Posted on 12/17/2019 3:57:27 PM PST by Liz
States as states do need representation in the federal government. Under the Constitution, they have far too much.
The confirmation of Brett Kavanaugh to the Supreme Court spurred a lively discussion about institutional design.
After the vote, some noted that the 50 senators who voted to confirm represent about 45 percent of the population.
A number of astute constitutional historians quickly spoke up to point out that of course that happens, because the Senate represents states and not people. If you want to see the people represented, look to the House. But of course, the fact that the Constitution does something isn’t the same as that something being good. We continue to debate the Constitution itself, and specifically the disproportional Senate. If our intuition tells us that there’s something wrong when a minority has that much power, we should pay attention. The Senate’s equal representation of states — not people — should be discussed on its merits.
THE CASE FOR STATES The United States is a federal system. Each state has its own sovereignty and has some authority over its own interests. The relative authority of the state and the national government is contested, but the states retain something.
But since the federal government is so powerful, the states need a way to protect themselves. The Framers’ approach to this sort problem is to let ambition check ambition. The legislature and the president check and balance each other. Similarly, the states are not protected from the federal government by mere parchment barriers. They can defend themselves through their representation in the Senate. These concerns were central for the Framers, who were looking at the Constitution from the very state-centered perspective of the Articles of Confederation. Each state had its own government and identity, and their relationship to one another was weak. The Constitution aimed to make that relationship stronger, but states were still the players. An American was a citizen of their state first, and of the union second.
The case for people---We have come a long way since the founding. Political scientist Daniel J. Hopkins, in his new book, The Increasingly United States, traces how America has gone from “all politics is local” to a world in which national issues dominate even local conflicts. Hopkins devotes an entire chapter to the question of whether people think of themselves as Americans or as citizens of their states.
Across a wide range of measures, he shows that Americans see themselves as Americans first, citizens of their states second. As he puts it: “Compared to their attachment to the nation as a whole, their place-based attachment is markedly weaker. What is more, the content of state-level identities is typically divorced from politics.”
That finding doesn’t mesh well with the idea of people being represented in government through their states. And citizens, politicians and parties have all long realized that. Political strategies for all national offices involve coordination across geography. If you live in a deep red state, you can donate to a candidate running in a purple one. If your district is safe for the Democrats, you can travel to canvass for a candidate in a swing district.
It is illegal for foreign nationals to contribute money to a US electoral campaign. It is neither illegal nor uncommon for citizens to contribute to electoral campaigns in other states. Some candidates receive sizable portions of their resources from out of their own state.
When Americans are hacking the Constitution to get around the geographic nature of our representation, that should be a red flag.
Balancing the representation of states and people Of course, the Constitution does not only allow for the representation of states. The central debate at the constitutional convention was over precisely this balance. Doesn’t the House address that problem?
Yes, but poorly.
For one, because every state must have at least one member in the House, there are still distortions. But even aside from that, single-member districts means we’re still representing territory instead of people. These districts are almost impossible to draw so that the politicians elected reflect the balance of preferences across the entire country.
Right now, that means a bias toward Republicans. Democratic candidates could outpoll Republicans by up to five points and still not be favored to take control of the House. It doesn’t matter whether this is due to conscious gerrymandering or because Democratic voters are concentrated in urban areas. The problem is single-member districts in the first place.
I don’t know of any research to prove it, but I am pretty sure very few Americans think of themselves as first and foremost citizens of their congressional district. Even the president, for whom at least citizens across the country can vote, is elected through the Electoral College, which in turn filters votes through the states.
In short, the supposed balance between state interests and individual citizen interests that the Framers struck isn’t much balance at all. Some Framers observed exactly that at the time. And as the country has evolved, the value of having such strong representation for geography seems to have only waned.
--SNIP--
Sounds like they’re a half step away from arguing that the Constitution is unconstitutional.
The idiot that wrote this has a obviously not heard of the tyranny of the majority.
This guy has obviously never been to Texas. As a fifth-generation Texan, it’s alway easy to spot the transplants. Native Texans will call themselves ‘Texans’. Transplants will initially called themselves ‘Americans’ or some other nationality.
Eventually, everyone will say, I’m from ..... but I came to Texas as fast as I could.
17th amendment is one of the most destructive events to the country that was ever enacted. A direct attack on the electoral college parallel responsibility. With the electoral college, it is the states that put the president in the office, not the popular vote. Before the 17th amendment it was the states that signed federal laws that came to the Senate from the House. Now the Senate is just another version of the House thieving power from the states.
This dope thinks we are a democracy.
Unless you are a voter at a town meeting in a little rural town hall in VT, you are living in a republic.
The Senate has nor represented States since the ratification of the 17th Amendment except for purposes of populating the Electoral College every four years.
used to, until popular election. facts don’t matter.
The way I understand it, learned her on this website, is that Senators were to be appointed by the Governors, elected by the people, in every state. (Checks and balances).
Hence, how the system is so messed up. Otherwise Hillary would probably never have been elected to the Senate (of NY)in the first place. Weird but, true.
learned this. My apologies.
We (the US collectively) screwed up representation of the States when senators were elected and not appointed.
Agreed. 1913 was a really bad year for the Republic.
The Senate no longer represents the states. That ended with the 17th amendment to the Constitution, when the Senators were elected by popular vote instead of being selected by the state legislatures. Now, the Senate represents the people just like the House of Representatives.
The Democrats should just rewrite the Constitution and do what they can to make it happen.
They could take a shortcut and just adopt the one North Korea has.
Ignoramuses.
Needs to Read Plato
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.