Talk:Popular sovereignty in the United States

Text from main article on popular sovereignty

I'm copying the following text that was the second paragraph in the main article on popular sovereignty here, because it applies exclusively to the American case, and it may be useful to incorporate it into this article. Please note that the extensive additional information in the footnotes, if kept, should be incorporated into the main text. – SJL 04:50, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Copied text

James Wilson discussed this concept as a delegate in Pennsylvania's ratifying convention for the Federal Constitution in 1787. He noted that in America sovereignty "resides in the PEOPLE, as the fountain of government" and that "the supreme, absolute, and uncontrollable power remains in the people." ^[1] Six years later Chief Justice John Jay referred to the same idea in Chisholm v.Georgia, 2 U.S. 419 at 471 (1793) when he observed that after the revolution in America, "sovereignty devolved on the people," who "truly" became "the sovereigns of the country." ^[2]

Notes in copied text

^ Merrill Jensen, ed., Documentary History of the Ratification of the Constitution (21 vols., 1976-- ), II:472, 361, Dec. 4, 1787, Nov. 24, 1787
^ One source suggests that Benjamin Franklin also expressed the concept of popular sovereignty in "writing" that "In free governments the rulers are the servants and the people their superiors and sovereigns." "Thomas Jefferson Digital Archive" Except for this reference, however, no other source refers to the Franklin statement as 1) something that he wrote and 2) as his view of popular sovereignty. The exact quote of Franklin's statement does not come from something he "wrote." Rather it was a paraphrase by James Madison of something Franklin said during the Federal Constitutional Convention on July 26, 1787. In James Madison's Journal of the Federal Convention the entry for July 26, 1787 at page 436 reports George Mason of Virginia summarizing the various ways in which the delegates had considered the tenure of the office of a U.S. President. Mason argued that the President's term of office should "be ... for seven years, and [the President would] be ineligible a second time.” Franklin then spoke in favor of term limits as follows:
"It seems to have been imagined by some, that in returning to the mass of the people was degrading to the magistrate. This he thought was contrary to republican principles. In free governments the rulers are the servants, and the people their superiors and sovereigns. For the former, therefore, to return among the latter, was not to degrade, but to promote, them. And it would be imposing an unreasonable burden on them to keep them always in a state of servitude, and not allow them to become again one of the masters."
(emphasis added)
The only authority tying the Franklin statement to his view of popular sovereignty is a website focusing on the writings of Thomas Jefferson (not Franklin). It is clear that Franklin did not "write" the statement, but that it was a paraphrase by James Madison during the federal constitutional convention. Franklin's statement expressed support for term limits in the office of U.S. President. The sentiments in the statement are consistent with popular sovereignty, but it hardly establishes Franklin's view of the doctrine of popular sovereignty. Actually, the Franklin statement may owe more to James Madison than Franklin. Madison, who paraphrased Franklin in his convention notes, was a strong proponent of popular sovereignty.
The reference to James Madison's Journal of the Federal Convention linked to above presents the web-accessible version of Journal of the Federal Convention Kept By James Madison: Reprinted from the edition of 1840, which was published under the direction of the United States Government from the Original Manuscripts (Volume II, Edited by E.H. Scott, Chicago: Albert, Scott & Co. 1893. The more authoritative account of Madison's Journal is found in Notes of Debates in the Federal Convention of 1787 Reported by James Madison (Ed. and with introduction by Adrienne Koch, W.W. Norton & Co., 1969), at p. 372. While the account of Franklin's statement is slightly different than in the 1893 Scott version, the differences are minor and do not effect the interpretation that the quoted statement falls short of establishing Franklin's view of the doctrine of popular sovereignty. According to the Koch version, published in 1969 (and not available online), Madison recorded Franklin as saying:

"It seems to have been imagined by some that the returning to the mass of the people was degrading the magistrate. This he thought was contrary to republican principles. In free Governments the rulers are the servants, and the people their superiors & sovereigns. For the former therefore to return among the latter was not to degrade but to promote them. And it would be imposing an unreasonable burden on them, to keep them always in a State of servitude, and not allow them to become again one of the Masters."

x.lgkjyA"Dgha'tyjweio'rfujasl;d fguasl;dkgja'soitya;woeihfa;slkfa;sldkfha;skdtgha;sdh a;skjdfh a;skfha;sefhawepiof a;sodfh a;skeifh a;weiof ha;oifhao;sihef;aosuidrh;aothe;aksjfha;iwuetha;weha;osi fha;ish a;soe af;skh fa;s rhefseo yhf asl;hdfpqawue fao's fha;woue fa;sk fna;wo trha;woeiqoqtrpweioeryqpwioe r;qwoy r2-39 5243o; r;asoei fy3-9p5'j2`-] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.226.88.73 (talk) 16:53, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Change made 10-18-2008

SJL noted that material in the footnotes to this entry might be added into the text of the main article. I will see how this can be done, but with the current edit simply wanted to place subsection headings in the previous text. I also restored the explanation of the 18th century concept of the people's sovereignty by deleting substitution of "citizen" for the term people. However, the conclusion of the editor who inserted the word "citizen" in an earlier edit had merit and I think I accommodated the editor's concern by adding a new sentence to explain that in the theory of people's sovereignty in the 18th century, only certain groups of individuals were considered to be part of the "people." Rushlite (talk) 18:20, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wall of Text

Considering that this is a fairly unedited article, it may be advisable to divide the main points so that researchers can quickly find what they need. 98.170.234.249 (talk) 07:32, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

[1] Merrill Jensen, ed., Documentary History of the Ratification of the Constitution (21 vols., 1976-- ), II:472, 361, Dec. 4, 1787, Nov. 24, 1787

[2] One source suggests that Benjamin Franklin also expressed the concept of popular sovereignty in "writing" that "In free governments the rulers are the servants and the people their superiors and sovereigns." "Thomas Jefferson Digital Archive" Except for this reference, however, no other source refers to the Franklin statement as 1) something that he wrote and 2) as his view of popular sovereignty. The exact quote of Franklin's statement does not come from something he "wrote." Rather it was a paraphrase by James Madison of something Franklin said during the Federal Constitutional Convention on July 26, 1787. In James Madison's Journal of the Federal Convention the entry for July 26, 1787 at page 436 reports George Mason of Virginia summarizing the various ways in which the delegates had considered the tenure of the office of a U.S. President. Mason argued that the President's term of office should "be ... for seven years, and [the President would] be ineligible a second time.” Franklin then spoke in favor of term limits as follows:
"It seems to have been imagined by some, that in returning to the mass of the people was degrading to the magistrate. This he thought was contrary to republican principles. In free governments the rulers are the servants, and the people their superiors and sovereigns. For the former, therefore, to return among the latter, was not to degrade, but to promote, them. And it would be imposing an unreasonable burden on them to keep them always in a state of servitude, and not allow them to become again one of the masters."
(emphasis added)
The only authority tying the Franklin statement to his view of popular sovereignty is a website focusing on the writings of Thomas Jefferson (not Franklin). It is clear that Franklin did not "write" the statement, but that it was a paraphrase by James Madison during the federal constitutional convention. Franklin's statement expressed support for term limits in the office of U.S. President. The sentiments in the statement are consistent with popular sovereignty, but it hardly establishes Franklin's view of the doctrine of popular sovereignty. Actually, the Franklin statement may owe more to James Madison than Franklin. Madison, who paraphrased Franklin in his convention notes, was a strong proponent of popular sovereignty.
The reference to James Madison's Journal of the Federal Convention linked to above presents the web-accessible version of Journal of the Federal Convention Kept By James Madison: Reprinted from the edition of 1840, which was published under the direction of the United States Government from the Original Manuscripts (Volume II, Edited by E.H. Scott, Chicago: Albert, Scott & Co. 1893. The more authoritative account of Madison's Journal is found in Notes of Debates in the Federal Convention of 1787 Reported by James Madison (Ed. and with introduction by Adrienne Koch, W.W. Norton & Co., 1969), at p. 372. While the account of Franklin's statement is slightly different than in the 1893 Scott version, the differences are minor and do not effect the interpretation that the quoted statement falls short of establishing Franklin's view of the doctrine of popular sovereignty. According to the Koch version, published in 1969 (and not available online), Madison recorded Franklin as saying:

"It seems to have been imagined by some that the returning to the mass of the people was degrading the magistrate. This he thought was contrary to republican principles. In free Governments the rulers are the servants, and the people their superiors & sovereigns. For the former therefore to return among the latter was not to degrade but to promote them. And it would be imposing an unreasonable burden on them, to keep them always in a State of servitude, and not allow them to become again one of the Masters."

[1]

[2]