to. They wrote "the people" -- citizens with full rights. And that did NOT include women and children. Meaning, in 1792, "the people" did not include all citizens. Agreed? misterwhite  posted on  2014-12-03   15:00:30 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #72. To: misterwhite (#71) The Founders could have written that, but they chose not to. They wrote "the people" -- citizens with full rights. You exhibit a profound grasp of the absurd, and the ability to repeat it endlessly. There is no such thing as citizens with less than full rights. Gardina v. Board of Registrars, 160 Ala. 155 (1909) At 159: The power to determine who are qualified electors and who are entitled to exercise the elective franchise is left to the several states. The federal Constitution does not prescribe the regulations as to this matter, except that the electors for Representatives in Congress shall have the qualifications reuisite for electors of the most numerous branch of the state legislature, and also the fifteenth amendment, which forbids the state from denying any citizen the right to vote on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude. The exercise of elective franchise is a privilege, and not a right. The state may grant or deny the right. Aliens are denied the right. The fifteenth amendment does not deny the state the right to forbid any person from voting, but only provides that he shall not be excluded on account of his race, color, or previous condition of servitude. Minors and women may be and are usually excluded from the right to vote, and also those who have been convicted of infamous crimes, also idiots and lunatics, also non-residents of the state, county or municipality, etc., in which the election is to be held; but these are not the only qualifications that the states may require. They may require any qualifications, or exclude any person or class of persons, unless the federal Constitution or the state Constitution forbids it. The state may provide registration laws, and require that citizens conform thereto before they are entitled to vote. At 162: There are, then, under our republican form of government, two classes of citizens, one of the United States and one of the state. One class of citizenship may exist in a person, without the other, as in the case of a resident of the District of Columbia; but both classes usually exist in the same person. nolu chan  posted on  2014-12-03   18:30:26 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #73. To: misterwhite (#71) Meaning, in 1792, "the people" did not include all citizens. Agreed? I agree that you exhibit a profound grasp of the absurd, and the ability to repeat it endlessly. Do you get this crap from some Jedi? Since there has been a United States, and there have been a people of the United States, the C-I-T-I-Z-E-N-S of the United States have been the people of the United States. That would be before, during, and at all times since 1792. http://www.law.cornell.edu/anncon/html/art1frag14_user.html#art1_sec2 [Footnotes omitted] CRS Annotated Constitution ARTICLE I LEGISLATIVE DEPARTMENT Section 2. Clause 1. The House of Representatives shall be composed of Members chosen every second Year by the People of the several States, and the Electors in each State shall have the Qualifications requisite for Electors of the most numerous Branch of the State Legislature. CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICTING A major innovation in constitutional law in recent years has been the development of a requirement that election districts in each State be so structured that each elected representative should represent substantially equal populations. While this requirement has generally been gleaned from the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, in Wesberry v. Sanders, the Court held that “construed in its historical context, the command of Art. 1, Sec. 2, that Representatives be chosen ‘by the People of the several States’ means that as nearly as is practicable one man’s vote in a congressional election is to be worth as much as another’s.” James Madison to Edward Everett Montpelier, August 28, 1830. DEAR SIR, — [EXTRACT] From these it will be seen, that the characteristic peculiarities of the Constitution are, 1, the mode of its formation; 2, the division of the supreme powers of government between the states in their united capacity, and the states in their individual capacities. 1. It was formed, not by the governments of the component states, as the federal government for which it was substituted was formed. Nor was it formed by a majority of the people of the United States, as a single community, in the manner of a consolidated government. It was formed by the states, that is, by the people in each of the states, acting in their highest sovereign capacity; and formed consequently by the same authority which formed the state constitutions. Constitution, Article VII The ratification of the conventions of nine states, shall be sufficient for the establishment of this Constitution between the states so ratifying the same. The Constitution formed a union of STATES which ratified it. States are political communities comprised of the people of the state. nolu chan  posted on  2014-12-03   18:31:35 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #74. To: nolu chan (#72) "There is no such thing as citizens with less than full rights." A child is a citizen but doesn't have full rights. Correct? And back in 1792, only white, male citizens with property had full rights. They were called freeholders and were "the people". misterwhite  posted on  2014-12-04   16:47:17 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #75. To: nolu chan (#73) "Since there has been a United States, and there have been a people of the United States, the C-I-T-I-Z-E-N-S of the United States have been the people of the United States." Not "people". Not "a people". Nowhere does the U.S. Constitution refer to "people" or "a people". Always "the people". You have absolutely no idea what you're talking about. misterwhite  posted on  2014-12-04   16:58:38 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #76. To: misterwhite (#74) A child is a citizen but doesn't have full rights. Correct? No. Your concept is just plain stupid. For example, a one year old has the same right of free speech as an adult. A typical one year old might exhibit your same difficulty with expressing his right in a coherent manner. The right, nevertheless, exists. At what age do you think a child is magically endowed with the right to free speech? nolu chan  posted on  2014-12-04   18:11:48 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #77. To: misterwhite (#75) Not "people". Not "a people". Nowhere does the U.S. Constitution refer to "people" or "a people". Always "the people". You have absolutely no idea what you're talking about. You have no idea what you are talking about. Provide a source to support your wingnut nonsense. The following addresses The Preamble and The People. Abel Upshur, A Brief Enquiry, 1840 A Brief Enquiry into the True Nature and Character of Our Federal Government: Being a Review of Judge Story’s Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States, by Abel Upshur, Petersburg, Va, 1840. [50] ... The opinion, that the constitution was formed by “the people of the United States,” as contradistinguished from the people of the several states, that is, as contradistinguished from the states as such, is founded exclusively on the particular terms of the preamble. The language is, “We, the people of the United States, do ordain and establish this constitution for the United States of America.” “The people do ordain and establish, not contract and stipulate with each other. The people of the United States, not the distinct people of a particular state, with the people of the other states.” In thus relying on the language of the preamble, the author rejects the lights of history altogether. I will endeavor in the first place to meet him on his own ground. It is an admitted rule, that the preamble of a statute may be resorted to in the construction of it; and it may, of course, be used to the same extent in the construction of a constitution, which is a supreme Law. But the only purpose for which it can be used is to aid in the discovery of the true object and intention of the law, where these [51] would otherwise be doubtful. The preamble can, in no case, be al· lowed to contradict the law, or to vary the meaning of its plain language. Still less can it be used to change the true character of the law-making power. If the preamble of the Constitution had declared that it was made by the people of France or England, it might, indeed, have been received as evidence of that fact, in the absence of all proof to the contrary; but surely it would not be so received against the plain testimony of the instrument itself, and the authentic history of the transaction. If the convention which formed the Constitution was not, in point of fact, a convention of the people of the United States, it had no right to give itself that title; nor had it any right to act in that character, if it was appointed by a different power. And if the Constitution, when formed, was adopted by the several states, acting through their separate conventions, it is historically untrue that it was adopted by the aggregate people of the United States. The preamble, therefore, is of no sort of value in settling this question; and it is matter of just surprise that it should be so often referred to, and so pertinaciously relied on, for that purpose. History alone can settle all difficulties upon this subject. The history of the preamble itself ought to have convinced our author, that the inference which he draws from it could not be allowed. On the 6th of August, 1787, the committee appointed for that purpose reported the first draft of a constitution. The preamble was in these words: “We, the people of the States of New Hampshire, Massachusetts, Rhode Island and Providence Plantations, Connecticut, New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina and Georgia, do ordain, declare and establish the following constitution, for the government of ourselves and our posterity:” (1 Elliott’s Debates, 255.) On the very next day this preamble was unanimously adopted; and the reader will at once perceive, that it carefully preserves the distinct sovereignty of the states, and discountenances all idea of consolidation. (Ib. 263.) The draft of the constitution thus submitted was discussed, and various alterations and amendments adopted, (but without any change in the preamble,) until the 8th of September, 1787, when the following resolution was passed: “It was moved and seconded to appoint a committee of five, to revise the style of, and arrange the articles agreed to, by the house; which passed in the affirmative.” (Ib. 324.) It is manifest that this committee had no power to change the meaning of any thing which had been adopted, but were authorized merely to “revise the style,” and arrange the matter in proper order. On the 12th of the same [52] month they made their report. The preamble, as they reported it, is in the following words: “We, the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, to establish justice, insure domestic tranquillity, 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.” (Ib. 326.) It does not appear that any attempt was made to change this phraseology in any material point, or to reinstate the original. The presumption is, therefore, that the two were considered as substantially the same, particularly as the committee had no authority to make any change, except in the style. The difference in the mere phraseology of the two was certainly not overlooked; for on the 13th September, 1787, “it was moved and seconded to proceed to the comparing of the report from the committee of revision, with the articles which were agreed to by the house, and to them referred for arrangement; which passed in the affirmative. And the same was read by paragraphs, compared, and, in some places, corrected and amended.” (Ib. 338.) In what particulars these corrections and amendments were made, we are not very distinctly informed. The only change which was made in the preamble was by striking out the word “to,” before the words “establish justice;” and the probability is, that no other change was made in any of the articles, except such as would make “the report of the committee of revision” “correspond with the articles agreed to by the house.” The inference, therefore, is irresistible, that the convention considered the preamble reported by the committee of revision, as substantially corresponding with the original draft, as unanimously “agreed to by the house.” There is, however, another and a perfectly conclusive reason for the change of phraseology, from the states by name, to the more general expression “the United States;” and this, too, without supposing that it was intended thereby to convey a different idea as to the parties to the constitution. The revised draft contained a proviso, that the constitution should go into operation when adopted and ratified by nine states. It was, of course, uncertain whether more than nine would adopt it, or not; and if they should not, it would be altogether improper to name them as parties to that instrument. As to one of them, Rhode Island, she was not even represented in the convention, and, consequently, the others had no sort of right to insert her as a party. Hence it became necessary to adopt a form of expression which would apply to those who should ratify the constitution, and [53] not to those who should refuse to do so. The expression actually adopted answers that purpose fully. It means simply, “We, the people of those states who have united for that purpose, do ordain,” &c. This construction corresponds with the historical fact, and reconciles the language employed with the circumstances of the case. Indeed, similar language was not unusual, through the whole course of the revolution. “The people of his majesty’s colonies,” “the people of the united colonies,” “the people of the United States,” are forms of expression which frequently occur, without intending to convey any other idea than that of the people of the several colonies or states. nolu chan  posted on  2014-12-04   18:12:14 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #78. To: misterwhite (#74) And back in 1792, only white, male citizens with property had full rights. They were called freeholders and were "the people". That is ahistorical nonsense. New Jersey Constitution of 1776 (in effect in 1792 and until 1844) IV. That all inhabitants of this Colony, of full age, who are worth fifty pounds proclamation money, clear estate in the same, and have resided within the county in which they claim a vote for twelve months immediately preceding the election, shall be entitled to vote for Representatives in Council and Assembly; and also for all other public officers, that shall be elected by the people of the county at large. Any inhabitant of full age with fifty pounds proclamation money, resident twelve months, had the right to vote per the state constitution. As noted previously, women voted there for over thirty years, including before, during, and after 1792. It had absolutely nothing to do with the Federal constitution or Federal law. Voting rights were a state matter, left to the states to regulate. It is an absurdity to maintain that the Federal government determined who was part of the people of the United States based on conflicting State voting regulations. nolu chan  posted on  2014-12-04   18:42:51 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #79. To: nolu chan (#78) "Voting rights were a state matter, left to the states to regulate." Correct. "It is an absurdity to maintain that the Federal government determined who was part of the people of the United States based on conflicting State voting regulations." Who said that? I said the U.S. Constitution held that only "the people" were allowed to vote. Whoever the state allowed were "the people". With rare exceptions made by one or two states, "the people" were white, male citizens with property -- the point being, not all citizens were "the people". misterwhite  posted on  2014-12-04   20:24:14 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply         .       .       . Comments (80 - 99) not displayed. Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest

[Home]  [Headlines]  [Latest Articles]  [Latest Comments]  [Post]  [Mail]  [Sign-in]  [Setup]  [Help]  [Register]  Please report web page problems, questions and comments to webmaster@libertysflame.com