[quote=DarkReality;3258942]That still doesn't clarify why a president should cater to a state's wishes before the people's wishes. As you already stated, the executive branch passes laws. The Senate is exactly the state-representation that you want. The president, as the last line between a law proposal and making it reality should represent the people: the most basic entity of a nation. If he were to represent the states as well, then people would be misrepresented. Living in a less populated state automatically makes your vote more powerful than someone else's, and that's just wrong. What happened to "one man, one vote?"



As to abolishing slavery, the obvious human rights issue aside, that would be a bone to pick with the president's right to make executive orders (and essentially dictate laws). Had it taken the normal course of things, the Senate, the state representatives, would have had to ratify the law meaning that state interests would be represented. I'm assuming, for the sake of argument, that the US government worked back then like it does now.



o.O The president can't pass bills, can he? He can veto them, but that veto can be overruled. So while his decisions do influence states, the people, not their positions on an arbitrary grid of states, are the most important aspect of a nation.[/quote]



He doesn't pass bills, no. He signs them and approves them. Basically the final step to making it a law in which he can also decide to veto and pocket veto them. (Look up pocket veto, please. Basically the president going, "Lol, I can get away with not passing poop even if it's majoirty approved.") Also a majoirty of veto'd bills however don't become laws. Infact, President bush vetoed tweleve bills, pocketed one, and only four were then overridden. And that was the fewest amount of vetoed bills for a modern president. Why, all the past presidents vetoed around ~20 bills, and their success rates are all roughly ~90%. Tell me if that isn't infulence over house?



Abolishing slavery was hardly a obvious human right at the time. Lincoln-Douglas debates go over that heavily. It only started as a minoirity approving of it. Huurrm! I wonder if some people now consider illegal immgration laws to be agasint obvious human rights? Oh, but... you know, I guess federal laws prohibt illegal immgirants and instead send them to their graves, deporting the back to Mexico? And guess what states would out-right hate making some of those laws looser?



And if you say they aren't citizens? Well, neither were the slaves, but they are human lives. Texas is a nice majoirty who'd like those laws kept more than other states. Who do you think they'll vote for president to make sure it stays?