All-In [26514]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 20655
Joined: 9/2/02
|
Joe big-time supports small states rights ...
Sep 30, 2020, 11:38 AM
|
|
I infer that this includes support for the Electoral College system, which protects small state rights regarding presidential elections … hope he doesn't crawdad on this one …
XIV. ADDITIONAL VIEWS OF MR. BIDEN
In Philadelphia in 1787, the delegates to the Constitutional Convention rejected term limits on Members of Congress. As was noted in the Minority Report, the Founding Fathers viewed term limits as ``pernicious'' and ``ill- founded'' in and of themselves. But, more than that, the Framers also crafted a legislative branch of government to which term limits were not conducive. Indeed, term limits would have undermined the work of the Framers and would have been contrary to one of the basic premises of their product: the protection of the rights of small States. When the Constitutional Convention was deadlocked over the issue of representation in Congress--with large States supporting proportional representation and small States supporting equal representation--Benjamin Franklin and the delegates from Connecticut crafted the ``Connecticut Compromise.'' Under this proposal, membership in the House of Representatives would be based on population, thus protecting the interests of the large States, and membership in the Senate would be based on strict equality, thus protecting the rights of small States. Without this compromise, the Convention would probably have disbanded after it had barely begun. What is significant to this debate, however, is not only what happened--but what it meant. Explicit in the Connecticut Compromise is an equal vote for small States. But, implicit in the Connecticut Compromise is equal power for small States. An equal vote in the Senate does not ipso facto translate into equal power in Congress. Even though all States have two votes in the Senate regardless of size, large States can still exercise tremendous control. Today, a majority of the American people live in and a majority of Members of Congress come from just nine States. Two of those nine States border on my own State of Delaware. I admire my friends from New Jersey and Pennsylvania, but when it comes to the interests of the State of Delaware, I heed the words of Gunning Bedford, one of Delaware's delegates to the Constitutional Convention: ``I do not, gentlemen, trust you.'' James Madison knew about trust; he acknowledged that average legislators pursued their own State's interests. And, the Founders uniformly feared that a majority of people united by some passion or by their own interests could run roughshod over the rights and interests of a minority. So, the implicit check and balance created by the Founders to prevent the possible abuse of small States--the minority--by a few large States--the majority--was the ability of small States to wield power and influence through senior Members of Congress. In other words, by allowing States--at the discretion of the electorate--to reelect incumbents. Term limits would render that ability nugatory and would drive a stake through the heart of the Connecticut Compromise. The people of the State of Delaware, just 700,000 of them-- the fifth smallest State--have an interesting little tradition: if they do not like you, they throw you out. It may seem to some a novel concept, but it's known as the power of the ballot box, and it is the ultimate limit on congressional terms. At the same time, however, the people of Delaware also have another tradition--one that comes from a 200-year history as one of the smallest States in the Union. Long ago, Delawareans recognized that a small State gains equality with larger States by reelecting its incumbents and benefiting from their seniority. To deny that right--to impose artificial term limits--is to tell the people of Delaware that someone else knows better than them; that someone else can better decide what is in their interests; that their rights and interests will be at the whim of the larger States. I join the Founding Fathers in categorically rejecting that proposition. Delawareans were entrusted by the Constitution to look out for the interests of Delaware. And, if they, in their infinite wisdom, decide that reelecting an incumbent is the best way to protect their rights and interests, they should continue to be allowed to do so.
|
|