How does the senate stop the strong from trampling the weak? Who are the strong and who are the weak? Are African Americans weak? Are poor people weak? How do the delineations of state lines interact or align with boundaries of power?
If there's a proposal that Nevada should be the nuclear dump site of the nation, how would the structure of the house or senate stop that kind of thing? What if Nevada is just a trading item between two powerful parties? What does the constitution even say about this?
Now we are seeing a situation where California flexes its economic capacity during an international emergency. What are other states supposed to do in light of that? It's either a central force steps in to stop logistical contest based on morally and strategically questionable context (which state has more money), or...? What about the structure of congress speaks to this?
What Gavin Newsom is implying here, IMO, is that there's responsibility (and thus power) being left on the table. Due to this vacuum, even Jeff Bezos or Jack Ma could step in. What about the structure of congress speaks to this?
The states with more population have more votes in the House, meaning they are the strong. The Senate stops Florida and California from eating Rhode Island for dinner.
> If there's a proposal that Nevada should be the nuclear dump site of the nation, how would the structure of the house or senate stop that kind of thing? What if Nevada is just a trading item between two powerful parties? What does the constitution even say about this?
> What Gavin Newsom is implying here, IMO, is that there's responsibility (and thus power) being left on the table. Due to this vacuum, even Jeff Bezos or Jack Ma could step in. What about the structure of congress speaks to this?
And how do the delineations of American states align to the delineations of the most salient lines of power in the US, such as money? How does it provide balance?
I just talked about a scenario where the negotiation is between two parties and the proposal is a national site for nuclear waste in Nevada. And that's not a very nationally energizing issue, so that wouldn't even be a very interesting priority to be traded on.
I then talked about a scenario where during an international emergency its money that talks, even Jack Ma's money. What does having equal senate votes matter here?
We seem to be safeguarding some old boundary that fails to negotiate with the real lines of power. Party and Money.
If there's a proposal that Nevada should be the nuclear dump site of the nation, how would the structure of the house or senate stop that kind of thing? What if Nevada is just a trading item between two powerful parties? What does the constitution even say about this?
Now we are seeing a situation where California flexes its economic capacity during an international emergency. What are other states supposed to do in light of that? It's either a central force steps in to stop logistical contest based on morally and strategically questionable context (which state has more money), or...? What about the structure of congress speaks to this?
What Gavin Newsom is implying here, IMO, is that there's responsibility (and thus power) being left on the table. Due to this vacuum, even Jeff Bezos or Jack Ma could step in. What about the structure of congress speaks to this?