Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: Tolerance Sucks Rocks
I just read the Reynolds description, so you're correct on that one, too. Of course, by that reckoning if you applied Reynolds nationwide, the U.S. Senate is out of whack with the population. Why should Wyoming get 2 Senators with 544,000 when California, with 37,000,000 also just get 2 ? Adjust it and CA should get 68 Senators.
103 posted on 01/27/2010 1:38:15 PM PST by fieldmarshaldj (~"This is what happens when you find a stranger in the Alps !"~~)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 99 | View Replies ]


To: fieldmarshaldj
The Supreme Court couldn't apply it to the U.S. Senate because of the clause in the U.S. Constitution that said no state shall be deprived of its equal suffrage in the Senate, as far as I can guess (from Article V, if I remember correctly). It's a good thing, too, because otherwise, the Congress would be dominated by California, Texas, and New York. While Texas doesn't bother me, California and New York definitely do. Equal suffrage is the only thing the small states have left to their advantage in the Congress.
104 posted on 01/27/2010 1:58:23 PM PST by Tolerance Sucks Rocks (I am Ellie Light.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 103 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson