All-In [26500]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 20637
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.
|
|
50
