It might help you to know that the reason (until recently) that I seriously doubted the wisdom of saying we have or we should want a democracy is that I didn’t know what democracy actually meant to anyone who advocated it. I looked for answers in all the wrong places. I looked for answers from people who used the word “democracy” and tried to understand what they meant.
I’ve had a change of heart, and I think I like what I think the concept of constitutional democracy means. I stopped looking for the meaning of the word “democracy.” Instead, I re-considered the writing of James Wilson and James Madison that shed light on the meaning of the sovereignty of the people. See, e.g., my comments re: “A Bear in a Trap, Part 2” and “Renovating Democracy.” Does constitutional democracy mean to you what the sovereignty of the people under our Constitution means?
I’m not implying or suggesting that “the people” means what it meant in 1787. Far from it. I see “the people” as Montesquieu saw us. “In a democracy the people are in some respects the sovereign, and in others [the people are] the subject,” i.e., of the laws they create. Montesquieu emphasized that the “exercise of sovereignty” in a democracy is by citizens “by their suffrages.” Suffrage clearly is the quintessential speech of sovereigns.
The sovereign people of America are the citizens with the right to vote. Our Constitution Amendment XIV expressly identifies “citizens of the United States” as “All persons born or naturalized in the United States.”
The Preamble introduced the first generation of sovereigns, i.e., “We the People” who voted for the delegates to state conventions that ratified our Constitution and the Bill of Rights. Justice Wilson in 1793 in Chisholm v. Georgia emphasized that the first and foremost separation of powers in our Constitution is between the sovereign people and our public servants: “The PEOPLE of the United States” are “the first personages introduced” by our Constitution. “To the Constitution of the United States the term SOVEREIGN, is totally unknown,” but there is only “one place where it could have been used with propriety.” Only “those, who ordained and established that Constitution” could “have announced themselves ‘SOVEREIGN’ people of the United States.”
The second generation of sovereign people included (at least) citizens protected by Section 2 of Amendment XIV (all “male inhabitants of [each] State, being twenty-one years of age”) and Amendment XV (outlawing discrimination regarding citizens’ right to vote “on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude”).
The second generation also necessarily included female citizens. Amendment XIV clearly established that “All persons born or naturalized in the United States” are “citizens of the United States,” and that obviously included women. “No State” thereafter had any power to “make or enforce any law” that “abridge[d any] privileges or immunities of [female] citizens of the United States.” “No State” had any power to “deprive any [female] person” (citizen or not) “of life” or any “liberty” or any “property” until after affording them all “process of law” that is “due.” “No State” had any power to “deny to any [female] person” (citizen or not) “the equal protection of the laws.”
The third generation especially clearly included citizens protected by Amendment XIX (outlawing discrimination regarding citizens’ right to vote “on account of sex”). The fourth generation included citizens protected by Amendment XXIV (outlawing discrimination regarding citizens’ right to vote on account of wealth (ability “to pay any [ ] tax”). The fifth generation included citizens protected by Amendment XXVI (outlawing discrimination regarding citizens’ right to vote against people “eighteen years of age or older . . . on account of age”).
But the greater democratic significance of Amendments XIV, XV, XIX XXVI outlawing discrimination on account of certain characteristics regarding the right to vote is that they each establish a right: the right not to be subjected to any discrimination on account of such characteristics. They also finally made the sovereign people the same as the people.
Thank you for distinguishing between constitutionalism and the rule of law. It seems to me that far too many people far too commonly vaguely allude to "the rule of law" when they are talking about what our Constitution prohibits, permits or requires regarding our public servants. Among many, allusions to the rule of law seem to have become a substitute for knowledge or thought about what our Constitution actually says or means.
https://www.files.ethz.ch/isn/146210/TFR68_Education_National_Security.pdf
It might help you to know that the reason (until recently) that I seriously doubted the wisdom of saying we have or we should want a democracy is that I didn’t know what democracy actually meant to anyone who advocated it. I looked for answers in all the wrong places. I looked for answers from people who used the word “democracy” and tried to understand what they meant.
I’ve had a change of heart, and I think I like what I think the concept of constitutional democracy means. I stopped looking for the meaning of the word “democracy.” Instead, I re-considered the writing of James Wilson and James Madison that shed light on the meaning of the sovereignty of the people. See, e.g., my comments re: “A Bear in a Trap, Part 2” and “Renovating Democracy.” Does constitutional democracy mean to you what the sovereignty of the people under our Constitution means?
I’m not implying or suggesting that “the people” means what it meant in 1787. Far from it. I see “the people” as Montesquieu saw us. “In a democracy the people are in some respects the sovereign, and in others [the people are] the subject,” i.e., of the laws they create. Montesquieu emphasized that the “exercise of sovereignty” in a democracy is by citizens “by their suffrages.” Suffrage clearly is the quintessential speech of sovereigns.
The sovereign people of America are the citizens with the right to vote. Our Constitution Amendment XIV expressly identifies “citizens of the United States” as “All persons born or naturalized in the United States.”
The Preamble introduced the first generation of sovereigns, i.e., “We the People” who voted for the delegates to state conventions that ratified our Constitution and the Bill of Rights. Justice Wilson in 1793 in Chisholm v. Georgia emphasized that the first and foremost separation of powers in our Constitution is between the sovereign people and our public servants: “The PEOPLE of the United States” are “the first personages introduced” by our Constitution. “To the Constitution of the United States the term SOVEREIGN, is totally unknown,” but there is only “one place where it could have been used with propriety.” Only “those, who ordained and established that Constitution” could “have announced themselves ‘SOVEREIGN’ people of the United States.”
The second generation of sovereign people included (at least) citizens protected by Section 2 of Amendment XIV (all “male inhabitants of [each] State, being twenty-one years of age”) and Amendment XV (outlawing discrimination regarding citizens’ right to vote “on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude”).
The second generation also necessarily included female citizens. Amendment XIV clearly established that “All persons born or naturalized in the United States” are “citizens of the United States,” and that obviously included women. “No State” thereafter had any power to “make or enforce any law” that “abridge[d any] privileges or immunities of [female] citizens of the United States.” “No State” had any power to “deprive any [female] person” (citizen or not) “of life” or any “liberty” or any “property” until after affording them all “process of law” that is “due.” “No State” had any power to “deny to any [female] person” (citizen or not) “the equal protection of the laws.”
The third generation especially clearly included citizens protected by Amendment XIX (outlawing discrimination regarding citizens’ right to vote “on account of sex”). The fourth generation included citizens protected by Amendment XXIV (outlawing discrimination regarding citizens’ right to vote on account of wealth (ability “to pay any [ ] tax”). The fifth generation included citizens protected by Amendment XXVI (outlawing discrimination regarding citizens’ right to vote against people “eighteen years of age or older . . . on account of age”).
But the greater democratic significance of Amendments XIV, XV, XIX XXVI outlawing discrimination on account of certain characteristics regarding the right to vote is that they each establish a right: the right not to be subjected to any discrimination on account of such characteristics. They also finally made the sovereign people the same as the people.
Thank you for distinguishing between constitutionalism and the rule of law. It seems to me that far too many people far too commonly vaguely allude to "the rule of law" when they are talking about what our Constitution prohibits, permits or requires regarding our public servants. Among many, allusions to the rule of law seem to have become a substitute for knowledge or thought about what our Constitution actually says or means.