> Doug wrote
>
> >kelley wrote:
> >
> >>funny, by 1848 that they held a Convention in Seneca Falls and wrote a
> >>declaration of sentiments, modeled after the D of I. Their goal: to alter
> >>the Constitution. Furthermore, a similar Convention was held by Freed
> >>Slaves some time later, details escape me at the mo' Finally, both of
> >>these were undone by what? constitutional amendments. oh but i guess
> >>they were all falsely conscious, eh?
> >
> >They deliberately made it difficult to amend, becuase it was a document
> >written by and elite trying to control a mass. You can mythify and revere
> >all you like, but I prefer giving wider berth to the textual and
> >institutional product of 18th century Southern planters.
>
> Your privilege, of course. But can you name a document
> anywhere else that does the job better?
(1) There's a whole history of documents expanding the realm of human rights far beyond that provided for in the US Constitution. Many of them actually do a far better job in practice as well.
(2) The vast majority of advanced industrial nations have a more democratic system of representative democracy that the US, based on proportial representation (formal dimension), a broader ideological array of political parties and significantly higher rates of voter participation (informal dimensions).
(3) In light of the above, the fetishizing of "documents" is utterly beside the point.
> I think those planters were remarkably foresightful,
> me. Pity their political successors are such
> pillocks, but that's my fault, and yours, for allowing
> them to *be* successors.
Blaming the victim. How quaint!
> >How is it defensible on democratic grounds that Wyoming should have the
> >same number of senators as California?
>
> What would you have instead: (a) tyranny of large
> states over small, (b) state-against-state land-grab
> wars, (c) automatic gerrymandering of state boundaries
> to maintain representational parity, or (d) no states
> at all?
Pre-1962, one could have posed the same question with respect to state governments. At the time, it was quite common for states to have the lower house apportioned by population, and the upper house apportioned on some roughly geographical basis (in tennesse, for example, simply by not making any changes in district lines since 1901). That year, the Supreme Court ruled (Baker v. Carr) that this practice was un-Constitutional. Nowadays, both upper and lower houses in state legislatures have population-based distrists.
To my knowledge, abolishing US Senate-style upper houses in the States has not brought about the collapse of Western Civilization. Correct me if I'm wrong, Margaret.
-- Paul Rosenberg Reason and Democracy rad at gte.net
"Let's put the information BACK into the information age!"