Quotation du Jour
Posted in The Founding by Richard Adams
From James Madison:
The incompetency of one Legislature to regulate all the various objects belonging to the local governments, would evidently force a transfer of many of them to the executive department; whilst the encreasing splendour and number of its prerogatives supplied by this source, might prove excitements to ambition too powerful for a sober execution of the elective plan.
8:23 PM / November 19, 2010
: include(/srv/users/prod-php-nltashbrook/apps/prod-php-nltashbrook/public/sd/nlt-blog/_includes/promo-main.php): failed to open stream: No such file or directory in
: include(): Failed opening '/srv/users/prod-php-nltashbrook/apps/prod-php-nltashbrook/public/sd/nlt-blog/_includes/promo-main.php' for inclusion (include_path='.:/opt/sp/php7.2/lib/php') in
I'm convinced this is why the lower limit for Congressional district size was set at 30,000 (it was, I believe, the only debate George Washington took a public stand on at the 1787 convention). No limit was set on upper size--seemingly the more important part for our "modern" minds.
It might take some thought, but eventually the reasoning should become clear. If a House congressman has a minimum size on his district, then it is my belief that the Founders thought they had prevented him--for all time--from being able to say "I am able to know the hearts of my constituents so completely, so intimately, and so I can represent them so well that we no longer have need of state legislatures."
To which the Founding generation, accustomed to voting for--and seeing--their candidate on the courthouse lawn on voting day, and also being able to see *all* the voters together on one day--would have laughed in reply: "There is no way you can represent this district and have the national legislature make laws in "all cases whatsoever"--it's too big. We need smaller bodies too to take care of more local things."
My take, at any rate.