Give California 12 Senators, and Vermont Just One

[jbgusa]

Originally Posted by ChiGeekGuest

All of the states were in the mix, including the 3 you mentioned.

The point I was making is that there were small states as well as slave states in the mix. I had forgotten about NH. Thanks for reminding me.

Originally Posted by ChiGeekGuest

This rigging ensured that for 32 of the Constitution’s first 36 years, a white slaveholding Virginian would occupy the presidency, & in turn, would thereby influence the makeup of the Supreme Court of the US for that timeframe. The weight of the decisions influenced or, in fact, was, the law of the land. This rigging of the SCOTUS resulted in 1 of the worst Supreme Court decisions of all time. Plessy v. Ferguson makes all similar listings, here's just 1:

13 Worst Supreme Court Decisions of All Time

https://blogs.findlaw.com/supreme_co...-all-time.html

Except by the time Plessy was decided most of the SCOTUS judges were appointed by Presidents Lincoln through Cleveland, with only Cleveland being a Democrat. And not from a former slave state. Maybe you're thinking of Dred Scott v. Sanford, an 1857 decision and even worse than Plessy.

[ChiGeekGuest]

Originally Posted by jbgusa

The point I was making is that there were small states as well as slave states in the mix. I had forgotten about NH. Thanks for reminding me.

You asked about New Hampshire here:

Originally Posted by jbgusa

Small states such as Connecticut, New Hampshire, and minimally "slave" Delaware were in the mix asa well.

Originally Posted by jbgusa

Except by the time Plessy was decided most of the SCOTUS judges were appointed by Presidents Lincoln through Cleveland, with only Cleveland being a Democrat. And not from a former slave state. Maybe you're thinking of Dred Scott v. Sanford, an 1857 decision and even worse than Plessy.

They were both awful decisions. In the present day, both are considered to be the 'worst of the worst' in any common sense reckoning. Dred Scott v. Sanford (1857) is the first case listed in the link provided. What is your point?

President Lincoln appointed 1 Supreme Court Justice. This at a time when there were 6 on the bench, & when US Senators were elected, not by the people, but by legislators.

My underlying point here is that the way we elect representatives, including the Electoral College, has gone through several 'incarnations' since the Constitutional Convention where the rules were created.

While very admirable in many ways, there's no getting away from the fact that they were conflicted big time:

"While drafting the Constitution, James Madison strove to ensure the protection of minority rights but also proposed that a slave be counted as three-fifths of a person. The contradiction, etched into the Constitution, would come to define Madison and a nation irreconcilably founded both on slavery and the ideals of liberty and justice. ..."

& the irreconcilable issue was whether people could own other people as property thus the American Civil War where the sine qua non reason for the War was clearly enunciated by its actors.

"Sine qua non is an indispensable and essential action, condition, or ingredient. It was originally a Latin legal term for "[a condition] without which it could not be", or "but for..." or "without which [there is] nothing."