On the 5/23 program, ML described briefly the history of the creation of the senate. He was attacking Obama’s desire to invalidate the Senate and rule by executive order. You, on the other hand go after ML and not Obama.
What’s your purpose? ML is not the enemy. ML is not trying to rule by executive order.
If you take the time to read Madison’s Notes as I have you will see that prior to July 2nd the Convention had a heated discussion concerning taxation and how the States would be represented in a national legislature. And on July 2nd Sherman of Connecticut remarked: “We are now at a full stop, and nobody he supposed meant that we should break up without doing something”
On July 12 of the Convention, and after fierce debates concerning taxation and representation, Mr. MORRIS proposed a workable compromise, “that taxation shall be in proportion to Representation."
Here is what followed:
Mr. BUTLER contended again that Representation Sd.. be according to the full number of inhabts. including all the blacks; admitting the justice of Mr. Govr. Morris's motion.
Mr. MASON also admitted the justice of the principle, but was afraid embarrassments might be occasioned to the Legislature by it. It might drive the Legislature to the plan of Requisitions.
Mr. Govr. MORRIS, admitted that some objections lay agst. his motion, but supposed they would be removed by restraining the rule to direct taxation. With regard to indirect taxes on exports & imports & on consumption, the rule would be inapplicable. Notwithstanding what had been said to the contrary he was persuaded that the imports & consumption were pretty nearly equal throughout the Union.
General PINKNEY liked the idea. He thought it so just that it could not be objected to. But foresaw that if the revision of the census was left to the discretion of the Legislature, it would never be carried into execution. The rule must be fixed, and the execution of it enforced by the Constitution. He was alarmed at what was said yesterday, [FN*] concerning the negroes. He was now again alarmed at what had been thrown out concerning the taxing of exports. S. Carola. has in one year exported to the amount of 600,000 Sterling all which was the fruit of the labor of her blacks. Will she be represented in proportion to this amount? She will not. Neither ought she then to be subject to a tax on it. He hoped a clause would be inserted in the system, restraining the Legislature from a [FN2] taxing Exports.
Mr. WILSON approved the principle, but could not see how it could be carried into execution; unless restrained to direct taxation.
Mr. Govr. MORRIS having so varied his Motion by inserting the word "direct." It passd. nem. con. as follows-"provided the always that direct taxation ought to be proportioned to representation."
__________
Now, is it not quite misleading, when discussing the Great Compromise, to omit the founders intentionally tied both taxation and representation under the rule of apportionment?
JWK
“The apportionment of representation and taxation by the same scale is just; it removes the objection, that, while Virginia paid one sixth part of the expenses of the Union, she had no more weight in public counsels than Delaware, which paid but a very small portion” 3Elliot’s 41