Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsDid Our Founders' Lack of Foresight Doom Gun Control?The tyranny of small states in the undemocratic
Did Our Founders' Lack of Foresight Doom Gun Control?The tyranny of small states in the undemocratic Senateby Alec MacGillis at the New Republic
http://www.newrepublic.com/article/112925/small-states-sway-gun-control-debate-senate
"SNIP................................................
When the Senate takes up the bill to expand background checks for gun purchases this week, we will hear plenty rationalizations for opposing it similar to the one offered recently by Heidi Heitkamp, the newly elected Democrat from North Dakota: In our part of the country, [gun control] isnt an issue. This is a way of life. This is how people feel, and it is extraordinarily difficult to explain that, especially to grieving parents. Heitkamps bottom line: Im going to represent my state.
That state has a population that did not crack 700,000 as of last year. In other words, that state is smaller than cities like Columbus, Fort Worth and Charlotte, and is only slightly larger than El Paso, Memphis and Nashville. North Dakota is separate from South Dakota only because Republicans who dominated the Constitutional Convention in 1889 thought it better to carve two Republican-leaning states out of Dakota Territory (railroad politics also played a role). And yet, North Dakota will have as much say this week as California, Texas, New York and Floridahow those 699,000 people feel in towns like Minot and Williston and Fargo will matter as much as how 38 million people feel in towns like Los Angeles and San Francisco and San Jose. Small, rural states will not only make it much harder to expand background checks to the huge gun shows where a big share of firearms are purchased, they may succeed in passing an amendment that would allow states with lax regulations for concealed-carry to trump stricter rules elsewherethat is, to allow someone who got a concealed-carry permit in Wyoming (population 576,000, smaller than Portland, Oregon) to carry a concealed weapon in New York, where its much tougher to get a permit.
The undemocratic nature of the upper chamber of our legislative branch of government has been noted many timesit is, as the New York Times observed in an in-depth piece just a few months ago, in contention for the least democratic legislative chamber in the world, with the 38 million people who live in the 22 smallest states represented by 44 senators, while 38 million Californians are represented by two. But it is worth dwelling on this feature of our government again this week, because there are few issues where it makes itself felt as strongly as on guns. Max Baucus, the Montana Democrat, helped carry Obamacare to passage, but here he is on the background check bill: I dont support the bill, but I support open debate. Montanans are opposed to this billby a very large margin. Montanas population? Just over a milliona veritable giant by contrast with North Dakota, but also quite a bit smaller than Dallas, San Antonio and San Diego. And heres Mark Begich shortly before he became one of two Democrats, along with Arkansas Mark Pryor, to decline to even allow the expanded background-check bill to come up for debate: In Alaska, he said, We love our guns. Thats nice! In Columbus, which has more people than Alaskas 731,000, they love their Buckeyes, but that doesnt mean they get to set national policy around them.
Bring this up, and the guardians of the wide-open spaces throw the Constitution in your face. But its worth recalling just how haphazardly this feature of our government came about, that it was not handed down from the mountaintop by James Madison. In fact, Madison, the father of the Constitution, vehemently opposed this design for the Senate when it was being debated at the Constitutional Convention. As a representative of one of the big states, Virginia, he was in favor ofgaspapportioning votes in both legislative chambers by population. This fact is often lost on the small-state defenders, as I learned in the onslaught I received when I brought this matter up in 2009: They assume that because Madison supported one of the Senates initial undemocratic featureshaving its members selected indirectly, by state legislatures, in order to keep the Senate at a remove from the tempestuous masseshe must have supported undemocratic apportionment. He did not. He drafted the Virginia Plan, which called for two chambers, with members allotted by state population. Countering this was the New Jersey Plan, which called for only a single chamber with equal representation for each state (remember, this was pre-Short Hills Mall, and New Jersey was at the time a relatively small state.)
.............................................SNIP"
InfoView thread info, including edit history
TrashPut this thread in your Trash Can (My DU » Trash Can)
BookmarkAdd this thread to your Bookmarks (My DU » Bookmarks)
3 replies, 868 views
ShareGet links to this post and/or share on social media
AlertAlert this post for a rule violation
PowersThere are no powers you can use on this post
EditCannot edit other people's posts
ReplyReply to this post
EditCannot edit other people's posts
Rec (1)
ReplyReply to this post
3 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Did Our Founders' Lack of Foresight Doom Gun Control?The tyranny of small states in the undemocratic (Original Post)
applegrove
Apr 2013
OP
Seems true and relevant to understanding what is happening to the country today. n/t
StrayKat
Apr 2013
#3
Gravitycollapse
(8,155 posts)1. Our founding fathers lacked foresight on an immense number of subjects.
If it wasn't relevant to their white, male, slave owning agenda, they didn't care.
applegrove
(118,633 posts)2. Very true.
StrayKat
(570 posts)3. Seems true and relevant to understanding what is happening to the country today. n/t