A Humble Tribute to the Man Who Saved the Union

It seems appropriate on this day, the birthday of our 17th President, to draw attention to the fact that The Federalist, that collaborative work which has for 220 years epitomized the eloquent defense of our Constitution and all its values, begins first and foremost with a rationale that that document should be accepted based on the assertion that a Union of the several states would be in every manner superior to a group of confederacies or independent republics. Publius was able to convince his readers of this fact in 1787-88, but by the middle of the next century an entire region of the United Stated was openly challenging this assertion. It fell to another man to do the convincing, and regrettably, by that point the issue was beyond being settled by well-crafted essays; the only recourse left open to him was war.

Abraham Lincoln was not a popular president; he was loathed in the South, and hated by more than a few in the North as well. His tenure was fraught with the most trying circumstance immaginable, a civil war, from the moment of his inauguration. Yet Lincoln never wavered in his firm conviction that, above all, THE UNION MUST BE PRESERVED. It would ultimately cost him his life.

In The Federalist No. 2, John Jay writes, "I sincerely wish that it may be as clearly forseen by every good citizen, that whenever the dissolution of the Union arrives, America will have reason to exclaim, in the words of the poet, 'Farewell! A long Farewell to all my Greatness!'" Linclon did indeed foresee that reality, at a time when many did not. For that, he is deserving of the lasting gratitude of his countrymen, of which I am one.

Constitutional Proposals Part II: The Senate

Senate Representation. Given the gross misrepresentation of population and political inequality sustained by the U.S. Senate, it is apparent that major changes are in order if we are interested in creating a more democratic constitution. Some may argue that there is no need for a Senate at all, and that our bicameral system is only an impediment to efficiency and an outdated bulwark against true political equality. However, I am inclined to believe that the Senate serves an important duty. As a smaller house than that of the Representatives, it can afford to be more deliberative; by dividing certain aspects of governance between the House and Senate (such as the origination of finance bills and the approval of treaties and executive appointments, respectively), greater specialization is allowed; most importantly, the Senate, if organized in the manner I now propose, can be a more truly national body, not beholden to regional constituencies in the way that the House inevitably must (and should) be.

To prevent the kind of unequal representation which is now present in the Senate, I propose the election of Senators by federal districts based on population. However, in order to avoid back room political bargaining such as gerrymandering, the districts would be organized along permanent state borders. Accordingly, a single-member district would be comprised of several small states, while large states would elect several members by a proportional method, based on their population. Senatorial candidates would be nominated by their respective national party, inevitably allowing for more broad-based and nationally oriented candidates, while also simplifying the election process for both citizens and government, particularly in the multi-member districts.

In case this system seems unclear, take the following as an example. If we allow for the number of Senators to be permanently fixed at fifty (which, I believe, is neither so small as to lack wise counsel, nor so large as to be inefficient), then, with the present U.S. population of approximately 300 million, each senatorial district will be comprised of an approximate population of 6 million. The populations of the states of Kansas, Nebraska, South Dakota, and Wyoming together equal roughly 6 million, therefore these states would be reckoned as a single federal district, with all citizens within these state borders electing a single Senator. California, however, with a population of just over 36 million, would itself be a multi-member district, in this case electing 6 senators. These candidates for the Californian district, having been placed on the ballot by their respective parties, would then be elected proportionally so as to adequately represent the political demographics of the district. For example, if 65% of California's population is Democratic, and 35% is Republican, than the Democrats would be allotted four seats and the Republicans two.

Finally, as regards the term limits of senators, I see no reason to change the established six-year, rotating terms of office. However, I would alter the current system with regards to residency requirements. Not only would senators not be required to reside in the federal district from which they were elected, but they would be forbidden from running for reelection from the same district by which they currently serve. This, along with nomination by the national party and (in some cases) election from a district encompassing multiple states, would further encourage senators to think in terms of the national welfare, as opposed to seeking to please state and regional constituencies. In sum, such a Senate would provide for a democratically elected body (as regards the political equality of voters), relatively free to deliberate and legislate on issues of truly national interest as their primary concern.