I read your yeas and nays view in the weekend edition when you said you chuckled while people’s concerns in Western Maryland weren’t being addressed.

You stated there are better ways than threatening to leave the state. I would love to hear how people in that part of the state can have their concerns heard when no one will listen to them.

It’s not funny when people just don’t care about you.

Alan Tripp

Gaithersburg

(55) comments

phydeaux994

gab, question. Who were the small States the Electoral College was protecting in 1787? The total population of the United States of America was around 4 million divided among 13 pretty small States population wise mostly along the East Coast. Are you denying that the Electoral College along with the 3/5 Compromise was a gimmick to appease the Southern “Slave States” who’s economies depended on slaves so they would ratify the Constitution?

gabrielshorn2013

Phy, I have not been discussing the EC. The question at hand was why should a less populated state have as much say in the government (via the Senate) as a more populated one. I have pointed this out below, and to you many times previously. The House of Representatives gives proportional representation by population, and the Senate gives parity in representation. This was a fair compromise, The EC was a red herring brought into this discussion, and was simply the addition of the number of Representatives and Senators per state. The election of the Executive is done by the States, not by the direct election by the people. Just like we don't elect Supreme Court Justices. The Executive nominates, and the Senate confirms. Don't know why you keep bring up the 3/5 compromise as some kind of defense of your position. As I have pointed out to you previously, slavery was the norm in the ALL of the colonies before the Revolution, even in the North, and it was gradually being phased out after the Confederation of States was formed. When determining the number of Representatives in the House during the Constitutional Convention, the slave holding states (all of them) wanted the slave population to count for 100% of their population, While the minority of non slave holding states (in the North) wanted to count them as 0% of their population. Look it up. The 3/5 compromise allowed those few anti-slavery northern states to support the Constitution.

Awteam2021

It’s true, that’s how the two houses were designed, the Senate representing the state interest and House representing the ‘population’ rather than citizenry. Population rather than citizenry allowed for all inhabitants to be used in measuring number of representatives. That allow for the 3/5 compromise which gave southern states more representatives in the house and conserve their heavy dependence on the slave labor system. (State, meaning land owner.) The southern land owners had reasons to rig the system. They could see the burgeoning industrial revolution and the northern free labor system as a threat to their wealth and power, the state.

gabrielshorn2013

Are you ever going to provide references for your thesis, aw? Although well-written, this remains conjecture. Can "state interest " not also mean the interest of the population of the state? Why should the citizens of Delaware, as a sovereign state in a Federal system (at that time as well as now) be pushed around by the whims of the larger population of New York? Delaware was also a part of that very industrial revolution you mention, yet they were one of the most vocal protestors of total proportional representation, insisting that there be parity in one of the legislative branches.

Awteam2021

Yes, again you are right but why? Just arguing a different point of view, I respect yours. But were they more concern about citizenry as in people or land owners as in power over that land? My thesis base: “the federalist papers“ written by Alexander Hamilton, James Madison, and John Jay. As well Thomas Jefferson’s early writings. I would also include later writings by Alexander Stephens writings, who clearly expresses what the government system was structured to do. I’m referring to the ‘Cornerstone Address’, the Confederate Declaration of succession. He explains what the relationship of joined in the union was designed to do and how the Union renege on its agreement.

Awteam2021

The Federalist Papers was a series of arguments on how to balance power between property ownership (the land ) and citizen rights. They came up with the 3 branch solution.

gabrielshorn2013

I know what the Federalist Papers are, aw. I'm looking at the copy of the collection of those documents on my bookshelf as I type into my phone. However, which one are you referring to when you make your claims? I don't recall any of them making your claims that a HoR was analogous to the House of Commons, nor the Senate analogous to the House of Lords. They did make the claims of fair representation of the people. By people, they meant the citizens of any given state. You may argue what the term "citizen" means, but it was much more than land ownership., or voters.

Awteam2021

All 85 articles? I never said it was only about land ownership but balancing land owners versus citizens rights. Obviously Africa Slaves and Native Americans were people too but weren’t citizens, not invited to the club.

Awteam2021

Some people don’t seem to understand the difference between “equal rights” for all Americans and “minority rights”, people in the minority not getting their wants or way. “Equal Rights” is equal access to goods and services, legal representation, to all Americans regardless of social or economic position, due process and equal protection under our laws, courts and government. If the majority is denying those rights to any minority, they are in the wrong. But if a minority is forcing their well on the majority outside of those parameters, they are in the wrong. We have a legislative system and court system to ensure those rights. It doesn’t mean you have to like people that you differ. It means your objection most fit into the stated parameters. Or you need to change them through the legislative process or challenge they are outside of those parameters through the court system. Like the Civil Rights acts of 1964 and 1965 both have been tested in courts protecting ‘Minority Rights’. They’re still being challenged in courts today.

public-redux

I see the liberal FNP deleted my comment with the Trump 2020 t-shirt slogan.

gabrielshorn2013

Yeah, I guess they didn't like the yen symbol.

phydeaux994

They should start a RLM (RuralLivesMatter) Organization and team up with the Black people who don’t feel they’re being heard.

public-redux

Hey now, stop being so divisive!

#AllLivesMatter

#AllHolidaysMatter

#AllStateRepresentativesMatter

NewMarketParent

I get it. It sucks feeling like you are not being heard. I can't say objectively whether you are being heard or not. I don't see any indication of that, but I don't know if the threat of secession from the state is the best way to accomplish that.

We all should feel like we are being heard though and that is important.

Awteam2021

Not to confused federal representation in DC, this letter is about representation in state government, Annapolis.

Tripp questions whether Western Maryland has a voice and representation in state government. Attached below is a source to help address those questions: How state government is structured, state representatives (including Western Maryland) and proposed legislation.

Maryland guide to government and it’s structure:

https://msa.maryland.gov/msa/mdmanual/07leg/html/gaco.html

public-redux

There is a difference between not being heard and not getting what you want.

I've yet to see persuasive evidence that western MD isn't being heard or is somehow underrepresented in Annapolis.

jsklinelga

public

A shallow view from someone who obviously likes the current under representation. If you took one example - Gun rights - should the population centers of the city dictate to the rural counties? How many people walking through a park encounter a bear? Can the same be said for walking through the woods of Garrett County?

public-redux

Your opening premise is unfounded. But ignoring your incivility, allow me to ask you: what underrepresention? Kindly quantify.

Awteam2021

Hunting and trapping is permitted in accordance with state and federal laws. State restrictions are based on area. Of course densely populated areas have greater restrictions than Garrett and Allegheny County’s. Certain fire arms are prohibited.

Brookhawk

And still the guns go where the people who carry and sell them want them to go, laws or not.

Hayduke2

jsk - conversely, are you saying that the rural counties should be able to dictate to the more populated areas ? As for the example of an encounter with a bear, come on man.

Brookhawk

Guns have a way of ignoring county lines and state lines. The gun in Garrett County can end up in Baltimore, and vice versa, with no trouble at all.

gabrielshorn2013

And?

DickD

Jim, I have hunted deer in Garrett County for many years, yet I have never seen a bear there. There are more bears in Frederick County and if you read the newspaper, you would realize that.

jsklinelga

It would be educational and extremely relevant to modern discussions about our federal system of elections and representation to understand what transpired in Maryland. It would also cast some light on why Western Maryland feels under represented. Baltimore City, Prince Georges County and Montgomery County are distinctly different living environments then the counties of Western Maryland.

Without writing a long comment that would be glanced over I urge people to study how SCOTUS changed Maryland in it's 1964 ruling: (Copied from Wikipedia)

"Reynolds v. Sims, 377 U.S. 533 (1964), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court ruled that the electoral districts of state legislative chambers must be roughly equal in population. Along with Baker v. Carr (1962) and Wesberry v. Sanders (1964), it was part of a series of Warren Court cases that applied the principle of "one person, one vote" to U.S. legislative bodies."

This is a worthy topic of discussion.

Awteam2021

That not only addressed Maryland but every state. Right?

shiftless88

jsk; yesterday we had a worthy topic of discussion and asked civil questions that you then ignored. Why?

Hayduke2

From Reynolds vs Sims --The state constitution required at least one representative per county and senatorial district. However, the district in Jefferson County, which is near Birmingham, contained 41 times as many eligible voters as those in another district of the state. Sims and the other voters argued that this lack of proportionality prevented them from effectively participating in a republican form of government.

The ruling had NOTHING to do with different living environments, dealt with populations and equal representation.

jsklinelga

hayduke

Glad to see you read some, Apply that logic to our founding. Two Senators per State regardless of population proportionality. Obviously you believe it was ill conceived. Many now argue it should be the popular vote that decides the Presidential election. Yet the folks living in a rural culture would strongly disagree. Just as the folks In the small States did not want to lose some representation by being subject to the desires of a heavily populated area.. An incredibly just form of government that allowed different forms of freedom, worship and cultures to flourish independent of population masses.

public-redux

Correct me if I'm wrong, but our founding did not involve a couple dozen free and independent counties agreeing to form "Maryland", did it?

Have you figured out yet what percentage of the legislature is represented by the 4% of Marylanders who live in the three western counties? It's a vital element of your argument that they are underrepresented.

Hayduke2

jsk - do the 47 senate districts not represent an relatively equal number of people?

jsklinelga

hayduke

Curious why we would have two branches of legislature if both are based on population. Our Federal system is unique. It is not comprised of a House of Lords and a lower House as Great Britain. Nor a Governor's Council and Lower House as originally in Maryland, We are a Republic.(public led). But the system allows for population consideration (the House) but also guards against Democratic tyranny by giving each State equal representation in the Senate. The Warren Court and it's so called Constitutional Revolution altered this system for States.

Now Alleghany and Garrett Counties with parts of Washington County has 1 Senator. Montgomery County has at least 7 as does Prince Georges County. The lower chamber is also divided by population. Makes you think the folks in Western Maryland are a bit under represented

Mu original point regarding gun control is just one area where the environment and culture is uniquely different and a more equal representation would be just. Why should one living in the rural back country, driving down long country roads or simply walking daily in the woods be governed by the same open carry restrictions as folks in a densely populated area with LEO everywhere? The 14 Senators from Montgomery and Prince Georges Counties are probably clueless about the differences in the living areas yet they make the laws.

public-redux

“Makes you think the folks in Western Maryland are a bit under represented.”

It makes me think that you don’t understand what equal representation is.

Awteam2021

JSK,

We have two houses because our government adopt the practice from English governing ( land ownership verses people, carried greater weight ). As you pointed out earlier, prior to 1964 the basis of representation in most state legislatures was modeled on that of the U.S. Congress: the state senators represented geographical units, while members of the larger chamber represented population. In 1964 the Supreme Court the one man, one vote standard for state legislatures and invalidated representation based on geographical units regardless of population. You now want to relitigate the civil rights actions of 1964 & 1965?

gabrielshorn2013

No, aw.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitutional_Convention_(United_States)

gabrielshorn2013

Respectfully disagree public. Maryland was a land grant from the Crown, which was then carved up into counties as time went on.

Awteam2021

George Washington had to deal with similar regional discontent as president. In 1791 a liquor tax was implemented. Counties in Western Pennsylvania, voiced their displeasure by refusing to pay the tax. Residents viewed this tax as unfair policies dictated by the eastern elite that negatively affected American citizens on the frontier with little say. The dispute became violent. Washington had to finally send in troops to put down the revolt.

Awteam2021

The idea of the senate was to protect the interest of land owners (the wealth) whereas the representative were to represent labor (the people). That’s system of governing is dated. Now a days the wealth/power is in the hands of corporates while huge numbers of people own land but individually have little wealth/power.

See: The Three-Fifths Compromise. Who owned slaves in the south? Answer: land owners.

public-redux

Gab, I don't see that you have disagreed with anything I wrote. Could you clarify.

gabrielshorn2013

Do you have any citations to back up your assertions aw? Google and read up on the "New Jersey Plan", "The Virginia Plan", and the Connecticut Compromise". The system is NOT dated. It provides a workable compromise in government between the small states, and the large ones. Our bicameral Legislative branch provides proportional representation in the House, and parity representation in the Senate, which was an equitable and fair compromise. It is NOT the “House of Lords and the House of Commons”. If “the popular vote” in the Federal government were the law of the land, there would be no need for individual states either, and the coastal population centers would determine the laws of the land in the less populated areas, no matter how far away they may be from each other. Is that fair? No. How well do you think that would fare in “the flyover” states? As for your other assertions regarding wealth and corporations, do corporations have the right to vote? No. Only citizens have such a right. Unfortunately, the majority fail to exercise their right, and then whine about the outcome. FYI, slavery was the norm in all 13 colonies, and was not just practiced in “the South”. My own home state of New Jersey had slavery until 1846, and didn’t truly abolish it until 1865 with the ratification of 13th Amendment. Please read the following. The Wikipedia articles reference the original documents and notes during the Constitutional Convention.

References:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Jersey_Plan

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virginia_Plan

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Connecticut_Compromise

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voting_rights_in_the_United_States

http://slavenorth.com/index.html

gabrielshorn2013

@ public-redux Nov 4, 2021 7:07pm

Please correct me if I misunderstood, but the way I read your statement public was that there were many independent counties that got together to form the Maryland Colony, which was the opposite of the historical timeline. King Charles granted land to the Calverts, partially to provide a safe haven for Catholics from persecution. That area (despite its land boundaries with the Penn family, later settled by Mason and Dixon), would later be divided up into counties. Maryland formed first, then county formation. The whole "western county secession" issue from a couple of weeks ago would be moot had the Penn' family prevailed, as they would have been a part of Pennsylvania.

Hayduke2

jsk - your point about gun control is interesting. I grew up in an area where hunting and gun ownership was common but to claim it is universal is misleading. Current gun ownership shows about 26-31% of households owning firearms - that gives about 66% of households without a firearm. Based on your logic, shouldn't that majority have input into gun laws? Interesting argument, no?

public-redux

Gab. What you wrote was my point to nelga. He was attempting to use the UD Senate as a model for why MD counties should have equal representation. I pointed out the fallacy.

Awteam2021

Gabe, are you familiar with Nebraska’s unicameral legislative government? They have a single legislative house. When it comes to federal government what small state - large state issues are there that out weight the best interest of the national populous? We are not 50 countries anymore.

gabrielshorn2013

@ public-redux. Nov 5, 2021 10:03am

Ah! Understood now.

gabrielshorn2013

@ Awteam2021 Nov 5, 2021 10:20am

Know it well, aw. One state of 49? OK, but how does that support your earlier claims regarding the establishment of our Federal system? Such a system prevents "the tyranny of the majority", so why should smaller states succumb to the whims of the larger state? You are assuming that the larger states, due to their population advantage, are correct in all aspects. That may not necessarily be the belief of the smaller states.

Awteam2021

Our Congressional system was establish to balance the states’ powers between free-labor states (more populated) and heavily enslaved states (less white populated). The 3/5 compromise raised the census numbers in heavily slaved states, granting more representation in Congress - one rep. for every 5 slaves, more power to land owners in slave states with no say by the enslaved. That’s outdated, to say the least. So, what do senators represent today that differ from representatives (if both houses represent their person population’s interest)? Land (today’s corporative interest, the elite) versus people?

Wyoming with a population less than DC has 2 senators where Maryland has 8 times the population but the same amount of senators as Wyoming. Why should they leverage as much power in national decisions? Who’s interest are they advocating for? Someone call minute the two house system is redundant. A state today’s very different then in 1787.

Nebraska decided state senators were now pointless.

gabrielshorn2013

So, no citations then to support your thesis then, aw. Got it. Gratuitous assertions.

Awteam2021

Today, the senate still has its place, but the number of senators should be a ‘collective’ of the population not simply separate lands. Most states where added after the agreement between 13 colonies to form one nation. Those after, joining territories as states were introduced on an ‘one for one’ balance of slave state to free state. Many compromises were made with hopes to balance the power of growing populated industrial states to agrarian states who depended on slave labor and by slave states to offset the inevitable end to slavery. The system today, along with electoral college gives too much leverage to the minority of citizenry.

MD1756

public-redux, Maryland was a proprietary colony, basically bought and paid for by George Calvert to serve as a refuge for Catholics. It was not a royal colony and thus it was more independent than a royal colony.

public-redux

MD, I know.

gabrielshorn2013

"The system today, along with electoral college gives too much leverage to the minority of citizenry."

In your opinion, of course.

Awteam2021

My requested response to “ but how does that support your earlier claims regarding the establishment of our Federal system? Such a system prevents "the tyranny of the majority", so why should smaller states succumb to the whims of the larger state?”

1st, I’m not sure tyranny is the right verb, I never use it, you did.

2nd, I I think it was well conceived for the times.

3rd, I pro popular vote when deciding the highest position in national government.

4th, what power less populated states losing over their own local governments if it doesn’t impact us others in larger states?

gabrielshorn2013

Aw, if you don't understand the term "tyrrany of the majority", as a shortcomingof a democracy, please see:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tyranny_of_the_majority#:~:text=The%20tyranny%20of%20the%20majority,those%20of%20the%20minority%20factions

I would also suggest you read de Tocqueville's "Democracy in America ", available on Amazon.

Awteam2021

Yep, in my opinion, I most certainly understand those in the minority rights under our governing system.

Welcome to the discussion.

Keep it clean. No vulgar, racist, sexist or sexually-oriented language.
Engage ideas. This forum is for the exchange of ideas, not personal attacks or ad hominem criticisms.
TURN OFF CAPS LOCK.
Be civil. Don't threaten. Don't lie. Don't bait. Don't degrade others.
No trolling. Stay on topic.
No spamming. This is not the place to sell miracle cures.
No deceptive names. Apparently misleading usernames are not allowed.
Say it once. No repetitive posts, please.
Help us. Use the 'Report' link for abusive posts.

Thank you for reading!

Already a member?

Login Now
Click Here!

Currently a News-Post subscriber?

Activate your membership at no additional charge.
Click Here!

Need more information?

Learn about the benefits of membership.
Click Here!

Ready to join?

Choose the membership plan that fits your needs.
Click Here!