Please Help Will Mark You As Brainlest!!

1 answer:

4 0

I fully approve the idea of creating a legislative branch with two houses. First if we'd had only one house how would the states have been represented? By population? In that case the states with the largest populations would have all legislated solely in their benefit and often to the detriment of the states with smaller populations. Ok so we create a legislative branch with one house based only on equal representation of each state right? But the problem here is representation would then be of the state but we the people for of and by whom the government was being formed would have no direct voice in the legislative branch. A government that is directly responsive only to the people can devolve into rule by the mob such as we saw happen in France following their revolution. They had a unicameral legislative government the house of deputies and it was directly responsive to the people giving way to rule by the mob and the horrors that bred the reign of terror with thousands of people beheaded including children accused of being counter revolutionaries. There was no senior house to temper if you will the will of the people or take a longer view if you will of whats best for the nation as a whole. Our House of Representatives is suppose to be more parochial in its view they represent our will (or rather they are suppose to) the Senate is given a longer term and originally they were not elected by the people of their states but rather depending on the state either elected by the state's legislative branches or directly appointed by the state's Governor. US Senators as that house was originally constituted were suppose to be somewhat more independent from the people although not completely independent because they worked for the state not the people but the people to whom they were accountable were elected by the people of the state. During President Wilson's term in office he pushed for and got an amendment that made the US Senate (to his way of thinking more democratic). I personally think it reduced the US Senate to being more political by making the Senators more directly accountable to the people. More democracy is not always desirable as we can see from the experience of France and her reign of terror.

I read a biography of John Adams this past summer. John Adams was the man who first pushed for a written Declaration of Independence and then after the Revolutionary War was over and he was a commissioner/ambassador from the United States to France and then England while the United States was operating and failing rapidly under the Articles of Confederation he pushed very hard for a bicameral legislative branch so the will of the people could be balanced by the long term good of the nation in the Senate. He was excoriated by Thomas Jefferson whom he'd been friends with if Jefferson ever really had friends for using the English parliment as his model for a legislative branch of government. Jefferson was in love with everything French and only disavowed the French Revolution long after the horrors of madame le gillotine and the reign of terror made it clear that the will of the mob needed to be tempered by cooler more rational minds who yes tended to be more conservative in their actions.

I come from West Virginia we have barely 3 million citizens. We have three congressional representatives. New York for example has what forty six congressional representatives how could we feel comfortable knowing that we depend soley on the good will of larger states when questions before congress are being decided by large states only and the consequences of those decisions might fall soley upon the smaller states simply because they have essentially no voice in congress because of their small congressional delegations? A bicameral government not only protects the nation from being whipsawed by a very parochial house of representatives but the small states are protected at least somewhat each state being equally represented in the US Senate which is charged with being more concerned with what is best for the country than they are about what may be temporarily best for the citizens in their own states.

You might be interested in

How was the print industry during the Glided age? 1 paragraph maximum. Will give brainliest.

Sveta_85 [38]

Answer:

The print industry was during the glided age because of the unstable and fragile notions unity among the thirteen American colonies,the print acted as a blinding agent that mitigated the chances that the colonies would not support one another when war with Britain broke out on 1775

6 0

3 years ago

Why did america want control of the oregon country?

marusya05 [52]

Oregon Country, 1846 Major Land Purchases Treaty of Paris Louisiana Purchase Red River Basin Florida Texas Annexation Oregon Country Mexican Cession Gadsden Purchase Alaska Hawaii States Emerge Expansion Concentration Oregon Country was a portion of land between the Pacific Ocean and the Rocky Mountains in the northwest portion of the present-day United States. In 1818, the United States and Britain agreed to a "joint occupation" of Oregon, allowing citizens of both countries to settle there. Over the next several decades, American and British settlers came to Oregon for different reasons. The British came mostly for the fur trade, while Americans came to be missionaries or to start farms or larger settlements. By the 1840s, Americans outnumbered their British compatriots, and the fur trade was no longer as lucrative as it had once been. American expansionists — among them President James Polk — were increasingly looking to end the joint occupation and claim Oregon for America alone. Finding themselves in a weakened position, the British agreed to negotiate.

Negotiations between the United States and Britain over the Oregon Country began in the summer of 1845. Because any states that would eventually be formed out of the territory would be free states, anti-slavery Northerners were strongly in favor of acquiring as much of the territory as possible. America's first proposal was that the territory be divided roughly in half, with the boundary drawn at the 49th parallel. When the British rejected this offer, expansionist Northerners called for greater American aggression, using the slogan "Fifty-Four Forty or Fight!" ("Fifty-four Forty" referred to the latitude line marking the northernmost boundary of the territory.) Pro-slavery Southern Congressmen, however, made it clear that they would not support a war with Britain over the territory.

Britain did not want to go to war over the issue either, and in 1846, the two countries reached an agreement to divide the territory at the 49th parallel. Oregon Country would later become the modern-day states of Oregon, Washington, and Idaho, as well as portions of Montana and Wyoming.

3 0

4 years ago

The three scholars of mayhayana buddhism

Semenov [28]

Answer:

It was China, Korea, and Japan

Explanation:

Hope that helps

8 0

3 years ago

What do the articles of the Constitution explicitly outline?

Wittaler [7]

The answer is (C.) The appointment of Supreme Court justices for life. Hope it helped you, and have a great day.

6 0

3 years ago

Read 2 more answers

There are two major branches of Islam. • name the two branches of Islam • explaine why Islam split into two branches • explaine

Advocard [28]

Ap human geography? Ahaha, i just studied this in the class. Basically the two major branches of Islam are the Sunnis and the Shi'ites. Shi'ites believe that Islam should be led by descendants of Muhammad, while Sunnis believe that the leader of Islam should be appointed by election and consensus. Sunnis make up 84 to 90 percent of the world's Muslims. The word Sunnirefers to the words and actions of Muhammad. The Sunnis try to follow Muhammad's example of how to live as a Muslim. This is the relationship between the two branches then, and now, it's still the same.
As for the reason why they split, is because they have different opinions on who should be the leader of Islam.

Hope that helped you!

4 0

3 years ago