The Constitution of the United States of America is Based on POPULAR SOVEREIGNTY
Popular sovereignty is government based on consent of the people. The government’s source of authority is the people, and "its power is not legitimate if it disregards the will of the people". Government established by free choice of the people is expected to serve the people, who have sovereignty, or supreme power. Popular sovereignty was asserted as a founding principle of the United States of America. When the Government Stops working for the People, and is working for Big Business by warmongering on one side and using Satanic Control on the Other side , it then becomes clear that is time to Re-Claim our Sovereignty.
The Government Has Failed us, as citizens and as Sovereign Americans.
Popular Sovereignty in a Democracy
There are four ways that popular sovereignty is expressed in a democracy.
First, the people are involved either directly or through their representatives in the making of a constitution.
Second, the constitution made in the name of the people is ratified by a majority vote of the people or by representatives elected by the people.
Third, the people are involved directly or indirectly in proposing and ratifying amendments to their constitution.
Fourth, the people indicate support for their government when they vote in public elections, uphold the constitution and basic principles of their government, and work to influence public policy decisions and otherwise prompt their representatives in government to be accountable to them.
Popular sovereignty was asserted as a founding principle of the United States of America.
The Declaration of Independence of 1776 asserts that legitimate governments are those ‘‘deriving their just Powers from the Consent of the Governed.’’ Later, in 1787, the framers of the U.S. Constitution proclaimed popular sovereignty in the document’s Preamble: ‘‘We the people of the United States . . . do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.’’ Popular sovereignty was also expressed in Article VII of the Constitution, which required that nine states approve the proposed framework of government before it could become the supreme law of the land.
The people of the several American states chose representatives to ratifying conventions who freely decided to approve the Constitution in the name of those who elected them. Popular sovereignty was also included in Article V of the Constitution, which provides the means to amend the Constitution through the elected representatives of the people. Finally, popular sovereignty is reflected in two different parts of the Constitution that require members of Congress to be elected directly by the people: Article I pertaining to the House of Representatives and the 17th Amendment concerning election of senators.
The founding of the United States and the framing of its Constitution heralded the idea of popular sovereignty as the standard by which popular government should be established and sustained. The American example, exceptional in the late 18th century, has become a world-class standard of legitimacy for governments in the 21st century. No country can realistically claim to be a democracy unless it proclaims constitutionally and implements functionally the principle of popular sovereignty.
WE THE PEOPLE: THE ORIGINAL MEANING OF POPULAR SOVEREIGNTY
WE the People of the United States . . . do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.”
1 Thus, the Preamble to the United States Constitution tells us—upfront, without reservation—that the creators of fundamental law are the People.
2 The American system of government rests on a theory of popular sovereignty. But what does popular sovereignty mean? Who is the sovereign People?
3 The answer at first may seem to be self-evident. The United States is a nation. The People of the United States is the American people. As the original pledge of allegiance written by Francis Bellamy says, “I pledge allegiance to my flag and the republic for which it stands—one nation indivisible—with liberty and justice for all.”
4 There are fifty states, but as Justice Black remarked, it is a simple “fact that the States of the Union constitute a nation.”
5 If we are one nation, are we not also one people? The question is not so open-and-closed, and the ultimate answer is not so simple. Indeed, the debate over the identity of the People still rages. Often, the disagreement over the identity of the People is obscured by an emphasis on the expressions of popular sovereignty, by a focus on the split in the on-the-ground powers of governing between the federal government and the state governments. Commentators, thus, often talk about “sovereignty” when they in fact mean the parameters or boundaries of governmental power.
6 As Part II will demonstrate however, the concept of popular sovereignty distinguishes between the exercise of power through the branches of government and the fundamental, arbitrary power held by the sovereign people. Nevertheless, other scholars have tackled the question of whose popular sovereignty head on. We can split academics into two broad camps: nationalists and state-populists. Adherents of the former insist that the People—and the only existing people—is a national people. Those in the latter camp maintain that the several state peoples not only existed be-fore the Constitution, but also survived ratification. Although united in their belief that the People is a singular national people, nationalists are divided by differing theories of how and when that singular people came to be. Professor Beer has articulated a strict nationalist narrative. Simply put, the national people as a body politic existed before the Constitution and it was this people that created the Constitution.
7 The national people hold fundamental sovereignty and have “divided the attributes of sovereignty, that is, the various powers of governing, between the federal and the state governments.”
8 This division does nothing to shake the fact that the “American people . . . were unitary.”
9 Federalism is functional. Unlike Beer, Professor Amar concedes that America before the Constitution was composed of “united states, not a unitary state; they were thirteen Peoples, not (yet) one People.”
10 It was the several state peoples who created the Constitution.
11 Yet through ratifying the Constitution, the “separate state Peoples agreed to ‘consolidate’ themselves into a single continental People.”
12 A popular body politic rarely acts in any practical sense. For Amar, however, ratification was one of “those rare meta-legal moments” where the state peoples reconstituted themselves as the American People.
13 State-populists contend that the Constitution did not destroy the state peoples as bodies politic, but these scholars are divided by differing theories of how the federal government obtained its power. According to one theory, the Constitution is “a compact among political societies.”
14 As Professor McDonald has explained, “national or local governments, being the creatures of the states, could exercise only those powers explicitly or implicitly given them by the states; each state government could exercise all powers unless it was forbidden from doing so by the people of the state.”
15 The state peoples delegated power to both the state and federal governments; this is a theory of dual delegation from a single class of sovereigns. On the other hand, a theory of dual sovereignty holds that the state peoples coexist with a national people. “To my eyes,” Professor Monaghan has written, “neither completely state-centered nor completely nationalist views of the founding capture the original understanding.”
16 He stresses, “the understanding was not that ‘consolidation’ had occurred and that any parallel conception of ‘We the People of New Hampshire, etc.’ had been eliminated.”
17 Yet that does not mean that there is no room for a sovereign national people. “The reality was considerable con-fusion, not a first theorem,” he maintains.
18 This Note jumps into the fray, closely examining the Constitution it-self and the history surrounding its adoption in order to reverse-engineer a coherent theory of American popular sovereignty as it was understood at the time of ratification and the adoption of the Bill of Rights.
19 The result of this effort is a nuanced theory of dual popular sovereignty that alleviates the confusion Monaghan emphasized.
20 In short, there is a national people, but it coexists with the sovereign state peoples. Furthermore, the national people must be interpreted through a lens of state peoples—the People is national in scope and importance, but it is defined in reference to the state peoples. The reservoir of reserved powers—those uses of governmental authority that are not expressly mentioned in the text of the Constitution—defaults to the state level. This balance of peoples means that the American system is one of limited sovereignty. Neither the federal nor the state governments can eliminate or alter the other; they reinforce each other in a structure that presupposes its perpetuity. Dual popular sovereignty is the essence of federalism, and it has broad implications for the fundamental distribution of power between the federal government and the states.
By Andrew G. I. Kilberg READ FULL PDF HERE (Source)
The Constitution of the United States of America
We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, 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. READ FULL HERE
Join Us on our FB Page for All of our Posts:
Universal Lighthouse~ https://www.facebook.com/ULight1123/
Disclaimer: Universal Lighthouse offers our own Writings Plus, other information that is found throughout the Internet,
We do try and find the original source for this information. However, the opinions, views, statements,