[CornFed]

[quote author=CornFed link=topic=14611.msg156717#msg156717 date=1455728855]
[quote author=burger link=topic=14611.msg156711#msg156711 date=1455725437]
[quote author=CornFed link=topic=14611.msg156708#msg156708 date=1455724544]
Are you really so jaded that you can only think of the term "minority" in terms of racial, gender, and other specified groups?  I was referring to those (like me in this thread, apparently) that are in the minority on a given issue.  It was, I believe, the founders effort to blunt the power of emotion in the conduct of national affairs.

Now you're changing the subject.  We're not talking about avoiding rash decisions--we're talking about a representational system that is, within many states, not at all representational.  The current district system has nothing to do with blunting emotion; it simply rewards whatever party can control the state houses every 10 years (and thereby the redistricting process) and/or the party whose voters are less clustered.  What does that have to do with blunting emotion?

It's possible that Republicans will control both houses of Congress in 2017 despite losing the popular vote in each (I believe this was also true in 2013-2014, though I don't know the numbers for the senate in 2012).  Did the founders really intend for the party that gets fewer votes to be in charge?
[/quote]

I do think that they consciously avoided the possibility of states with concentrations of population running roughshod over the interests of the less-populated states.  Isn't that why they came up with the Electoral College?  Any effort to undermine the role of the Electoral College will result in greater majority rule, which is presumably a good thing, but it will threaten the minority's rights.  They scrupulously tried to avoid that.  It's also the reason they developed a bicameral Congress with one body based on equal state representation and the other based on population.
[/quote]

I've always understood that the Connecticut Compromise wasn't the Founders' broad vision of how government should ideally be, but a practical accommodation to the smaller states (which wanted equal state representation) by the larger states (which wanted proportional representation by population) in order to get a founding document that everybody could get talked into signing.  In other words, it was a settlement.  Something that got the parties moving forward again, but which neither side really loved.  I mean, yes, it was a clever idea and got the job done, but it's not as if it was written on tablets handed down by God.  I don't say that to demean its importance to the Constitutional structure, but to push back against the point that the newly sovereign states, speaking with one voice, had a unified goal from the beginning to protect minority rights by setting up this structure.  In my view, it was more about each state fighting to maximize its own power, and the Constitution reflects a multitude of different viewpoints on what our government should be, and this was the only deal that could get enough people on board while preserving our nascent union.  I think protecting minority rights was a side effect of the compromise, not its purpose.
[/quote]

CT, I have really enjoyed your input on this thread and I agree in general with your points in this post.  I think, though, that relegating the concept of protecting minority rights to an unintended by-product of a compromise on other matters is not correct.  I certainly never intended to assert that the Constitution was the in any way the result of a unanimous (or even majority) vision on all its aspects.

But its ultimate achievement was indeed remarkable given the diversity of perspectives and intentions of those who created it.  It could not be created today with all the special interests and the absence of trust and decorum.  Look at the constitution that was created when the European Union was created.  What was it, about 500 pages of minutia down to details about tariffs and I think even speed limits.  An absence of overarching vision and a bureaucrat's dream. 

And please folks, I am aware that there was political intrigue and strife among the founders.  I know they played dirty in their ways too.  But they managed to create a document that guided the formation and emergence of the greatest nation in history (unbelievably, I anticipate pushback about that assertion).  I am cautious about being too cavalier in dismissing its provisions as out of date.  It is amendable and has been amended, 27 times including the 10 that comprise the Bill of Rights, right?  But it's really, really hard.  It should be hard.  But it would be better to make such changes through the legislature, and it would be preferable to avoid to the greatest extent possible making such significant changes via judicial interpretations.

[CornFed]

[quote author=CornFed link=topic=14611.msg156717#msg156717 date=1455728855]
[quote author=burger link=topic=14611.msg156711#msg156711 date=1455725437]
[quote author=CornFed link=topic=14611.msg156708#msg156708 date=1455724544]
Are you really so jaded that you can only think of the term "minority" in terms of racial, gender, and other specified groups?  I was referring to those (like me in this thread, apparently) that are in the minority on a given issue.  It was, I believe, the founders effort to blunt the power of emotion in the conduct of national affairs.

Now you're changing the subject.  We're not talking about avoiding rash decisions--we're talking about a representational system that is, within many states, not at all representational.  The current district system has nothing to do with blunting emotion; it simply rewards whatever party can control the state houses every 10 years (and thereby the redistricting process) and/or the party whose voters are less clustered.  What does that have to do with blunting emotion?

It's possible that Republicans will control both houses of Congress in 2017 despite losing the popular vote in each (I believe this was also true in 2013-2014, though I don't know the numbers for the senate in 2012).  Did the founders really intend for the party that gets fewer votes to be in charge?
[/quote]

I do think that they consciously avoided the possibility of states with concentrations of population running roughshod over the interests of the less-populated states.  Isn't that why they came up with the Electoral College?  Any effort to undermine the role of the Electoral College will result in greater majority rule, which is presumably a good thing, but it will threaten the minority's rights.  They scrupulously tried to avoid that.  It's also the reason they developed a bicameral Congress with one body based on equal state representation and the other based on population.
[/quote]

I've always understood that the Connecticut Compromise wasn't the Founders' broad vision of how government should ideally be, but a practical accommodation to the smaller states (which wanted equal state representation) by the larger states (which wanted proportional representation by population) in order to get a founding document that everybody could get talked into signing.  In other words, it was a settlement.  Something that got the parties moving forward again, but which neither side really loved.  I mean, yes, it was a clever idea and got the job done, but it's not as if it was written on tablets handed down by God.  I don't say that to demean its importance to the Constitutional structure, but to push back against the point that the newly sovereign states, speaking with one voice, had a unified goal from the beginning to protect minority rights by setting up this structure.  In my view, it was more about each state fighting to maximize its own power, and the Constitution reflects a multitude of different viewpoints on what our government should be, and this was the only deal that could get enough people on board while preserving our nascent union.  I think protecting minority rights was a side effect of the compromise, not its purpose.
[/quote]

CT, I have really enjoyed your input on this thread and I agree in general with your points in this post.  I think, though, that relegating the concept of protecting minority rights to an unintended by-product of a compromise on other matters is not correct.  I certainly never intended to assert that the Constitution was the in any way the result of a unanimous (or even majority) vision on all its aspects.

But its ultimate achievement was indeed remarkable given the diversity of perspectives and intentions of those who created it.  It could not be created today with all the special interests and the absence of trust and decorum.  Look at the constitution that was created when the European Union was created.  What was it, about 500 pages of minutia down to details about tariffs and I think even speed limits.  An absence of overarching vision and a bureaucrat's dream. 

And please folks, I am aware that there was political intrigue and strife among the founders.  I know they played dirty in their ways too.  But they managed to create a document that guided the formation and emergence of the greatest nation in history (unbelievably, I anticipate pushback about that assertion).  I am cautious about being too cavalier in dismissing its provisions as out of date.  It is amendable and has been amended, 27 times including the 10 that comprise the Bill of Rights, right?  But it's really, really hard.  It should be hard.  But it would be better to make such changes through the legislature, and it would be preferable to avoid to the greatest extent possible making such significant changes via judicial interpretations.