# Was the Electoral College intended to be an independent deliberative body? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [September 12, 2019, 6:33am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/was-the-electoral-college-intended-to-be-an-independent-deliberative-body/840092 "2019-09-12T06:33:33Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 3\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![Max\_S](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/46a35a/32.png) [@Max\_S](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Max_S)\ **Post date:** [September 17, 2019, 8:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/was-the-electoral-college-intended-to-be-an-independent-deliberative-body/840092/21 "2019-09-17T20:26:04Z")
> [@kirkrapine](#): > > The Dred Scott decision was predicated on the assumption that, in the time of the FFs, the consensus was that a black man had no rights a white man was bound to respect. But I doubt any originalist would be so bold as to rule that the Constitution requires property qualifications to vote because that’s how it was back then, or anything else that would be an element of an aristocratic republic. I consider myself somewhat of an originalist. I agree with the _legal_ argument in the Dred Scott decision, the part that actually carried the majority. The Constitution gave Congress alone the power to naturalize citizens; Congress never naturalized anyone but whites; therefore, slaves descended from African immigrants (and not from slaves emancipated on or before 1789) did not enjoy the rights of citizenship, including the ability to be heard in the Supreme Court. Taney’s racist dictum is quite disagreeable. If you want to make a separate thread about the Dred Scott decision I’ll continue this discussion there, but I don’t think your bringing it up here had the desired effect. ~Max ---
**Author:** ![kirkrapine](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/7ea924/32.png) [@kirkrapine](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/kirkrapine)\ **Post date:** [September 18, 2019, 3:29am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/was-the-electoral-college-intended-to-be-an-independent-deliberative-body/840092/22 "2019-09-18T03:29:36Z")
> [@Max\_S](#): > > The Constitution gave Congress alone the power to naturalize citizens . . . Actually, all parts predating the 14th Amendment are silent on that point. ---
**Author:** ![Max\_S](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/46a35a/32.png) [@Max\_S](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Max_S)\ **Post date:** [September 18, 2019, 3:51am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/was-the-electoral-college-intended-to-be-an-independent-deliberative-body/840092/23 "2019-09-18T03:51:42Z")
> [@kirkrapine](#): > > Actually, all parts predating the 14th Amendment are silent on that point. In direct contradiction to your assertion, Congress has since its inception possessed the enumerated power “to establish a uniform Rule of Naturalization” (Art. I sect 8). They exercised this power in the year 1790 and specifically conditioned naturalization on the alien being “a free white person” (1 Stat. 103). I have put the original Naturalization Act in a spoiler for your convenience. [SPOILER]CHAP. III.–_An Act to establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization.(a)_ SECTION 1. _Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled_, That any alien, being a free white person, who shall have resided within the limits and under the jurisdiction of the United States for the term of two years, may be admitted to become a citizen thereof, on application to any common law court of the record, in any one of the states wherein he shall have resided for the term of one year at least, and making proof to the satisfaction of such court, that he is a person of good character, and taking the oath or affirmation prescribed by law, to support the constitution of the United States, which under oath or affirmation such court shall administer; and the clerk of such court shall record such application, and the proceedings thereon; and thereupon such person shall be considered as a citizen of the United States. And the children of such persons so naturalized, dwelling within the United States, and being under the age of twenty-one years at the time of such naturalization, shall also be considered as citizens of the United States. And the children of citizens of the United States, that may be born beyond sea, or out of the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural born citizens: _Provided_, That the right of citizenship shall not descend to persons whose fathers have never been resident in the United States: _Provided also_, That no person heretofore proscribed by any state, shall be admitted a citizen as aforesaid, except by an act of the legislature of the state in which such person was proscribed.(a) APPROVED, March 26, 1790.[/SPOILER] ~Max [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/was-the-electoral-college-intended-to-be-an-independent-deliberative-body/840092.md?page=1)