# Congress Makes a Supreme Court Exception... **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [May 25, 2017, 3:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/congress-makes-a-supreme-court-exception/787418 "2017-05-25T15:51:23Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 12\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![Chronos](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/chronos/32/134_2.png) [@Chronos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chronos)\ **Post date:** [May 27, 2017, 2:41am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/congress-makes-a-supreme-court-exception/787418/21 "2017-05-27T02:41:39Z")
Yes. And if they had fewer of both, that would have made them less powerful. 3/5 is less than 1, and it is greater than 0. What you’re saying is, effectively, “3/5 is less”, without saying what it’s less than. ---
**Author:** ![OldGuy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/3bc359/32.png) [@OldGuy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/OldGuy)\ **Post date:** [May 27, 2017, 3:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/congress-makes-a-supreme-court-exception/787418/22 "2017-05-27T15:21:46Z")
> [@Chronos](#): > > Yes. And if they had fewer of both, that would have made them less powerful. 3/5 is less than 1, and it is greater than 0. What you’re saying is, effectively, “3/5 is less”, without saying what it’s less than. Thank you, Chronos, I really didn’t think it would be quite so hard to explain. ---
**Author:** ![BigT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bigt/32/12044_2.png) [@BigT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BigT)\ **Post date:** [May 27, 2017, 4:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/congress-makes-a-supreme-court-exception/787418/23 "2017-05-27T16:34:41Z")
It seems to me that, if the Court doesn’t agree with the law, they can find the law unconstitutional. And that can occur at any point, even after a previous Court has allowed it. Sure, it flies in the face of tradition and precedent, but so does trying to take away appellate jurisdiction. At that point, the judicial branch itself is under attack, and has every reason to retaliate. The idea that the actual text of the Constitution holds this country together is naive. We’ve learned that so much with Trump’s presidency. What holds us together is just our agreements and tradition. Which sucks, and is part of the reason I am so angry about all this. ---
**Author:** ![madsircool](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/madsircool/32/3432_2.png) [@madsircool](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/madsircool)\ **Post date:** [May 27, 2017, 9:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/congress-makes-a-supreme-court-exception/787418/24 "2017-05-27T21:56:52Z")
> [@BigT](#): > > It seems to me that, if the Court doesn’t agree with the law, they can find the law unconstitutional. And that can occur at any point, even after a previous Court has allowed it. > > Sure, it flies in the face of tradition and precedent, but so does trying to take away appellate jurisdiction. At that point, the judicial branch itself is under attack, and has every reason to retaliate. > > The idea that the actual text of the Constitution holds this country together is naive. We’ve learned that so much with Trump’s presidency. What holds us together is just our agreements and tradition. > > Which sucks, and is part of the reason I am so angry about all this. Just how has the Constitution been violated by Trump? At least in ways that werent also violated by Obama, Bush etc? ---
**Author:** ![madsircool](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/madsircool/32/3432_2.png) [@madsircool](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/madsircool)\ **Post date:** [May 27, 2017, 9:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/congress-makes-a-supreme-court-exception/787418/25 "2017-05-27T21:59:48Z")
> [@Chronos](#): > > Yes. And if they had fewer of both, that would have made them less powerful. 3/5 is less than 1, and it is greater than 0. What you’re saying is, effectively, “3/5 is less”, without saying what it’s less than. Read the link I posted. This isnt difficult. Why do you think the Northern states didnt want to count slaves at all and the Southern States wanted them to fully count? So the South would have more Congressmen and Electoral votes. There had to be compromise if a Constitution was to be agreed upon. ---
**Author:** ![madsircool](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/madsircool/32/3432_2.png) [@madsircool](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/madsircool)\ **Post date:** [May 27, 2017, 10:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/congress-makes-a-supreme-court-exception/787418/26 "2017-05-27T22:04:53Z")
> [@OldGuy](#): > > No, I was simply disputing your claim. You can say the 3/5 compromise either increased or decreased the voting power of the South. It depends what you think would have been the result otherwise, fully counting the slaves or not counting them at all (or perhaps the more logical 1/2). You can’t claim it decreased the South’s power unless we know for sure the South was otherwise going to win the debate. As James Madison of Virginia was the proposer of the compromise, one might think things were leaning in favor of the North’s position of not counting them at all just as Native Americans, also not considered citizens, were not counted. Census data determine states congressional delegations. Slaves counted as 1 person meant more southern congressional districts and fewer northern districts. Slaves counted as 0 people less southern congressional districts and more northern districts. Since the compromise was 3/5 rather than 1/2 one might surmise that the North caved. ---
**Author:** ![DSYoungEsq](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/c6cbf5/32.png) [@DSYoungEsq](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DSYoungEsq)\ **Post date:** [May 28, 2017, 2:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/congress-makes-a-supreme-court-exception/787418/27 "2017-05-28T02:00:49Z")
> [@madsircool](#): > > Census data determine states congressional delegations. Slaves counted as 1 person meant more southern congressional districts and fewer northern districts. Slaves counted as 0 people less southern congressional districts and more northern districts. Since the compromise was 3/5 rather than 1/2 one might surmise that the North caved. No. No, no, no. Read Madison’s Notes on the Convention. The 3/5 enumeration for representation and taxation was based upon an already existing law passed by Congress under the Articles of Confederation detailing how revenue quotas were to be apportioned among the states. The proposal was introduced by James Wilson of Pa., and seconded by Charles Pinckney of SC. It was, therefore, a compromise simply adopted from the existing rule and extended to the issue of representation. While there was considerable wrangling over the next two months on the issue of slavery, relatively little of it was directed at the 3/5 clause, and what debate did occur does not seem to have at any point greatly disturbed the convention’s willingness to adopt it. ---
**Author:** ![Little\_Nemo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/little_nemo/32/3120_2.png) [@Little\_Nemo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Little_Nemo)\ **Post date:** [May 28, 2017, 2:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/congress-makes-a-supreme-court-exception/787418/28 "2017-05-28T02:17:51Z")
> [@madsircool](#): > > Read the link I posted. This isnt difficult. Why do you think the Northern states didnt want to count slaves at all and the Southern States wanted them to fully count? So the South would have more Congressmen and Electoral votes. There had to be compromise if a Constitution was to be agreed upon. It isn’t difficult. But you’re missing the point several people are making. When you write the compromise “reduced the number of Congressmen from slaveholding states” you’re begging the question. There was no existing plan for congressional apportionment. So the slaveholding states hadn’t had a higher amount of Congressmen to be reduced. But you also appear to be assuming that one was the correct number and that three-fifth was a reduction from that. However it’s just as logical to assume zero was the correct number and that three-fifths was an increase from that. In which case, the compromise increased the number of Congressmen from slaveholding states. ---
**Author:** ![madsircool](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/madsircool/32/3432_2.png) [@madsircool](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/madsircool)\ **Post date:** [May 28, 2017, 2:26am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/congress-makes-a-supreme-court-exception/787418/29 "2017-05-28T02:26:34Z")
OK…thank you. My ignorance fought. ---
**Author:** ![madsircool](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/madsircool/32/3432_2.png) [@madsircool](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/madsircool)\ **Post date:** [May 28, 2017, 2:29am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/congress-makes-a-supreme-court-exception/787418/30 "2017-05-28T02:29:51Z")
So just to be clear…this bit from the linked article is wrong? > [@](#): > > The proposal for apportionment for the determination of each state’s number of seats in the House of Representatives became an issue when the Constitution was being drafted in 1787. Aside from being a complex system and method for calculating the population through the census and then establishing a number of seats for representation, the issue as to who was eligible to be counted for the population was a topic of controversy. However, it is no surprise that this agreement is known as the Three-Fifths Compromise, for the Constitution itself was born out of compromise between the Framers of the Constitution. > However, the Three-Fifths Compromise is arguably the most controversial topic, for it delegates that all slaves of a particular state are to be counted as three-fifths of a white person. The population of slaves would be counted as three-fifths in total when apportioning Representatives, as well as Presidential electors and taxes. > The Three-Fifths Compromise was proposed by James Wilson and Roger Sherman, who were both delegates for the Constitutional Convention of 1787. However, the Three-Fifth Compromise has its roots further back in history, dating back to the Continental Congress in 1783. The Compromise was a result of the apportionment of taxes being related to land values. > Initially, taxes were levied not in accordance to the population numbers, but the actual value of the land. Many states began to depreciate the value of the land in order to provide for relief from their taxes. A committee was held that would rectify the situation by implementing the apportionment of taxes in relation to the state’s population. However, this idea was met with the dispute over how to consider slaves in the apportionment process and the actual ratio of slaves to free people at that time. > For the most part, those who opposed slavery only wanted to consider the free people of a population, while those in favor wanted to include slaves in the population count. This would provide for slave holders to have many more seats in the House of Representatives and more representation in the Electoral College. Many ratios were considered, such as three-fourths, one-half, and one-quarter. After much debate, it would be James Madison that would suggest the Three-Fifths Compromise. However, the Three-Fifths Compromise would not be adopted until the Constitutional Convention because the Compromise was not approved by all of the states and the Articles of Federation required a unanimous vote. ---
**Author:** ![Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e8c25b/32.png) [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)\ **Post date:** [May 29, 2017, 3:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/congress-makes-a-supreme-court-exception/787418/31 "2017-05-29T15:41:50Z")
No. It says what has been explained at length - that the Three Fifths Compromise was a compromise between not counting slaves for representation and counting them as whole persons. ---
**Author:** ![zamboniracer](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/z/e9a140/32.png) [@zamboniracer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/zamboniracer)\ **Post date:** [May 30, 2017, 8:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/congress-makes-a-supreme-court-exception/787418/32 "2017-05-30T20:07:37Z")
> [@madsircool](#): > > Just how has the Constitution been violated by Trump? At least in ways that werent also violated by Obama, Bush etc? I think there is compelling evidence that Trump is violating the Emoluments Clause. Others disagree, but no one ever accused Obama, Bush etc of this. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/congress-makes-a-supreme-court-exception/787418.md?page=1)