1answer.
Ask question
Login Signup
Ask question
All categories
  • English
  • Mathematics
  • Social Studies
  • Business
  • History
  • Health
  • Geography
  • Biology
  • Physics
  • Chemistry
  • Computers and Technology
  • Arts
  • World Languages
  • Spanish
  • French
  • German
  • Advanced Placement (AP)
  • SAT
  • Medicine
  • Law
  • Engineering
KIM [24]
3 years ago
5

why is it in the presidents best interest to nominate several federal judges favored be most senators?

History
1 answer:
slamgirl [31]3 years ago
6 0
During the summer of 1787, the delegates to the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia established equal representation in the Senate and proportional representation in the House of Representatives.  Called the “Great Compromise” or the “Connecticut Compromise,” the unique plan for congressional representation resolved the most controversial aspect of the drafting of the Constitution.  

In the weeks before the Constitution’s framers agreed to the compromise, the delegates from the states with large populations argued that each state’s representation in the Senate should correspond to the size of the state.  Large-state delegates promoted James Madison’s Virginia Plan, the document that was the basis for several of the clauses in the Constitution.  Under this plan, the Senate and the House would base their membership on the same proportional “right of suffrage.”   That is, the number of senators in each state would be determined by its population of free citizens and slaves.  Large states, then, stood to gain the most seats in the Senate.  As justification for this advantage, delegates noted that their states contributed more of the nation’s  financial and defensive resources than small states, and therefore, required a greater say in government.

Small-state delegates hoped to protect states’ rights within a confederate system of government. Fearing the effects of majority rule, they demanded equal representation in Congress, as was practiced under the Articles of Confederation and assumed in William Paterson’s New Jersey Plan.  In fact, some framers threatened to withdraw from the convention if a proportional representation measure passed.  

Other delegates sought a compromise between large-state and small-state interests.  As early as 1776, Connecticut’s Roger Sherman had suggested that Congress represent the people as well as the states.  During the 1787 convention, Sherman proposed that House representation be based on the population, while in the Senate, the states would be equally represented.  Benjamin Franklin agreed that each state should have an equal vote in the Senate except in matters concerning money.  The convention’s grand committee reported his motion, with some modifications, to the delegates early in July.  Madison led the debates against Franklin’s measure, believing it an injustice to the majority of Americans, while some small-state delegates were reluctant even to support proportional representation in the House.  On July 16, delegates narrowly adopted the mixed representation plan giving states equal votes in the Senate within a federal system of government.

Once delegates established equal representation in the Senate, they needed to determine how many senators would represent each state.  State constitutions offered some guidance.  Several states designated one senator per county or district, while in Delaware there were three senators for each of the three counties.  Convention delegates did not refer to the state precedents in debate, however.  Instead, they seemed to take a common-sense approach in deciding the number of senators.

According to constitutional commentator Joseph Story (1779-1845), few, if any, delegates considered one senator per state sufficient representation.   Lone senators might leave their state unrepresented in times of illness or absence, and would have no colleague to consult with on state issues.  Additional senators, moreover, would increase the size of the Senate, making it a more knowledgeable body, and better able to counter the influence of the House.   On the other hand, a very large Senate would soon lose its distinctive membership and purpose, and actually decrease its ability to check the lower house or to allow senators to take personal responsibility for their actions.

Given these considerations, delegates had a limited choice regarding the number of senators.  During the convention, they briefly discussed the advantages of two seats versus three.   Gouverneur Morris stated that three senators per state were necessary to form an acceptable quorum, while other delegates thought a third senator would be too costly.  On July 23, delegates filled in the blank in the proposal offered by Morris and Rufus King: “That the representation in the second branch consist of _____ members from each State, who shall vote per capita.” Only Pennsylvania  voted in favor of three senators.  When the question turned to two, Maryland alone voted against the measure, not because of the number, but because Martin disagreed with per capita voting, which gave each senator, rather than each state, one vote.

You might be interested in
Which of the following names the group best known for settling this region and states their reason for settling?
IRINA_888 [86]

Answer:

Living in Georgia was good because it was never cold. Oglethorpe planned to settle Georgia as a refuge for debtors in England. They wanted to use the settlers to search for gold, and explore local rivers in hopes of finding a way to the East.

Explanation:

I HOPE THIS HELPS!!!!!!

4 0
3 years ago
He was a Cherokee chief during the Cherokee-American Wars of the late 1700s, and was a leader of the Texas Cherokees in the earl
lesya [120]

Answer:

John Ross

John Ross (Cherokee chief)

John Ross

Spouse(s) Quatie Brown Henley (born c. 1790–1839) Mary Brian Stapler (1826–1865)

Relations Great-granddaughter Mary G. Ross; Nephew William P. Ross

Children 7

Known for opposition to Treaty of New Echota; Trail of Tears; Union supporter during American Civil War

Explanation:

3 0
3 years ago
What were the positive and negative effects of Egypt being imperialized by Britain.
olya-2409 [2.1K]
The good thing was the the economy of Egypt was better thanks to the British. They also learned the English language. There was however a strong Arabic oppositon, which didn't like the European ruling (Christians settelting in Egypt). This led to several armed conflicts. British occupation until 1922 when Egypt declared its independence.
6 0
3 years ago
Both uranus and Neptune have names taken from Greek or Romance mythology. Find the origins of their names.
kondaur [170]
Astronomers wanted to name the planet a name so with uranuas they named it after the "Greek god of the sky" and neptune was "the god of the sea."
4 0
3 years ago
Please help me with these true of false questions
My name is Ann [436]
Never read the article, but most likely true
And true
8 0
3 years ago
Other questions:
  • During the 1950s, Secretary of State John Foster Dulles argued that the United States should be prepared to go to war in order t
    13·2 answers
  • What did the Five Civilized Tribes have in common?
    9·1 answer
  • Feminist theorists agree with conflict theorists that religion
    7·1 answer
  • Why America has the best economy
    7·1 answer
  • Which best describes why the United States dropped two atomic bombs on Japan?
    15·1 answer
  • Which conclusion do U.S attitudes toward the Panama Canal during the 20th century support?
    7·2 answers
  • Why did the Nazi Party become the largest party in the German government? a. Voters felt bitter and fearful. b. They promised so
    5·1 answer
  • A. B. C. or D? ......​
    9·1 answer
  • PART A: What is the meaning of "culmination" in paragraph 1?
    14·2 answers
  • Which statement is true regarding Sarah Palin?
    5·1 answer
Add answer
Login
Not registered? Fast signup
Signup
Login Signup
Ask question!