I suspect most conservatives will tolerate the current system as long as it produces results they agree with and will decide it’s intolerable the first time it produces a result they don’t like.
There is the supremacy clause of the constitution. The Constitution is supreme, but it is of limited powers. The states are sovereign where there is no conflict with the Constitution, and enjoy plenary power. That’s how our system of dual sovereignty works. Sovereignty didn’t lose when put to a vote. The states ceded a portion of their sovereignty when ratifying the Constitution, however they retained their sovereignty in all matters not explicitly controlled by that document. Your assertion that state sovereignty lost is not consistent with the history of the country.
Where are you getting this? Sovereign may identify overall authority or it may refer to an authority that is limited in its influence. It is absolutely true that the Federal government has ultimate authority, but even then there are limitations on what it may do in regard to the states. (E.g., when Congress decided that the country needed a 55 m.p.h. speed limit to save gas, it had to use the back door approach of threatening to withhold financial support to states that did not go along with the idea. The Feds did not begin setting speed limits.) And there are a number of Articles and Amendments that were not originally applied to the states until later. (E.g., four states continued to have established religions after the adoption of the Bill of Rights and several more had laws favoring religions weill into the 19th century.)
Demanding that there can be only one type of sovereignty is simply not real in either daily usage or Law.
And your “by the people argument” falls in the face of the actual history of the ratification of the Constitution in which only one state held an actual referendum while the others held conventions using a republican format. (It is interesting to read the occasionally coercive methods used to get the votes, as well.)
I disagree. The national government is clearly sovereign over the state governments. State governments cannot overrule the national government (unless the national government chooses to allow it). It’s meaningless to say states are sovereign except when there’s a conflict. Because when there is a conflict, it’s the national government which decides the outcome.
Yes, there were conventions; that was the means by which the people chose whether or not to ratify the Constitution. That’s my point.
If the Constitution had been a contract between states, it would have been sent to the various state governments for them to decide. It would have been treated like a treaty between sovereign nations.
Instead special conventions were called so that the people could decide whether to retain the current states they lived in or form a new country.
I can’t believe you are actually arguing that the states have no sovereignty. Tell that to the state when you fail to pay your state taxes. Ultimately, the states today could assert their power and call a new constitutional convention. That is proof that the power of the national government, as outlined in the constitution, is derived from the power of the states.
Did the public referendum on Brexit nullify UK’s sovereignty?
So what? Have you seen the vote tallies from those conventions? I am not sure that even one of them had as many as 100 persons in attendance. The conventions were organized by the states. I am not sure, but I believe that the attendees were chosen by the state legislatures. (I’m still looking that up.) I do not doubt the legitimacy of the conventions, but to claim that they were of and by the people (as in all the white, male, landowning, voting persons of each state) seems to be a stretch.
Sending it to the states for conventions hardly seems radically different than being “sent to the various state governments for them to decide.” The state legislatures could have “handed it off” to the conventions to avoid being pilloried if the whole thing self-destructed.
I see no need for a treaty, but a convention of men selected by their legslatures without a popular vote hardly meets the criterion of “by the people.” How were the conventioneers selected?
Agreed. The system may be borked, but it isn’t totally borked. The problem isn’t that DJT got a 2% boost from a vestigial gimmick, but that he got a 46% boost from voters who, if not haters themselves, fell for the lies of haters and kleptocrats.
The Senate isn’t being abolished anytime soon. Nevertheless we should continue to fight gerrymandering in all its forms when we can. The plans to cheat on the 2020 Census need to be pushed against, even if that requires organized counter-cheating.
Even if we assume absolutely equal representation, there is much to be said about geography playing a larger part.
Imagine a city divided into three areas: East, Mid, and West. Each area has 10 citizens (small city).
The race is Smith v. Jones and it breaks down as follows:
East: Smith 7, Jones 3
Mid: Jones 9, Smith 1
West: Smith 6, Jones 4
In a direct popular vote, Jones wins 16-14. However, shouldn’t some consideration be given to the fact that two diverse areas of the city support Smith and only one supports Jones?
Should overwhelming support in one area drown out consistent support across a broader area?
Now supposed that Mid had 20 residents. You could see that in a direct popular vote, no candidate would ever pay attention to East and West. Some weight has to be given so that all diverse groups are heard.
Hi, UltraVires.
Even if your comment made full sense, it doesn’t account for the insipidities of the present system.
Huge swathes of California have priorities hugely different from the San Francisco liberals. Swathes that vastly outnumber some states in population and/or area. Yet they have Zero Senators. Tiny Rhode Island has two Senators. Tiny Delaware has two Senators. How many Senators does upstate New York, with large are and population, have? How many Senators does urban Texas have?
Yet people are repeating banalities about geography over and over and over in this thread without acknowledging such simple facts.
This is a good argument for increasing the senators per state and setting up ranked voting.
The argument that you are making, however, is that the less populace east and west should dictate what happens in the more populous Mid.
Look WHAT up?
You mean, like this? History of the United States Constitution - Wikipedia
You might find the table of ratification votes instructive.
No, most of the convention attendees were selected by the people, either in county-wide votes (New Jersey, for example), or in town halls (Massachusetts, if I recall correctly, for example).
Wikipedia might be a good place to start. But it’s hardly the final word on any subject.
I suggest Ratification: The People Debate the Constitution, 1787-1788 by Pauline Maier. There’s also The Quartet: Orchestrating the Second American Revolution, 1783-1789 by Joseph Ellis, Slavery’s Constitution: From Revolution to Ratification by David Waldstreicher, and Plain, Honest Men: The Making of the American Constitution by Richard Beeman. There’s also Alexander Hamilton by Ron Chernow (I’ll admit when I read this one, I totally missed its potential as a musical) and The Three Lives of James Madison: Genius, Partisan, President by Noah Feldman (cheating a bit here; I’m still in the middle of reading this one). And of course, there’s the Federalist Papers and various Anti-Federalist works; a lot of them have been collected into a two-volume work titled The Debate on the Constitution.
There’s some other works on the subject that look interesting: An Anti-Federalist Constitution: The Development of Dissent in the Ratification Debates by Michael Faber, Federalists and Antifederalists: The Debate Over the Ratification of the Constitution by John Kaminski and Richard Leffler, and The Writing and Ratification of the U.S. Constitution: Practical Virtue in Action by John Vile. But I haven’t read these yet.
That’s San Francisco’s problem. Not Rhode Island’s. At least with regards to the national level. At the state level, California has a state government. How when it has no sovereignty is still a puzzle. But it exists and San Francisco and those who have differences with San Francisco can deal with it in Sacramento.
Within San Francisco you have different neighborhoods with different priorities. They take issues up with city government. They don’t go to Washington D.C. because they want a new stop sign or more needle and poop sweepers. They handle it or not locally. With local government and local powers.
What you attempt to trivialize by labeling it ‘banalities’ is, in reality, the way the political and social world works. History and past agreements matter. If boundaries of territory aren’t respected because of treaty and law then that only leaves the rule of force.
So. Due purely to historical accident more than 200 years in the past, the individual voters in Rhode Island should have FAR more power in U.S. national politics than the voters of San Francisco. Because ____________. Got it.
Cancel my subscription, if I haven’t already. I left the because empty so as not to put words in your mouth. Has there been an intelligible ‘Because’ in the thread?
That’s very far from compelling logic, even for the internet. 
By the same logic the United States does not communicate, I’ve never heard it say a word either. So why should it have any influence on overall world policies out of proportion to its population as a % of the world total? Because it’s a sovereign entity, which by its own political process decides what limited portions of that sovereignty it’s willing to surrender to ‘higher’ international bodies (there are some cases under various treaty agreements).
The states as sovereign entities agreed to surrender a good deal of their power to the new federal govt to form the Union, but not all of them, nor did they agree to no longer be sovereign entities. And practically speaking you have to live within that agreement, or get around it under it’s own terms but without word games. That’s the practical reality which isn’t even really affected necessarily by whether your logic is strong, or as lame at it just was.
The further ridiculousness of this conversation being, that if Democrats (the ‘reformers’ seeking their ‘rightful’ political domination at all cost) got the kind of majorities they need to pass constitutional amendments downgrading the Senate’s power (which is the marginally realistic path rather than 100% state govt agreement to have their Senate representation reduced, which would literally never happen)…it would depend on Democratic politicians first attaining Senate and state legislature 2/3’s and 3/4’s majorities then downgrading their own personal power, which would also not happen when push came to shove.
Yes there has. History matters. That’s why France has a permanent spot on the UN Security Council and every other country with 4 exceptions does not. History matters. That’s why Canada has all that land and so little people. How’s that fair? Let’s split the world’s land up proportionately.
Look up the EU. If it doesn’t collapse at some point they will want more central power. You think they will get buy in from the smaller countries if no concessions are made? You think the smaller countries are going to be thrilled once the deal is made Germany reneges?
Here’s a state merger/break-up scenario I proposed in a thread last year, complete with silly names:
ND and SD = Dakota
ID and MT = Montanaho
VT and NH = Vampshire
CA = N. California & S. California
TX = E. Texas & W. Texas
NY = The City & Upstate
This would not universally benefit Democrats, although that would probably be the immediate net effect.