Senate is not Legitimate.

[Lynne Henderson]

The Senate's "equalization" of power among the States would seem to  be
consistent with the notion that the  states qua state  have a role in
national government--in fact, that was part of the original debate about the
new government. The notion of the states having a role in national
government  was reinforced by the original means of electing senators. Thus,
the Senate provided for representation of the states in the new government.
However this comports with one's vision of "democracy" and "federalism," it
seems too quick to assert the Senate is anti- or un-democratic, period,
without noting the structure of the government formed.  And I say this as
someone who basically believes that states should not be treated as co-equal
or superior sovereigns  under the Constitution,  which means I am in sharp
disagreemnt with the current S Ct majority.
Lynne
-----Original Message-----
From: Discussion list for con law professors
[mailto:CONLAWPROF at listserv.ucla.edu]On Behalf Of Frank Cross
Sent: Tuesday, October 24, 2000 1:36 PM
To: CONLAWPROF at listserv.ucla.edu
Subject: Re: Senate is not Legitimate.


Chris Schroeder adds a valuable response to those who condemn the Senate as
antidemocratic.  You could list a lot of other features that are
antidemocratic, whether you justify them via Arrow's theorem or otherwise.
I would just like to add that this argument does not itself legitimize the
Senate.  I.e., the fact that we depart from direct democracy or precise
representation still would not in itself give reason to weight power by
states and make the Senate legitimate
Frank Cross
Herbert D. Kelleher Centennial Professor of Business Law
CBA 5.202
University of Texas at Austin
Austin, TX 78712