Skip to main content

PARTISAN POLITICS AND THE LAWS WHICH SHAPED THE FIRST CONGRESS

Image Source: https://www.whitehouse.gov/about-the-white-house/presidents/james-madison/


 By Samuel T. Lair - Posted at Journal of the American Revolution:

Every ten years the United States engages in the process of re-apportionment, wherein each state with more than one House seat redraws their Congressional districts. Simultaneously, every re-districting cycle partisans, activists, and pundits alike all bewail the harmful effects of gerrymandering on the process. Far from a modern phenomenon, partisan politics has always had a significant influence on the re-districting process. Indeed, the Framers of our Constitution designed our system of republican government with the understanding that “party spirit” would be a constant feature in its operation—particularly in redistricting. Nor would it take long for these effects to become a mainstay in the redistricting process. Even before the First Congress assembled in Philadelphia, the partisan quarrels between the Federalists and Anti-Federalists colored the debates over the first election laws and which form of Congressional district was intended by the Constitution.
The Intention of the Framers

The Constitution is vague on how members of the House of Representatives are to be elected. The only guidance provided is in Article 1, Section 4, which gives a general pronouncement of the power of state legislatures to determine the “times, places, and manner” of holding congressional elections and the authority of Congress to “at any time by law make or alter such regulations.”[1] The choice to allow state legislatures the freedom to regulate their congressional elections as they pleased was deliberate. As explained by James Madison during the Constitutional Convention of 1787, “whether the electors should vote by ballot or vivâ voce, should assemble at this place or that place; should be divided into districts or all meet at one place, shd all vote for all the representatives; or all in a district vote for a number allotted to the district . . . would depend on the Legislatures.”[2] For this reason, Madison believed Congress’ authority to intervene in the regulation of elections was necessary. Meanwhile, other framers implied that though states were granted the freedom to regulate their elections as they pleased, they nonetheless expected states to adopt single-member districts. For example, Rufus King in the Massachusetts Ratifying Convention predicted that “this State [would be] thrown into eight districts, and a member apportioned to each,” then as the population increased, “the representatives and districts will be increased.”[3] Combined, these two statements suggest that the framers largely expected that the election laws of the United States would vary between states until the adoption of some future national standard enforced by Congress, presumably based around the single-member district model.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Wokeism: When the Cure is Worse Than the Disease

 Posted at Churches Without Chests : Africa receives some American errors that are quite beneficial. For example, before the NBA finals, the Super Bowl or the World Series, sports merchandisers produce memorabilia of both finalists winning, so as to be able to immediately sell when the final is over. Unfortunately, half of that merchandise represents an alternate universe: where the team that lost actually won. What happens to the champions-that-never-were T-shirts and caps? Much of it is donated to third-world countries, where needy folks wear shirts displaying an event that never happened. Hey, we’re not complaining. Another shirt on a poor man’s back is a good thing, even if it celebrates what never occurred. Error is sometimes beneficial. Some imported errors are profoundly destructive, though. The worst of them are theological errors, for what touches Scripture touches ultimate realities. Two such errors that originated in America are particularly devastating for a country like m

MAGA's Morality Problem

U.S. Rep. Lauren Boebert speaking with attendees at the 2021 AmericaFest at the Phoenix Convention Center in Phoenix, Arizona. Photo by Gage Skidmore (Source:  MAGA's Morality Problem | Shane Vander Hart )  By Shane Vander Hart When a voting base dismisses the importance of private virtue, we shouldn't be surprised when their leaders lack it. Elected officials having affairs and the like is not new, we've seen Republicans and Democrats caught in scandals. What is new, however, are those being dismissive or defensive of the behavior. Does personal morality and character matter when considering political candidates and elected officials? For me, for me that is an unequivocal yes. The MAGA movement disagreed excusing and elevating a serial adulterer to the White House. We are seeing the fruit of this position today. Continue here.

God, History and the Nations

 By Bill Muehlenberg - Posted at CultureWatch: Published September 12, 2023 Good news about rogue rulers and evil tyrants: A major problem we have as mere fallen and finite creatures is that we lack perspective. We do not see the big picture and we do not consider the long term. Christians can be just as guilty of this as non-Christians. We can too easily become overwhelmed by events going on around us. This can especially be true regarding wicked rulers and evil nations. I have been around for a while now, and I recall worrying greatly about things like the Soviet Union and the Eastern Bloc. Communism seemed to be the wave of the future back then. But of course the wall came down in 1989, and over seven decades of godless Communist rule came to an end – at least in that part of the world. And many empires have come and gone over the centuries, be they the Assyrians, the Babylonians, the Romans, and so on. Yet when we see powerful and evil nations today, it still can seem like they are