Most disputed amendment?

[BrainGlutton]

@John Mace

Nope. Do you honestly think if the 50 States were completely autonomous today and decided to form a Federation or Union that it would NOT require something like the Senate to make it happen? You think you’d get RI or ND or AL to join a union with CA on a strictly proportional representation model? No way in a million years. You simply cannot expect sovereign states to join into a larger whole without preserving some aspects of their sovereignty. Not in the 18th century, nor in the 21st.

But that’s just the point, John. The states are not autonomous or sovereign any more – and most of them never were. Pretending otherwise is a polite fiction and we would do well to throw it over the side. (Of course, I have an axe to grind here since I live in Florida – a state very populous, therefore grossly underrepresented in the Senate.)

BTW, “proportional representation” is not what we’ve got in the House of Representatives, which is elected by a winner-take-all single-member-district system, but that’s another discussion.

[minty_green]

@Brutus

The Tenth Amendment doesn’t seem to get much respect these days, but I don’t know if it is ‘disputed’ so much as ‘flat-out ignored’.

Oh lord, not the 10th Amendment again. All the darn thing says is that whatever isn’t given to the feds is reserved to the states or the people. It does not define what is given to the feds.

[Captain_Amazing]

@BrainGlutton

BTW, “proportional representation” is not what we’ve got in the House of Representatives, which is elected by a winner-take-all single-member-district system, but that’s another discussion.

It’s not proportional representation in the way the Congressmen are elected (although I suppose a state could do that if it chose). However, congressional seats are apportioned proportionaly, which is to say that those states with a large population have more congressional seats than those states with a small population, and that that’s done proportionally, so that in theory, if your state has a population of X and 10 congressmen, my state with a population of 2X will have 20 congressmen.

[BrainGlutton]

@Brutus

The Tenth Amendment doesn’t seem to get much respect these days, but I don’t know if it is ‘disputed’ so much as ‘flat-out ignored’.

Ignored. For some reason, neither the Ninth nor the Tenth Amendment has ever been the basis for any decisive constitutional case. We could repeal both and it would make no obvious difference.

@Captain Amazing

It’s not proportional representation in the way the Congressmen are elected (although I suppose a state could do that if it chose). However, congressional seats are apportioned proportionaly, which is to say that those states with a large population have more congressional seats than those states with a small population, and that that’s done proportionally, so that in theory, if your state has a population of X and 10 congressmen, my state with a population of 2X will have 20 congressmen.

Yes, yes, I know what you meant. It’s just that “proportional representation” (AKA “full representation”) is a technical political term with a very specific meaning and I hate to see it abused. We who favor it (see the Center for Voting and Democracy, www.fairvote.org) have a hard enough time as it is just publicizing the idea, which it appears most Americans (still) have never heard of. When I bring it up, people, even quite politically sophisticated people, often assume “proportional representation” means (1) what you’re talking about, the equal-population single-member-district system; (2) racial gerrymandering; or (3) a parliamentary system. And it is none of those thngs.

[minty_green]

@BrainGlutton

For some reason, neither the Ninth nor the Tenth Amendment has ever been the basis for any decisive constitutional case. We could repeal both and it would make no obvious difference.

You could certainly repeal the 9th without any obvious effect, since all it does is prevent the feds from denying an asserted right on the basis that the right is not specifically enumerated in the Constitution. But the 10th Amendment is frequently relied upon by state governments and cited by the courts; it is a substantial check on federal authority.

[John_Mace]

@BrainGlutton

But that’s just the point, John. The states are not autonomous or sovereign any more – and most of them never were. Pretending otherwise is a polite fiction and we would do well to throw it over the side. (Of course, I have an axe to grind here since I live in Florida – a state very populous, therefore grossly underrepresented in the Senate.)

Of they’re not anymore. But sovereignty was a real option once British rule was ended. To allege that the Senate is an 18th century relic is naive in the extreme. If you wanted to ignite a civil war today, you couldn’t think of a better way to do so than to get rid of the Senate.

You needn’t look any further than the EU to see a 21st century example of what happens when states with unequal populations form an economic or political union.

Abd I live in CA-- more prossly “underrepresented” in the Senate than any other state.

[BrainGlutton]

@John Mace

You needn’t look any further than the EU to see a 21st century example of what happens when states with unequal populations form an economic or political union.

And what’s wrong with the EU? France and Germany are the biggest members, but it’s far from being a Franco-German empire.

[Captain_Amazing]

@BrainGlutton

Yes, yes, I know what you meant. It’s just that “proportional representation” (AKA “full representation”) is a technical political term with a very specific meaning and I hate to see it abused.

I know what “proportional representation” meams in terms of voting theory. But the term is also used to refer to the system used by the House of Representatives (and, I think that use of the term is older, actually). From the Constitutional Debates:

Mr. MADISON expressed his apprehensions that if the proper foundation of Government was destroyed, by substituting an equality in place of a proportional Representation, no proper superstructure would be raised. lf the small States really wish for a Government armed with the powers necessary to secure their liberties, and to enforce obedience on the larger members as well as on themselves he could not help thinking them extremely mistaken in their means.

From Federalist Paper #62, Madison’s defense of the Senate:

If indeed it be right, that among a people thoroughly incorporated into one nation, every district ought to have a PROPORTIONAL share in the government, and that among independent and sovereign States, bound together by a simple league, the parties, however unequal in size, ought to have an EQUAL share in the common councils, it does not appear to be without some reason that in a compound republic, partaking both of the national and federal character, the government ought to be founded on a mixture of the principles of proportional and equal representation.

The term doesn’t seem to get the meaning you’re giving it until the 19th century, where it’s used by Sen. Charles Buckalew as another term for cumulative voting.

[BrainGlutton]

@Captain Amazing

The term doesn’t seem to get the meaning you’re giving it until the 19th century, where it’s used by Sen. Charles Buckalew as another term for cumulative voting.

Yes, and the word “liberal” once meant what we now mean by “libertarian,” but it would be silly and confusing to use it that way today. (Hear me, Liberal?) Words and phrases can change their meanings over the centuries. Especially in political discourse.

[John_Mace]

@BrainGlutton

And what’s wrong with the EU? France and Germany are the biggest members, but it’s far from being a Franco-German empire.

Exactly. And that’s at least partially because the representatives are not chosen proportionally to the populations of the varioius countries. Smaller countries are “overrepresented”, to use your terminology. But it’s not even a question of whether the larger countries run things, but whether the smaller countries would ever have been convinced to join if the representatives were chosen strictly on the basis of population.

[BrainGlutton]

@John Mace

Exactly. And that’s at least partially because the representatives are not chosen proportionally to the populations of the varioius countries. Smaller countries are “overrepresented”, to use your terminology. But it’s not even a question of whether the larger countries run things, but whether the smaller countries would ever have been convinced to join if the representatives were chosen strictly on the basis of population.

I believe there’s more than one group of “representatives” in the EU – but I thought the European Parliament, at least, was straightforward population-based.

Can some Euro Dopers help us clear this up?

[BrainGlutton]

Here’s what the Encarta says:

The members of the EU cooperate in three distinct areas, often called pillars. At the heart of this system is the European Community (EC) pillar with its supranational functions and its governing institutions. The EC pillar is flanked by two pillars based on intergovernmental cooperation: Common Foreign and Security Policy (CFSP) and Justice and Home Affairs (JHA). . . . .

<snip>

Standing above the three pillars and in a position to coordinate activities across all of them is the European Council. The council is in strict legal terms not an EU institution. It is the meeting place of the leaders of the national governments. . . .

The European Commission is the highest administrative body in the EU. . . .

Currently there are 20 commissioners, who are appointed by the member governments and are supported by a large administrative staff. France, Germany, Italy, Spain, and the United Kingdom each appoint two commissioners; the other countries appoint one each. The policy of each member state selecting a commissioner became the subject of debate as preparations for EU enlargement progressed. If each country in an enlarged EU were allowed to appoint at least one commissioner, the commission would be much larger, making it too unwieldy to be an effective executive and decision-making authority. In addition, the fact that the commission is appointed by member governments and not elected by the people has raised questions about how much power it should be allowed to exercise.

The Treaty of Nice clarified details about the future structure of the commission in an enlarged EU. After 2005 each member state would have only one commissioner. However, when the EU reached 27 member states, the European Council would be obliged to determine how large the commission should be. The treaty also altered the selection procedures for commissioners, giving the European Council and the European Parliament a role in the confirmation process.

The Council of the European Union (formerly called the Council of Ministers) represents the national governments. It is the primary decision-making authority of the EU and is the most important and powerful EU body. Although its name is similar to that of the European Council, the Council of the European Union’s powers are essentially limited to the EC pillar, whereas the European Council oversees all three pillars of EU cooperation.

When the Council of the European Union meets, one government minister from each member state is present. However, the minister for each state is not the same for every meeting. Each member state sends its government minister who is most familiar with the topic at hand. For example, a council of defense ministers might discuss foreign policy, whereas a council of agriculture ministers would meet to discuss crop prices.

<snip>

The European Parliament is the representative body of the European Union (EU). The parliament is composed of 626 members that are popularly elected from among the EU’s 15 member states. The headquarters of the European Parliament are in Strasbourg, France.

The European Parliament (EP) is made up of 626 members who are directly elected by the citizens of the EU. Direct elections to the EP were implemented in 1979. Before that time, members were appointed by the legislatures of the member governments. The European Parliament was originally designed merely as an advisory body; however, its right to participate in some EU decisions was extended by the later treaties. It must be consulted about matters relating to the EU budget, which it can reject; it can remove the European Commission as a body through a vote of no confidence; and it can veto the accession of potential member states.

© 1993-2003 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.

Jeez! And I thought our system was complicated!

To add to the confusion, there’s also the Council of Europe (as distinct from the European Council and the Council of the European Union), which is a completely different international organization, with 41 members (it includes Russia, the Ukraine, Georgia, Albania, and all the former Yugoslavian states except for Serbia and Bosnia).

[John_Mace]

@BrainGlutton

I believe there’s more than one group of “representatives” in the EU – but I thought the European Parliament, at least, was straightforward population-based.

Can some Euro Dopers help us clear this up?

Here you go. Smaller countries have more clout per person, and although not as skewed as the US senate, it’s a single house organization, so it’s a bit hard to compare.

My point is that you will not be able to find a group of states coming together to form a union that does not use some form of “overrepresentation” for the smaller states. Neither in the 18th century, nor in the 21st. If you can find one, I’d be interested in seeing it.

[BrainGlutton]

@John Mace

My point is that you will not be able to find a group of states coming together to form a union that does not use some form of “overrepresentation” for the smaller states.

But that does not mean that the United States, which is now a true national community and has been at least since the 1960s (when the South got rid of segregation and began to be heavily colonized by Yankees), has any practical use for the Great Compromise that gave us the House and the Senate. Really, how many Americans still feel a sense of patriotic loyalty to their state that compares with their sense of patriotic loyalty to the nation as a whole?

[Captain_Amazing]

@BrainGlutton

Words and phrases can change their meanings over the centuries. Especially in political discourse.

Right, but “proportional representation” is still used to describe the House, as you saw in this thread.

[Ms2001]

@BrainGlutton

Really, how many Americans still feel a sense of patriotic loyalty to their state that compares with their sense of patriotic loyalty to the nation as a whole?

Well, there are 22 million Texans…

[John_Mace]

@BrainGlutton

But that does not mean that the United States, which is now a true national community and has been at least since the 1960s (when the South got rid of segregation and began to be heavily colonized by Yankees), has any practical use for the Great Compromise that gave us the House and the Senate.

Do you honestly think a constitutional amendment to abolish the senate would have ANY traction at all?

Really, how many Americans still feel a sense of patriotic loyalty to their state that compares with their sense of patriotic loyalty to the nation as a whole?

Probably a lot more than you think. If you’ve got some poll data to support your statement it would be interesting to see.

[furt]

@tim314

Why?

Just to check in, my basic reasoning has already been explained. I’m a big believer in small government, and believe that depriving the states of a voice in the federal government removes a huge structural check on the power of the fed. The travesty of unfunded federal mandates is just one example.

FWIW, the 16th can go, too.

[BrainGlutton]

@furt

I’m a big believer in small government, and believe that depriving the states of a voice in the federal government removes a huge structural check on the power of the fed.

You are implicitly equating “federal government” with “big government” and “state government” with “small government.” In terms of scale this is certainly valid, but the states don’t really have a better record than the federal government when it comes to respecting/protecting individual rights. Rather the reverse, in fact.

[Steve_MB]

@John Mace

Do you honestly think a constitutional amendment to abolish the senate would have ANY traction at all?

Especially since such a constitutional amendment would have to be unanimously ratified:

Article V

The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate.