Reply #18: I think that's a rather over the top reading of Will's column [View All]

[onenote]

He's not saying Obama's election was "unconstitutional." He's saying that the process by which presidents are chosen has evolved away from the process envisioned by the founders. But the founders' "vision" doesn't define what is or isn't constitutional, unless you're willing to suggest that ending slavery was "unconsititutional" or giving women the right to vote was "unconstitutional" since both of those acts were not envisioned by the founders. As Will notes, "Presidential politics, although of paramount importance, is a game without settled rules. More than two centuries after ratification of the Constitution, there is no stable system for selecting presidential candidates." Thus, while the founders may have envisioned a particular system, they did not make it immutable. Indeed, the process was changed by constitutional amendment in 1804, at a time when a number of the founders were still alive. Will himself acknowledges that the process envisioned by the framers began changing even before that and has had, in his view, at least six iterations.

I think Will is wrong to decry the current system. But its a stretch to suggest he's saying Obama's election (or that of anyone else) was unconstitutional.