September 12, 2012: Changing the Constitution
As the times are rapidly evolving, some look to the Constitution and see flaws that must be fixed. The Constitution was written around 220 years ago, yet in this time, it has hardly changed. While some believe the document to be some holy, permanent work, the fact is that the country isn't the same as it was when the Framers wrote it.
In reading the United States Constitution as well as many articles with different opinions of the topic, I came
across Article. I. Section. 3. and found a discrepancy I agree needs to be modified. Part of the clause states:
“The Senate of the United States shall be composed
of two Senators from each State, chosen by the Legislature thereof for six
Years; and each Senator shall have one Vote.”
As of now, the Constitution allows for a legislative branch of government with two houses: the House of Representatives and the Senate. While the number of representatives from each state in the House is based off of state population, this clause allows for each state in the Senate to have two senators
from each state, regardless of population. I feel that this part needs to be adjusted a bit. When the
Constitution was first ratified, there was not as large of a population
difference between large and small states as there is today. However, now, even though larger states
can have an incredibly larger population than other states, they still only get
two senators. Yes, the Senate is the “equalizer” for the states of the two chambers of Congress, but I still don’t find this system equal when the larger states have most of the nation’s people, yet they can
accomplish nothing in the more powerful, long-term decision-making Senate without the approval of the less populated states.
To make this issue of population difference a little fairer, I would propose a slightly more representative
Senate. Instead of completely basing the amount of representation on
population like the House of Representatives, a small extra amount of senators
could be added to the larger states with the most population. Perhaps the top ten most populated
states could have an additional 2 senators each and the next 15 or so most
populated states have one additional senator each. The Senate could still be more equal and more independent of
the people, but the representation could be more balanced and fair. This Constitution aims for a balance of power, but the position of the Senate today does not follow this principle. Sorry Framers...this document needs some updating.
I agree that the number of senators per state should be based on the population of the state. By giving only two to each state, the government is giving less of a voice to people who live in densely populated states, and more of a voice to those who live in more sparsely populated states.
ReplyDeleteIt is true that the dispersion of power is not equal among the states. But if both houses of the legislative branch were to have proportioned representation, the larger states would have an advantage when it came to passing laws and bills. Smaller states like New Jersey and Rhode Island would not have an equal say in policy making.
ReplyDeleteIn my opinion, the question we have to ask here is would we rather the smaller states dictate what the rest of the country does? They may not have as equal a say, but I personally think it's worse if the bulk of the population of the country can't accomplish anything without the approval of the much less populated states.
ReplyDelete