Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : The Trump Presidency -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: i-node who wrote (115122)	3/22/2019 4:24:02 PM
From: d[-_-]b	1 Recommendation Recommended By i-node Respond to of 357966

The agreement to participate in the Union was essentially a contract between states and the Union. “It isn't so much that liberals are ignorant. It's just that they know so many things that aren't so.” No - they're ignorant of history and why things are as they are and the provisions to remedy them if "we" want.

To: i-node who wrote (115122)	3/22/2019 6:34:30 PM
From: Sam	1 Recommendation Recommended By bentway Respond to of 357966

The Preamble to the Constitution opens with the words, "We the people". It doesn't say "We the states". If you read Madison's Notes on the Debates in the Federal Constitution, you will see that there was a good deal of debate about representation. The so-called "Great Compromise" which gave 2 Senators to each state whatever the population, on which the EC is based, was objected to by plenty of delegates, including people like Madison, Hamilton and Wilson, some of the leading delegates to the convention. But some of the delegates from the low population states--especially Gunnar Bedford of Delaware--adamantly stuck to their position, claiming much as people do today that the smaller states would somehow be "overwhelmed" by the larger states if they did not have the protection of equal representation. Here is a link to the document-- avalon.law.yale.edu June 29 and 30 are the days on which the key points in the debate were most directly made (but not the only days). James Wilson, for example, said this on June 30 (the bolding is mine): The votes of yesterday agst. the just principle of representation, were as 22 to 90 of the people of America. Taking the opinions to be the same on this point, and he was sure if there was any room for change, it could not be on the side of the majority, the question will be shall less than 1/4 of the U. States withdraw themselves from the Union; or shall more than 3/4 . renounce the inherent, indisputable, and unalienable rights of men, in favor of the artificial systems of States. If issue must be joined, it was on this point he would chuse to join it. The gentlemen from Connecticut in supposing that the prepondenancy [FN6] secured to the majority in the 1st. branch had removed the objections to an equality of votes in the 2d. branch for the security of the minority, narrowed the case extremely. Such an equality will enable the minority to controul in all cases whatsoever, the sentiments and interests of the majority. Seven States will controul six: Seven States, according to the estimates that had been used, composed 24/90 of the whole people. It would be in the power then of less than 1/3 to overrule 2/3 whenever a question should happen to divide the States in that manner. Can we forget for whom we are forming a Government? Is it for men, or for the imaginary beings called States? Will our honest Constituents be satisfied with metaphysical distinctions? Will they, ought they to be satisfied with being told that the one third compose the greater number of States? The rule of suffrage ought on every principle to be the same in the 2d. as in the 1st. branch. If the Government be not laid on this foundation, it can be neither solid nor lasting. Any other principle will be local, confined & temporary. This will expand with the expansion, and grow with the growth of the U. States. -Much has been said of an imaginary combination of three States. Sometimes a danger of monarchy, sometimes of aristocracy, has been charged on it. No explanation however of the danger has been vouchsafed. It would be easy to prove both from reason & history that rivalships would be more probable than coalitions; and that there are no coinciding interests that could produce the latter. No answer has yet been given to the observations of [Mr. Madison] on this subject. avalon.law.yale.edu more at the link Note that he says this: Can we forget for whom we are forming a Government? Is it for men, or for the imaginary beings called States? I think most of the delegates would have agreed with him, which is why the Preamble says what it says. But delegates like Bedford just pulled a power play for the same "principle" that legislatures in low population states today wouldn't agree to a one person/on vote election of the president: they don't want to give up their unfair edge.