billbuckhead was trying to raise a legitimate question and a lot

[hedgehog]

of people here missed his point. Yes, the original Constitution was based on compromise and as a result the House belonged to the people and the Senate to the Sates. But the Constitution has changed with the times. For example, originally Senators were appointed by state legislatures rather than elected directly. Originally, only white men with property had the vote. The question is, given the vast disparity in state populations today, is it legitimate to continue to allow small states the power to overrule the wishes of larger states? The same reasoning applies to the Electoral College.

I 'm all for letting states govern themselves with regards to local issues. Clearly, laws that are reasonable and necessary in states with a high population density and large number of people such as New York and California would not make sense in places like Wyoming and North Dakota. But should a small population in several states be allowed to overrule a much larger population in a single state on issues such as National Health Insurance, minimum wage, war and peace, etc?

[billbuckhead]

1. "our Creator made the earth for the use of the living and not of the dead;"

"Some men look at constitutions with sanctimonious reverence, and deem them like the ark of the Covenant, too sacred to be touched. They ascribe to the men of the preceding age a wisdom more than human, and suppose what they did to be beyond amendment… laws and institutions must go hand in hand with the progress of the human mind… as that becomes more developed, more enlightened, as new discoveries are made, institutions must advance also, to keep pace with the times… We might as well require a man to wear still the coat which fitted him when a boy as civilized society to remain forever under the regimen of their barbarous ancestors."
-- Thomas Jefferson, on reform of the Virginia Constitution

"That our Creator made the earth for the use of the living and not of the dead; that those who exist not can have no use nor right in it, no authority or power over it; that one generation of men cannot foreclose or burden its use to another, which comes to it in its own right and by the same divine beneficence; that a preceding generation cannot bind a succeeding one by its laws or contracts; these deriving their obligation from the will of the existing majority, and that majority being removed by death, another comes in its place with a will equally free to make its own laws and contracts; these are axioms so self-evident that no explanation can make them plainer."
-- Thomas Jefferson to T. Earle, 1823
---------------snip------------------------------
<http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/Quotes-USconstitution.htm>
<http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/tenets.htm>

This time, I'll just let Thomas Jefferson argue on my behalf. BTW, I recomend going to the Steve Kangas website listed above and roaming around for awhile. This guy was way ahead of his time in more ways than one.