Print this story | E-mail story | This story has 5 comments Add your own | iPod friendly
photo by Amy Gordon
Congressman Artur Davis (D-Ala.) spoke at Thursday's Jefferson State Community College forum on constitutional issues. Davis answered questions on such topics as freedom of religion, search and seizure and the right to bear arms.
Forum provides new perspectives on old issues
Published Thursday, September 4, 2008
HOOVER — The United States is a nation still trying to find its identity, said U.S. Rep Artur Davis (D-Ala.) at the Jefferson State Community College constitutional forum Thursday.
“We are in the business right now of trying to decide just what kind of country we want to be,” he said. “We still argue today, in 2008, over what exactly the Constitution means.”
The forum was Jeff State’s yearly Constitution Day event. The forum was originally intended to be a presidential election debate between representatives of both political parties, but the Republican representative had to drop out because of the Republican National Convention.
Video
Congressman Artur Davis (D-Ala.) speaks about how the United States has been dealing with constitutional issues ever since the document was written. Davis was at the Jefferson State Community College Shelby campus yesterday to answer questions about the constitution. Watch »
Instead, Davis answered student questions about constitutional issues.
When asked about why the United States uses the electoral college instead of the popular vote to choose presidents, Davis explained that if presidents were elected by popular vote, it could result in smaller states being ignored.
“To get to 270 electoral votes, you have to have a combination of states, some big and some small,” he said. “So candidates go to those small states. If I was planning an election based on the popular vote, I’d send Obama to New York and California.”
Because candidates must win the electoral college, it forces them to focus on all states, not just the ones with the most population.
“I like the concept of small states being able to make a difference,” Davis said.
In response to a question about freedom of religion, Davis spoke about the founders’ desire to keep church and state separated.
“The first amendment says the government shall not establish a religion. It says there shall be free exercise of religion,” he said. “We have so many different religions today that the idea of having one state religion is unfathomable.”
Davis referenced Roy Moore, the former Alabama Chief Justice who unsuccessfully tried to have a monument of the Ten Commandments installed at the state judicial building.
He said if Moore had been successful, non-Christians couldn’t have counted on being treated fairly.
“We probably should be bothered by anything that suggests that nonbelievers will be treated differently,” Davis said.
Davis also discussed the second amendment, which gives the right to bear arms, and the fourth amendment, which deals with illegal search and seizure.
After the forum was over, forum organizer Zac Alexander said he was excited about the turnout, which had 150 people at the Shelby campus and 150 people at the Jefferson County campus watching a live video broadcast of the forum.
“We’ve had this event for four years, and we’ve had a variety of speakers,” Alexander said. “It’s always good to have a big turn out.”
Alexander said he enjoyed hearing Davis speak about freedom of religion and the history of the Constitution.
Sheldon Prinsloo, president of the Jeff State honor society, said he was impressed with how well Davis spoke.
“I thought he answered the questions very well,” Prinsloo said. “He spoke his mind and was very solid in what he was saying.”
Comments
Posted by dougscho (anonymous) on September 5, 2008 at 7:11 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Mr. Davis needs to leave elected office and return to the 8th grade to learn about the identity of America. The only people who argue over the meaning of the constitution are those who have no respect for it and wish to construe it to fit their liberal doctrine. Be assured, the founding fathers knew very well what they were doing, and the identiy of the nation for which they pledged their lives, their fortunes and their sacred honor.
The phrase 'separation of church and state' is nowhere in the Constitution! The principle that Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of religion has been trashed by those who wanted prayer removed from schools, etc.
A quick look at the history books reveals that the founding fathers were themselves Christians, and they established this nation on Christian principles with that intent.
Posted by mvymvy (anonymous) on September 5, 2008 at 1:59 p.m. (Suggest removal)
In fact, the small states are the most disadvantaged of all under the current system of electing the President. Political clout comes from being a closely divided battleground state, not the two-vote bonus.
Small states are almost invariably non-competitive in presidential election. Only 1 of the 13 smallest states are battleground states (and only 5 of the 25 smallest states are battlegrounds).
Of the 13 smallest states, Idaho, Montana, Wyoming, North Dakota, South Dakota, and Alaska regularly vote Republican, and Rhode Island, Delaware, Hawaii, Vermont, Maine, and DC regularly vote Democratic. These 12 states together contain 11 million people. Because of the two electoral-vote bonus that each state receives, the 12 non-competitive small states have 40 electoral votes. However, the two-vote bonus is an entirely illusory advantage to the small states. Ohio has 11 million people and has "only" 20 electoral votes. As we all know, the 11 million people in Ohio are the center of attention in presidential campaigns, while the 11 million people in the 12 non-competitive small states are utterly irrelevant. Nationwide election of the President would make each of the voters in the 12 smallest states as important as an Ohio voter.
The fact that the bonus of two electoral votes is an illusory benefit to the small states has been widely recognized by the small states for some time. In 1966, Delaware led a group of 12 predominantly low-population states (North Dakota, South Dakota, Wyoming, Utah, Arkansas, Kansas, Oklahoma, Iowa, Kentucky, Florida, Pennsylvania) in suing New York in the U.S. Supreme Court, arguing that New York's use of the winner-take-all effectively disenfranchised voters in their states. The Court declined to hear the case (presumably because of the well-established constitutional provision that the manner of awarding electoral votes is exclusively a state decision). Ironically, defendant New York is no longer a battleground state (as it was in the 1960s) and today suffers the very same disenfranchisement as the 12 non-competitive low-population states. A vote in New York is, today, equal to a vote in Wyoming—both are equally worthless and irrelevant in presidential elections.
Posted by mvymvy (anonymous) on September 5, 2008 at 2 p.m. (Suggest removal)
The major shortcoming of the current system of electing the President is that presidential candidates concentrate their attention on a handful of closely divided "battleground" states. In 2004 two-thirds of the visits and money were focused in just six states; 88% on 9 states, and 99% of the money went to just 16 states. Two-thirds of the states and people were merely spectators to the presidential election. Candidates have no reason to poll, visit, advertise, organize, campaign, or worry about the voter concerns in states where they are safely ahead or hopelessly behind. The reason for this is the winner-take-all rule under which all of a state's electoral votes are awarded to the candidate who gets the most votes in each separate state.
Another shortcoming of the current system is that a candidate can win the Presidency without winning the most popular votes nationwide.
The National Popular Vote bill would guarantee the Presidency to the candidate who receives the most popular votes in all 50 states (and DC).
Every vote would be politically relevant and equal in a presidential election.
The bill would take effect only when enacted, in identical form, by states possessing a majority of the electoral votes—that is, enough electoral votes to elect a President (270 of 538). When the bill comes into effect, all the electoral votes from those states would be awarded to the presidential candidate who receives the most popular votes in all 50 states (and DC).
The National Popular Vote bill has passed 21 state legislative chambers, including one house in Arkansas, Colorado, Maine, North Carolina, and Washington, and both houses in California, Hawaii, Illinois, New Jersey, Maryland, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, and Vermont. The bill has been enacted by Hawaii, Illinois, New Jersey, and Maryland. These four states possess 50 electoral votes — 19% of the 270 necessary to bring the law into effect.
See http://www.NationalPopularVote.com
susan
Posted by officerresourcecom (anonymous) on September 6, 2008 at 12:55 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Better they concentrate on battle ground states rather than on major population centers ie big cities. Rely on the popular vote and that is just what you would get. This country is not nor was it ever intended to be a true democracy, and for good reason. The founding fathers knew the downside of mob rule. That is what democracy is. The Tyranny of the Majority, or in simpler terms two wolves and a sheep voting on what is for dinner.
"... the term "democrat" originated as an epithet and referred to 'one who
panders to the crude and mindless whims of the masses.'" Joseph J. Ellis Founding Brothers, The Revolutionary Generation
Posted by publius (anonymous) on September 10, 2008 at 3:37 p.m. (Suggest removal)
With regards to the "separation of church and state" comment, Supreme Court Justice Hugo Black (an Alabama native who favored a "strict constructionist" interpretation of the Constitution) summed up the argument best in Engel v. Vitale when he wrote: "Religion is too personal, too sacred, too holy, to permit its 'unhallowed perversion' by a civil magistrate." Why would I trust my faith to a government that ruins everything else it touches? With regards to the proposed history lesson, Justice Black said: "It is a matter of history that this very practice of establishing governmentally-composed prayers for religious services was one of the reasons which caused many of our early colonists to leave England and seek religious freedom in America." George Washington did not insist every American worship at an Anglican Church, and George W. cannot insist that everyone become a Methodist (he probably needs a map to find Crawford First United Methodist himself). If he could, that would mean Nancy Pelosi could make us all worship at the alter of Chuck E. Cheese were she to become president. We would be wise to consider how much power we entrust to government; our team might not always be in charge...
Post a comment (Terms of Use Policy)
(Requires free registration.)