The Supreme Court rulings represent the tyranny of the minority

  
Via:  John Russell  •  2 months ago  •  65 comments


The Supreme Court rulings represent the tyranny of the minority
In Federalist No. 22, Alexander Hamilton warned that giving small states like Rhode Island or Delaware “equal weight in the scale of power” with large states like “Massachusetts, or Connecticut, or New York” violated the precepts of “justice” and “common-sense.” “The larger States would after a while revolt from the idea of receiving the law from the smaller,” he predicted, arguing that such a system contradicts “the fundamental maxim of republican government, which requires that the sense of...

Leave a comment to auto-join group NEWSMucks

NEWSMucks


S E E D E D   C O N T E N T



www.washingtonpost.com   /opinions/2022/06/25/supreme-court-rulings-abortion-roe-guns-represent-minority-tyranny/

The Supreme Court rulings represent the tyranny of the minority


Max Boot 5-7 minutes   6/25/2022




Everyone knows that the Founders were afraid of the tyranny of the majority. That’s why they built so many checks and balances into the Constitution. What’s less well known is that they were also afraid of the tyranny of the minority. That’s why they scrapped the Articles of Confederation, which required agreement from   9 of 13 states   to pass any laws, and enacted a Constitution with much stronger executive authority.


In   Federalist No. 22 , Alexander Hamilton warned that giving small states like Rhode Island or Delaware “equal weight in the scale of power” with large states like “Massachusetts, or Connecticut, or New York” violated the precepts of “justice” and “common-sense.” “The larger States would after a while revolt from the idea of receiving the law from the smaller,” he predicted, arguing that such a system contradicts “the fundamental maxim of republican government, which requires that the sense of the majority should prevail.”

Hamilton’s nightmare has become the reality of 21st-century America. We are living under minoritarian tyranny, with smaller states imposing their views on the larger through their disproportionate sway in the Senate and the electoral college — and therefore on the Supreme Court. To take but one example: Twenty-one states with fewer total people than California have   42 Senate seats . This undemocratic, unjust system has produced the new Supreme Court rulings on gun control and abortion.

These are issues on which public opinion is lopsidedly in favor on what, for want of a better word, we might call the “liberal” side. Following the Uvalde, Tex., shooting, a   recent poll   showed that 65 percent of Americans want stricter gun controls; only 28 percent are opposed. Public opinion is just as clear on abortion:   Fifty-four percent   of Americans want to preserve   Roe v. Wade   and only 28 percent want to overturn it. Fifty-eight percent want abortion to be legal in most or all cases.



Yet the Supreme Court’s hard-right majority just   overruled   a New York law that made it difficult to get a permit to carry a gun, while   upholding   a Mississippi law that banned all abortions after 15 weeks. This represents a dramatic expansion of gun rights and an equally dramatic curtailment of abortion rights.

Now, the Supreme Court has no obligation to follow the popular will. It is charged with safeguarding the Constitution. But it is hard for any disinterested observer to have any faith in what the right-wing justices are doing. They are not acting very conservatively in overturning an abortion ruling ( Roe v. Wade ) that is 49 years old and a New York state gun-control statute that is   109 years old . In both cases, the justices rely on dubious readings of legal history that have been challenged by   many   scholars   to overturn what had been settled law.

Conservatives can plausibly argue that liberal justices invented a constitutional right to abortion, but how is that different from what conservative justices have done in inventing an individual right to carry guns that is also nowhere to be found in the Constitution? The Supreme Court did not recognize an individual right to bear arms   until 2008   — 217 years after the Second Amendment was enacted expressly to protect “well-regulated” state militia. The Second Amendment hasn’t changed over the centuries, but the composition of the court has.

The majority conveniently favors state’s rights on abortion but not on guns. It is obvious that the conservative justices (who are presumably antiabortion rights and pro-gun rights) are simply enacting their personal preferences, just as liberal justices (who are presumably pro-choice and pro-gun control) do.

So, if the Supreme Court is going to be a forum for legislating, shouldn’t it respect the views of two-thirds of the country? But our perverse political system has allowed a militant, right-wing minority to hijack the law. As an Economist correspondent   points out , “5 of the 6 conservative Supreme Court justices were appointed by a Republican Senate majority that won fewer votes than the Democrats” and “3 of the 6 were nominated by a president who also won a minority of the popular vote.”

The situation is actually even more inequitable: In all likelihood,   Roe   would not have been overturned if then-Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) had not broken with precedent by refusing to grant President Barack Obama’s Supreme Court nominee, Merrick Garland, a vote in 2016. McConnell brazenly held the seat open for President Donald Trump to fill. Now Trump’s appointee, Neil M. Gorsuch, is part of the five-justice majority that has overturned   Roe . (Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. joined with the other five justices to uphold the Mississippi abortion law but not to overrule   Roe .)

Public faith in the Supreme Court is down to a historic low of   25 percent , and there’s a good reason why it keeps eroding. We are experiencing what the Founders feared: a crisis of governmental legitimacy brought about by minoritarian tyranny. And it could soon get a whole lot worse. In his   concurring opinion   in the abortion case, Justice Clarence Thomas   called on the court   to overturn popular precedents upholding a right to contraception, same-sex relationships and marriage equality. So much for Hamilton’s hope that “the sense of the majority should prevail.”



Article is LOCKED by author/seeder
 

Tags

jrGroupDiscuss - desc
[]
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
1  seeder  JohnRussell    2 months ago
Now, the Supreme Court has no obligation to follow the popular will. It is charged with safeguarding the Constitution. But it is hard for any disinterested observer to have any faith in what the right-wing justices are doing. They are not acting very conservatively in overturning an abortion ruling (   Roe v. Wade  ) that is 49 years old and a New York state gun-control statute that is      109 years old  . In both cases, the justices rely on dubious readings of legal history that have been challenged by      many       scholars      to overturn what had been settled law.
 
 
 
squiggy
Sophomore Quiet
1.1  squiggy  replied to  JohnRussell @1    2 months ago

"So much for Hamilton’s hope that “the sense of the majority should prevail.”"

So much agony over the idea that a majority of wolves can't vote sheep for dinner.

 
 
 
squiggy
Sophomore Quiet
1.2  squiggy  replied to  JohnRussell @1    2 months ago
In both cases,

... and without considering that the other side has been put upon for one or two hundred years, your side feels it lost so hey, time for riots.

 
 
 
Nerm_L
PhD Principal
1.3  Nerm_L  replied to  JohnRussell @1    2 months ago
Now, the Supreme Court has no obligation to follow the popular will.

The Supreme Court has never, ever had an obligation to follow the popular will.  That's not the Constitutional purpose for SCOTUS.

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Expert
1.4  Sean Treacy  replied to  JohnRussell @1    2 months ago
w, the Supreme Court has no obligation to follow the popular will

It never has and never should.  A court that rules by opinion polling. That's insane. 

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
2  seeder  JohnRussell    2 months ago
Hamilton’s nightmare has become the reality of 21st-century America. We are living under minoritarian tyranny, with smaller states imposing their views on the larger through their disproportionate sway in the Senate and the electoral college — and therefore on the Supreme Court. To take but one example: Twenty-one states with fewer total people than California have 42 Senate seats . This undemocratic, unjust system has produced the new Supreme Court rulings on gun control and abortion.

This will not sustain. Riots in the streets at some point? why not if thats what it ends up taking to get rid of minority tyranny. . 

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
2.1  Texan1211  replied to  JohnRussell @2    2 months ago
This will not sustain.

Just because some liberals have their knockers twisted now doesn't mean the thing won't sustain for another 200 + years. 

Riots in the streets at some point?

Not the first time nor the last.

why not if thats what it ends up taking to get rid of minority tyranny.

That line sounds like it came straight from some left wing nut job site. 

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
2.1.1  seeder  JohnRussell  replied to  Texan1211 @2.1    2 months ago

Its probably beyond [deleted] but the country will not survive in the 21st century, in an era of instantaneous mass communication, with a political system that gives a minority permanent power over the majority. 

We should probably rewrite the constitution as soon as possible. 

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
2.1.2  seeder  JohnRussell  replied to  JohnRussell @2.1.1    2 months ago

Maybe something like give the larger states three senators and keep the smaller states at two. That would create some balance that is missing now. 

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
2.1.3  Texan1211  replied to  JohnRussell @2.1.2    2 months ago

Funny how a few SCOTUS rulings magically are signals for the end times amongst some liberals, all ready to blow the whole thing up because they didn't get their way.

 
 
 
Drinker of the Wry
Freshman Principal
2.1.4  Drinker of the Wry  replied to  JohnRussell @2.1.1    2 months ago
We should probably rewrite the constitution as soon as possible. 

Good luck with that. I think that there have been around 11,000 amendments proposed and 27 accepted since 1789.

%20

 
 
 
squiggy
Sophomore Quiet
2.1.5  squiggy  replied to  JohnRussell @2.1.1    2 months ago
We should probably rewrite the constitution as soon as possible. 

You won't get past 'Pencil, quill, ball-point, cursive, font, parchment, bond, or color' with the left's fragmentation.

 
 
 
Ronin2
Professor Quiet
2.1.6  Ronin2  replied to  JohnRussell @2.1.1    2 months ago

jrSmiley_86_smiley_image.gif

You want one party rule go to China or Russia. 

The Constitution will not be rewritten. There isn't even enough support on any issue to get an Amendment passed. 

It is definitely beyond you comprehension that flyover country doesn't exist to support debtor states like CA and NY with food, oil, gas, and water. They are not going to be silenced and left 3 or 4 states dictate everything.

 
 
 
Ronin2
Professor Quiet
2.1.7  Ronin2  replied to  JohnRussell @2.1.2    2 months ago

So what purpose will the House serve, since you are doing away with the very thing that makes the Senate unique?

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
2.1.8  Tessylo  replied to  Ronin2 @2.1.6    2 months ago

[deleted]

 
 
 
Jeremy Retired in NC
PhD Guide
2.1.9  Jeremy Retired in NC  replied to  Texan1211 @2.1.3    2 months ago
ready to blow the whole thing up because they didn't get their way.

I call that a "Hissy Fit".  Democrats had one in November 2016 (and it continues today) when Trump won the election.  Now the courts (Federal and State) are turning on the progressive liberals and now a new round of hissy fits are happening.

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
2.1.10  Tessylo  replied to  Jeremy Retired in NC @2.1.9    2 months ago

290138462_5218755311554175_1274713495676154659_n.jpg?_nc_cat=111&ccb=1-7&_nc_sid=8bfeb9&_nc_ohc=lQgfXCmUMOYAX_n5heq&_nc_ht=scontent-iad3-1.xx&oh=00_AT9BbEooy0tfSWk7ECB7E9G97kWiu68bS4hRwl8jslVpgw&oe=62BE3097

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
2.1.11  Texan1211  replied to  Jeremy Retired in NC @2.1.9    2 months ago
I call that a "Hissy Fit". 

yep!

When some liberals lose, they like to pretend the whole system is screwed up and want to shitcan the whole thing because they are incapable of acting like adults.

 
 
 
Jeremy Retired in NC
PhD Guide
2.1.12  Jeremy Retired in NC  replied to  Texan1211 @2.1.11    2 months ago
When some liberals lose, they like to pretend the whole system is screwed up and want to shitcan the whole thing because they are incapable of acting like adults

Kind of like the liberals wanting to do away with the Electoral College when Trump won but suddenly they're all good with it after 2020.  Now I've seen a few of these morons calling for the SCOTUS to be scrapped.

Hypocrisy at it's best.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
2.1.13  seeder  JohnRussell  replied to  Jeremy Retired in NC @2.1.9    2 months ago

As an argument against what I have said, your comment is non existent.  As filler propaganda I guess it is something. 

 
 
 
Jeremy Retired in NC
PhD Guide
2.1.14  Jeremy Retired in NC  replied to  JohnRussell @2.1.13    2 months ago
As an argument against what I have said,

You do realize I made no comment TO you.  

your comment is non existent

And yet here you are.  I guess my comment is so "non existent" that you couldn't just scroll by and felt the need to respond.  And you couldn't even respond to what I said.  Just more pointless blathering.  What's wrong John, feeling left out today?

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
2.1.15  Texan1211  replied to  Jeremy Retired in NC @2.1.12    2 months ago
Kind of like the liberals wanting to do away with the Electoral College when Trump won but suddenly they're all good with it after 2020. 

When liberals don't like something, it all of a sudden becomes unfair and outdated. 

 
 
 
Jeremy Retired in NC
PhD Guide
2.1.16  Jeremy Retired in NC  replied to  Texan1211 @2.1.15    2 months ago

and most of them don't fully understand why it was put in place or exists.

 
 
 
squiggy
Sophomore Quiet
2.1.19  squiggy  replied to  Tessylo @2.1.8    2 months ago

[deleted]

 
 
 
Nerm_L
PhD Principal
3  Nerm_L    2 months ago

The Supreme Court is an autocratic institution that imposes its will onto the country based on intellectual justifications in an undemocratic manner.  SCOTUS is not about democracy.

The filibuster rules in the Senate protects majority rule democracy.  Requiring consent by 3/5ths (60 Senators) ensures that a majority of the population is being represented.  Eliminating the filibuster threatens majority rule democracy.

The make up of the Senate was intended to eliminate the possibility of gerrymandering and to blunt political parties using ideological votes to weaken or subvert majority rule democracy.  That's why the filibuster in the Senate is critically important for democracy.

When Democrats removed the filibuster from court nominations, Democrats seriously weakened majority rule democracy.  Democrats abandoned majority rule democracy for the political expediency of controlling the autocratic, undemocratic SCOTUS.  Democrats killed democracy in the Senate.  And apparently Democrats aren't finished killing democracy elsewhere in government or the country.  Democrats want to be autocrats.

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
3.1  Tessylo  replied to  Nerm_L @3    2 months ago

Your usual projection, deflection, denial, and delusion.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
3.2  seeder  JohnRussell  replied to  Nerm_L @3    2 months ago
The filibuster rules in the Senate protects majority rule democracy.  Requiring consent by 3/5ths (60 Senators) ensures that a majority of the population is being represented.  Eliminating the filibuster threatens majority rule democracy.

You are a fairly intelligent guy. I am surprised you formulated something so obviously wrong. 

It would be mathematically possible to have a group of sixty senators and still have that number represent less than half of the American people. 

60 senators represents a majority of senators, many of which come from low population states, not a majority of the population. . 

 
 
 
Nowhere Man
Junior Expert
3.2.1  Nowhere Man  replied to  JohnRussell @3.2    2 months ago
60 senators represents a majority of senators, many of which come from low population states, not a majority of the population. . 

Senators represent the states they come from..

Representatives represent the people of the district they come from...

Senators do not represent the population at all...

Civics 101 level stuff...

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
3.2.2  seeder  JohnRussell  replied to  Nowhere Man @3.2.1    2 months ago

Q. 24: Who Does a U.S. Senator Represent?

Who does a U.S. Senator represent? Answer:   All people of the state.   The following is a full explanation of the USCIS question: U.S. Senators Represent Everyone in Their State. Today, a

=====================================

Go try and find someone who doesnt know what they are doing. 

 
 
 
Nowhere Man
Junior Expert
3.2.3  Nowhere Man  replied to  JohnRussell @3.2.2    2 months ago
Go try and find someone who doesnt know what they are doing. 

Don't have to, you do the best job of that I've ever seen...

Senators represent the State and the states interests to the Federal Government... Just because they are elected does NOT mean they represent the people... (although the politicians like to claim it is so, it isn't)

This is expressly stated in the constitution... (just ask any actual senator)

 
 
 
Nerm_L
PhD Principal
3.2.4  Nerm_L  replied to  JohnRussell @3.2    2 months ago
You are a fairly intelligent guy. I am surprised you formulated something so obviously wrong. 

It would be mathematically possible to have a group of sixty senators and still have that number represent less than half of the American people. 

60 senators represents a majority of senators, many of which come from low population states, not a majority of the population. . 

The original filibuster rule required the consent of 66 Senators.  The filibuster was put in place to protect the idea of majority rule democracy.

And if 39 Senators can represent a majority of the country's population then the states they represent have become too large.  That's little different than gerrymandering House districts.  Time to redraw the map more equitably.  

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
3.2.5  seeder  JohnRussell  replied to  Nowhere Man @3.2.3    2 months ago

Who does a U.S. Senator represent? Answer:   All people of the state.
 
 
 
Nowhere Man
Junior Expert
3.2.6  Nowhere Man  replied to  JohnRussell @3.2.5    2 months ago

Have you actually read what you linked to? Obviously not...

Prior to the ratification of the 17th Amendment, senators were appointed to their United States Senate seat by each state legislature. To fill their two available seats, the legislature, not the people, voted for the senator. This appointed senator only represented the interests of the state government.

By 1850, many senatorial seats remained vacant for years due to deadlocks. Some states went as far as redefining the word quorum so that they were able to appoint a senator to the United States Congress with a plurality rather than the required simple majority.

There were also questions of whether the appointed senators had the necessary competency for the position or if they were merely appointed as a result of graft and corruption. After several thorough investigations into their members, the Senate discovered that several of their colleagues had been appointed due to corruption. 

Subsequently, their appointments were nullified through a floor vote.

The 17th Amendment was enacted to combat the issues of deadlock, graft, and corruption, as well as proper representation. The amendment took the power of appointment away from state legislatures and gave that power to the people. By 1913, every state in the Union had begun electing senatorial representation through the popular vote.

Absolutely correct, Senators no matter how they get into office represent their state government in the senate and not the individual citizens...

Equal suffrage is a constitutional right guaranteed under Article 5 of the Constitution. According to this right, it is declared that the Constitution may not be amended in any way that would otherwise deprive a state of its right of representation in the Senate. This right to equal representation ensures that each of the 50 states is represented by two senators. For this reason, the most populous states in the Union have the same number of senators as the least populous states. Article 5 is very clear that this right only belongs to states and not to districts or territories of the United States. As a result, neither the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, Guam, nor any of the other territories have senatorial representation, despite the fact that they all elected non-voting members to the House of Representatives.

This is why there are two for each state irregardless of the population of said state, they represent the STATE, not the citizens of that state... Note the highlighted portion in red, the Constitution directly says that the Senators represent the States, not the population of the state...

All this from your own linkage John.... Now tell me who knows what they are doing?

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
3.2.7  seeder  JohnRussell  replied to  Nowhere Man @3.2.6    2 months ago

There is nothing in anything you just wrote or copied that says Senators do not represent people. The distinction is that they represent all of the people of a state rather than the limited number in a Congressional district. They still represent people, or do you think they represent cows and trees? 

 
 
 
Nowhere Man
Junior Expert
3.2.8  Nowhere Man  replied to  JohnRussell @3.2.7    2 months ago

You just don't get it, just because they are now elected by the people doesn't mean that their duties and functions under the constitution changes John...

Ok I'll put it another way, the only way it could be said they represent the people of a state...

BY AND THROUGH THEIR STATE LEGISLATURES/GOVERNMENT....

And we all know how well state government represents the people they are supposed to be serving....

Factually, there are like three levels of government between the People and the Senate, where the is a direct connection for the People to their Representative...

It's been this way since the Constitution was approved... Senators represent the state government, no matter how they get into the post...

Your phantasy wishes in the way it is notwithstanding...

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
3.2.9  seeder  JohnRussell  replied to  Nowhere Man @3.2.8    2 months ago

You are presenting what is basically a semantical argument. 

www.mvtimes.com   /2021/03/03/whom-does-the-senate-represent/

Whom does the Senate represent? - The Martha's Vineyard Times

5-7 minutes   3/3/2021


The above question is incorrectly framed. We ought to ask not who but what does the Senate represent. The answer is the 50 states. The Constitution says that each state, no matter its geographical or demographic size, sends two senators to the Capitol. Senators do not represent the people. As law professor Sanford Levinson showed in his 2006 book, “Our Undemocratic Constitution,” this arrangement extends to two other branches of government.

A president may not reflect the people’s will when the electoral vote fails to match the popular vote. George W. Bush in 2000 and Donald Trump 16 years later lost the popular vote, but won the presidency. This also occurred in the elections of 1824, 1876, and 1888. The same is true for the federal courts, including the Supreme Court. The president nominates judges, and the Senate alone has the constitutional authority to confirm them or not. The people have no say.

The Constitution makes the House of Representatives the sole democratic institution: The people in their districts directly elect its members. Gerrymandering the districts to reflect the will of a majority in the state legislatures, however, undermines democracy in this institution as well. Case in point: Registered Republicans make up 48.9 percent of the Wisconsin population, but the Republican Party controls 64 of 99 seats through gerrymandering. Democrats engage in gerrymandering too, but not as skillfully as Republicans.

The Senate today is highly unrepresentative of the American people. One example: California has 68 times the population of Wyoming, but both states have two senators. As Norm Ornstein, a political scientist at the American Enterprise Institute, has often pointed out, the hole that the framers of the Constitution dug in 1787 is only getting deeper and deeper. “By 2040 or so, 70 percent of Americans will live in 15 states. Meaning 30 percent will choose 70 senators. And the 30 percent will be older, whiter, more rural, more male than the 70 percent. Unsettling to say the least.”

The Weldon Cooper Center for Public Service at the University of Virginia and David S. Birdsell, the dean of the school of public affairs at Baruch College, CUNY, have confirmed this statistic in population studies (see  bit.ly/USdemographicsmap  and  bit.ly/globalthreats ).

Ari Berman, author of “Give Us the Ballot: The Modern Struggle for Voting Rights in America,” observes that this discrepancy played out in the recent failed impeachment trial of former President Donald Trump: “Senators voting to impeach represent 61.6 percent of Americans (202 million); senators voting to acquit represent 38.2 percent of Americans (125 million).” (See  bit.ly/Impeachdata ).

The reason for this lies in the debates at the 1787 Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia. Delegates from the small states feared domination by the larger ones. They even threatened to walk out. The result was the so-called Great Compromise.

The small states initially demanded that representation in both houses of Congress be based on an equal footing. In October 1787, James Madison told Thomas Jefferson, then serving as the American ambassador to France, that “the little states insisted on retaining their equality in both branches, unless a compleat  [sic]  abolition of the state governments should take place; and made an equality in the Senate a sine qua non.” For Madison from Virginia, a large state, and others at the convention, at least one branch of the government had to represent the people. Otherwise, that outcome would undermine the very meaning of a democratic republic. 

Madison knew the states were here to stay as he was developing his science of federalism. So today, some states, like Delaware, Montana, and Wyoming have more senators (two) than they have representatives (one) because their respective populations are so small. Not everyone was at that time happy with this decision. As Madison noted, “It ended in the compromise … very much to the dissatisfaction of several members from the large states.”

To complicate matters even more, since the 19th century, the Senate has recognized the filibuster, so any senator may extend debate to stall or prevent a vote on a measure unless the Senate can muster a supermajority called a cloture. Filibustering is not in the Constitution. Senate rules created it. At one time, it required a senator and his colleagues to speak nonstop for hours upon hours. Today all a senator need do is to object to a measure, and everything is halted. Originally, cloture required 67 votes. Today it stands at 60.

The filibuster originally referred to someone engaged in an unauthorized war against a nation: In 1807, former Vice President Aaron Burr was accused of warring against the U.S. (He was acquitted).

So what to do about the unrepresentative nature of the Senate? Or presidential elections or the appointment of judges to the federal courts? The answer lies in the ingrained history of our nation: We can and will complain that the people should be able to voice their preferences by a democratic vote. But that will never happen. It takes a constitutional amendment to reform the election of the president and senators and the appointment of judges, and a rules change to end or modify the filibuster. For the time being, we are stuck with this undemocratic, constitutional arrangement.

Jack Fruchtman, who lives in Aquinnah, taught constitutional law and politics for more than 40 years.
 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
3.2.10  seeder  JohnRussell  replied to  JohnRussell @3.2.9    2 months ago
Ari Berman, author of “Give Us the Ballot: The Modern Struggle for Voting Rights in America,” observes that this discrepancy played out in the recent failed impeachment trial of former President Donald Trump: “Senators voting to impeach represent 61.6 percent of Americans (202 million); senators voting to acquit represent 38.2 percent of Americans (125 million).” (See  bit.ly/Impeachdata ).

Near the top of the article the author says, as you do, that Senators do not represent people. Later down the article he presents a quote saying that they do. 

Of course senators represent people, when some senator brags about why he voted a certain way , he will often mention the wishes of the "people" of his state. 

States are comprised of people. If a given state had no people it wouldnt be a state for long, would it?  A state barren of people would be incorporated into another state. 

 
 
 
Nowhere Man
Junior Expert
3.2.11  Nowhere Man  replied to  JohnRussell @3.2.10    2 months ago

I'm stating the constitution and no matter how many opinions you proffer, they are nothing but opinions...

Senators do not represent citizens directly, they represent their states directly...

You are the one making the semantical argument and offering opinions to back it up not me...

I offer the law as stated in the constitution, the only source that counts...

But your argument is pretty revealing in how a liberal thinks, as twisted as that might be...

 
 
 
Drakkonis
PhD Guide
3.2.12  Drakkonis  replied to  JohnRussell @3.2    2 months ago
60 senators represents a majority of senators, many of which come from low population states, not a majority of the population. .

You seem to be under the mistaken impression that the United States is a direct democracy. 

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
3.2.13  TᵢG  replied to  Drakkonis @3.2.12    2 months ago

I know you know this, but for context:   the Senate represents the states while the House represents the population, but in both cases this is representative democracy.    Direct democracy would mean we would have no House or Senate and people would vote directly on issues.

I think JR appreciates the practical need for representative democracy but believes the Senate should represent the population (rather than the states) as does the House.

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
3.2.14  Tessylo  replied to  Nowhere Man @3.2.11    2 months ago

NO, that is all you offer - OPINIONS.

 
 
 
Nerm_L
PhD Principal
3.2.15  Nerm_L  replied to  Nowhere Man @3.2.1    2 months ago
Senators represent the states they come from..

Representatives represent the people of the district they come from...

Senators do not represent the population at all...

Civics 101 level stuff...

The 17th Amendment made Senators directly accountable to the voters - and - not accountable to state legislatures.   In that respect the role of Senator did change from representing state legislatures in Congress to representing the people of the state.  

Political bloviators hail the 17th amendment as a 'victory' for democracy.  But the ultimate consequence (intended or not) has been to weaken decentralized government.  The Constitution deliberately established a decentralized government where Federal government was required to share governing authority and power with state governments.  Weakening decentralized government has allowed the Federal government to become more autocratic and less democratic which is what the Constitution was intended to prevent.

The United States is a republic of separate, independent, sovereign states.  That's what the name 'United States' actually means.  We are not the Federal Republic of America; we are the United States of America.  

 
 
 
Drakkonis
PhD Guide
3.2.16  Drakkonis  replied to  TᵢG @3.2.13    2 months ago

Yes, I was aware. I was addressing JR's tyranny of the minority comment, as if were relevant to the issue. I believe we are representative democracy specifically to avoid rule by the idiocy of the masses. 

Also, if there's a thing called tyranny of the minority, there's also a tyranny of the majority, wherein belief that because they are the majority, they can justify ignoring the concerns of the minority. Given the political Left, it would go further than simply ignoring however, in my opinion. 

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
3.2.17  seeder  JohnRussell  replied to  Nowhere Man @3.2.11    2 months ago
Senators do not represent citizens directly, they represent their states directly...

semantics. The senators represent the people of the state as a whole, not buildings or forests or animals . 

I dont particularly mind the nit picking as long as we stay in touch with reality. A given state would not exist without its residents. 

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
3.2.18  seeder  JohnRussell  replied to  Drakkonis @3.2.12    2 months ago
You seem to be under the mistaken impression that the United States is a direct democracy. 

Nope. 

 
 
 
Nerm_L
PhD Principal
3.2.19  Nerm_L  replied to  JohnRussell @3.2.17    2 months ago
semantics. The senators represent the people of the state as a whole, not buildings or forests or animals .  I dont particularly mind the nit picking as long as we stay in touch with reality. A given state would not exist without its residents. 

Senators represent the governing authority of a state through consent of the people living in the state.  State governments are not obsolete or an anachronism of the past.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
3.2.20  TᵢG  replied to  Nerm_L @3.2.19    2 months ago
Senators represent the governing authority of a state through consent of the people living in the state. 

Correct.

 
 
 
Nerm_L
PhD Principal
3.2.21  Nerm_L  replied to  TᵢG @3.2.20    2 months ago
Correct.

Prior to the 17th Amendment, Senators represented the governing authority of a state through consent of the state legislature.  A Senators' oath of office was to protect and defend the Constitution of their state.  In the Senate, state Constitutions took precedence over the Federal Constitution.

 
 
 
arkpdx
PhD Participates
3.2.22  arkpdx  replied to  JohnRussell @3.2    2 months ago

The Senate was not intended to represent the interests of the people. It was intended to represent the interest of the entire state..

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
3.2.23  TᵢG  replied to  arkpdx @3.2.22    2 months ago

On this you are correct.   I would modify it as follows:

The Senate was intended to represent the interests of each state and the nation as a whole; and each state is to act in the best interest of its residents.

In principle, the founders established the House to represent the people and Senate to represent the states.   And Congress as a whole is to do what is best for the nation.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
3.2.24  seeder  JohnRussell  replied to  TᵢG @3.2.23    2 months ago
and Senate to represent the states. 

How many states do not have people ?  How many states would exist without a population? 

 
 
 
arkpdx
PhD Participates
3.2.25  arkpdx  replied to  JohnRussell @3.2.24    2 months ago

The number of people in each state is irrelevant as far as the Senate is concerned.  That is also why your comment about percentages of people represented by the Senate in Senate legislative maters is also irrelavent. 

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
3.2.26  seeder  JohnRussell  replied to  arkpdx @3.2.25    2 months ago
  1. Published:   Nov 06, 2020
    Estimated Reading Time:   4 mins

    In the incoming Senate, Democratic senators will represent at least 20,314,962 more people than their Republican counterparts — and that’s if we assume …

    ==================================================

    Dean Gold
    Studied  Economics  &  Statistics (academic discipline)  at  University of Chicago Author has  10.1K  answers and  1.9M  answer views 1y

    T he Senate is split 50-50, but the Democratic half represents 41,549,808 more people than the Republican half. There are 331,000,000 Americans.

    Republican senators represent 144,725,500 voters

    Democratic senators represent 186,274,500 voters

    ===================================================

    ...

    Feb 25, 2021  · Thanks to the filibuster, of course, on many key measures, the 43.5 percent of voters   represented   by a Republican minority in the   Senate   have as much clout as the 44.7 percent

    ===================================================

    The job of a senator is to act on behalf of the American people in legislative sessions to ensure the voice of the common citizen is heard. Each of the 50 U.S. states has   two Senate representatives . Discussed below are the most important aspects of the job of a senator.

     

    The Job of a Senator: Key Aspects

     

    Represent Constituents
    The most important job of a senator is to represent the people. A senator speaks with citizens about problems, concerns or suggestions they have for their district.

    People elect their senators with the expectation that they will fight for legislation that is in the best interest of the average citizen.

    =====================================================

    The Small-State   Advantage   in   the United States Senate

    ...

    Mar 10, 2013  · These 62  senators represent  about one-fourth of the  people  in  the United States . So do these 6   senators . Overrepresentation in the   Senate   is among the reasons why the smallest

    =====================================================

    By 2040, two-thirds   of Americans will be represented  

    ...

    Nov 28, 2017  · In 2016, a quarter of   Senate   seats   represent   59.5 percent of the population. That same quarter will   represent   60.3 percent of the population in 24 years. The difference is real, but subtle.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
3.2.27  seeder  JohnRussell  replied to  JohnRussell @3.2.26    2 months ago

These are articles by the NY Times, the Washington Post, NY Mag, and Vox, all of which are respected sources. 

 
 
 
bugsy
Professor Participates
3.2.28  bugsy  replied to  JohnRussell @3.2.27    2 months ago

Only to the woke and TDS riddled.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
3.2.29  seeder  JohnRussell  replied to  bugsy @3.2.28    2 months ago

Infowars and the Daily Caller dont count. 

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
3.2.30  seeder  JohnRussell  replied to  bugsy @3.2.28    2 months ago
People elect their senators with the expectation that they will fight for legislation that is in the best interest of the average citizen.

Who is the "their" in that sentence?

 
 
 
arkpdx
PhD Participates
3.2.31  arkpdx  replied to  JohnRussell @3.2.27    2 months ago

and none of them are Relevant. 

 
 
 
bugsy
Professor Participates
3.2.32  bugsy  replied to  JohnRussell @3.2.30    2 months ago

I don't know. I didn't write it

 
 
 
bugsy
Professor Participates
3.2.33  bugsy  replied to  JohnRussell @3.2.29    2 months ago
Infowars and the Daily Caller dont count. 

Never said they did, John. I'm only going by your perception that left wing rags are considered respected.

I simply told you by whom.

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
3.2.34  Texan1211  replied to  bugsy @3.2.28    2 months ago

Ever noticed how great everything was regarding the Electoral College and the US Senate when Democrats were controlling Congress for decades?

Amazingly, this 200+ year-old 'issue' only became an issue when Democrats didn't get their way!

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
3.2.35  TᵢG  replied to  JohnRussell @3.2.24    2 months ago
How many states do not have people ?  How many states would exist without a population? 

None.   A state cannot exist unless it has a population.

Why do you ask?

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
3.2.36  TᵢG  replied to  JohnRussell @3.2.30    2 months ago

The 'people' are the 'their' in that sentence.

Why do you ask?

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
3.2.37  seeder  JohnRussell  replied to  TᵢG @3.2.36    2 months ago

US Senators represent people. 

They also represent the interests of the states. 

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
3.2.38  TᵢG  replied to  JohnRussell @3.2.37    2 months ago

What is the issue, John?   The order?

The CotUS defined a bicameral legislative body consisting of the House and the Senate.   The House was designed to represent the people per population, regardless ( conceptually ) of state .   The Senate was designed to represent the people in terms of the states.

From Federalist #62 

The equality of representation in the Senate is another point, which, being evidently the result of compromise between the opposite pretensions of the large and the small States, does not call for much discussion. . . .

In this spirit it may be remarked, that the equal vote allowed to each state, is at once a constitutional recognition of the portion of sovereignty remaining in the individual states, and an instrument for preserving that residuary sovereignty. . . .

Another advantage accruing from this ingredient in the constitution of the senate is, the additional impediment it must prove against improper acts of legislation. No law or resolution can now be passed without the concurrence, first , of a majority of the people , and then , of a majority of the states .

Do you disagree (somehow)?   The majority of the people refers to the House while the majority of the states refers to the Senate.

 
 

Who is online

JBB


35 visitors