In the aftermath of the recent Supreme Court decisions, many in the liberty movement have come to a vexing realization – the fact that most people have no problem with edicts, as long as they find favor with the edict in question. However, this type of governance is exactly what Americans are asking for when they allow five unelected political appointees to place binding mandates upon 320 million people.
According to Jefferson, each individual state, as parties to the compact of the Constitution, had an independent ability to judge each law’s constitutionality. He wrote that the Constitution “is a compact of many independent powers, every single one of which claims an equal right to understand it and to require its observance.”
The modern presidency has assumed a higher level of authority than was imagined during the construction of the Constitution and ratification debates. As a result, the modern executive has more power than an 18th century king.
The aims of the nationalists largely lost out, and the extent to which the Constitution gave the federal government a huge amount of national power has been exaggerated by many historians. In actuality, the compromises made caused the most ardent nationalists to complain about the finalized result in the months after it was written.
Most modern historians have rated Pierce very poorly, pontificating that the President was a “do-nothing” that sat by and watched a divisive population grow even more divided. To the contrary, Pierce respected the Constitution as ratified and not as it was muddled by federal judges and legal precedents.
It has been suggested that this system would not eradicate the Electoral College at all, since the states have this power according to Article I. However, the paramount goal of those who advocate this system is to replace the Electoral College entirely, and for each state to adopt this approach. In doing so, it is effectively a “backdoor” way of amending the Constitution to eliminate the Electoral College entirely.
