The Fight Over Gun Control Has Revealed America's New Civil War

[xchrom]

http://www.alternet.org/news-amp-politics/fight-over-gun-control-has-revealed-americas-new-civil-war



My first reaction on hearing of the Senate’s failure to get 60 votes for even modest measures to regulate the flow of guns into the hands of people who shouldn’t have them, such as background checks supported by 90 percent of Americans, was to be furious at the spinelessness of the four Senate Democrats who voted against the measure (Mark Begich, Max Baucus, Mark Pryor, and Heidi Heitkamp), as well as the Republicans. And also with Harry Reid, who wouldn’t lead the fight on changing the filibuster rule when he had the chance.

The deeper message here is that rural, older, white America occupies one land; younger, urban, increasingly non-white America lives in another. And the dividing line on social issues (not just guns, but also abortion, equal marriage rights, and immigration reform) runs between the two.

Yes, I know: Plenty of people who are rural, older, and white aren’t regressives on guns, abortion, equal marriage, and immigration. And plenty who are urban, younger, and non-white are. My point is that if you want to explain what’s happening in America on these non-economic issues you have to understand what’s happening to the nation demographically — and why the demographic split is important.

Begich, Baucus, Pryor, and Heitkamp may be Democrats but they’re also from rural, older, white America. That land has disproportionate political power in the Senate, and a gerrymandered House — which may not bode well for immigration reform over the next few months, and suggests continuing battles over “state’s rights” to determine who can marry and when human life begins.

[EmeraldCityGrl]

1. Bill Maher covered this in detail on

his HBO show this week pointing out Diane Fienstein represents over
7,000,000 people and some Senator in North Dekota rresents 167,000.
The framers could never have predicted this and it must change.

Wish I had a link. Might want to Google it.

[hack89]

2. It will never change

those states you want to remove representation from are the same states you would need to ratify your constitutional amendment.

[MOTRDemocrat]

3. Yeah, something is broken when someone representing 167,000 people...

Has the same amount of influence of someone representing 7,000,000 people.

It's a severely broken system when a vocal minority can impede progress.

[spin]

4. You need to study history. ...

Two Senators Per State

The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each State. [U.S. Constitution, Article I, section 3, clause 1]

During the summer of 1787, the delegates to the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia established equal representation in the Senate and proportional representation in the House of Representatives. Called the “Great Compromise” or the “Connecticut Compromise,” this unique plan for congressional representation resolved the most controversial aspect of the drafting of the Constitution.

In the weeks before the Constitution’s framers agreed to the compromise, the delegates from the states with large populations argued that each state’s representation in the Senate should correspond to the size of the state. Large-state delegates promoted James Madison’s Virginia Plan, the document that was the basis for several of the clauses in the Constitution. Under this plan, the Senate and the House would base their membership on the same proportional “right of suffrage.” That is, the number of senators in each state would be determined by its population of free citizens and slaves. Large states, then, stood to gain the most seats in the Senate. As justification for this advantage, delegates noted that their states contributed more of the nation’s financial and defensive resources than small states, and therefore, required a greater say in government.

Small-state delegates hoped to protect states’ rights within a confederate system of government. Fearing the effects of majority rule, they demanded equal representation in Congress, as was practiced under the Articles of Confederation and assumed in William Paterson’s New Jersey Plan. In fact, some framers threatened to withdraw from the convention if a proportional representation measure passed.

Other delegates sought a compromise between large-state and small-state interests. As early as 1776, Connecticut’s Roger Sherman had suggested that Congress represent the people as well as the states. During the 1787 convention, Sherman proposed that House representation be based on the population, while in the Senate, the states would be equally represented. Benjamin Franklin agreed that each state should have an equal vote in the Senate except in matters concerning money. The convention’s grand committee reported his motion, with some modifications, to the delegates in early July. Madison led the debates against Franklin’s measure, believing it an injustice to the majority of Americans, while some small-state delegates were reluctant even to support proportional representation in the House. On July 16, delegates narrowly adopted the mixed representation plan giving states equal votes in the Senate within a federal system of government.
http://www.senate.gov/artandhistory/history/common/briefing/Constitution_Senate.htm

[Robb]

5. Neatly skipping over the three-fifths compromise for the southern states.

Wonder why you did that?

[spin]

7. Which has nothing to do with the number of senators from each state. ...

That compromise dealt with the number of representatives from each state in the House.

[Robb]

9. Absurd. It was the only reason southern states agreed to the senate arrangement.

But good try.

[spin]

10. Feel free to interpret history anyway you wish. ...

As decided by the Great Compromise of 1787, each state is represented by two senators; therefore each state has an equal voice in the Senate. In the House, large states enjoy a numerical advantage in representation, but in the Senate every state—large or small—has equal representation.

In creating the Senate, the framers were careful to provide a safeguard against majority rule. Giving the small state of Delaware the same voting power as the large state of Virginia, for example, provided protection for the voice of the minority.
http://www.congresslink.org/print_expert_tenthingssenate.htm

[Robb]

11. Don't be obtuse. Southern states got a great deal of power from the 3/5ths deal.

That power being granted in the House was the only reason they ceded any in the senate.

[spin]

12. As I said you can interpret history any way you wish.

So far you have expressed your opinion. I would be far more impressed with your argument if you backed it up with some links to a reliable historical source as I have done. I will admit that I might be wrong but to change my opinion I will need more than you have offered.

[byeya]

6. The 3-5ths compromise allowed the slave states to collect federal money based on the population

even though the slaves could not vote and have any civil liberties. The slave states and, now ex-slave states, have always taken more from the rest of the country than they given in taxes. Not only are their leaders the biggest hyocrites, they are also the biggest parasites.

[spanone]

8. 90% of the people WANTED greater background checks...the 'war' is with the congress

and their allegiance to the nra