How much of our constitution was a compromise with already sitting states who wanted to retain their power at the expense of potential extra freedom?

Welcome • User Guide
ToS • Privacy • Canary
Donate • Bugs • License

©2025 Poal.co

287

•

One of the big ones I see is letting the elected be in charge of how elections are run. This serves no point or purpose other than a compromise to the currently already sitting states.

Also our senate vs representatives model. There is nothing wrong with this, even though it doesn't exist anymore (17th amendment). However it's obvious this was a compromise point because the constitution had to adhere to already sitting states.

One of the big ones I see is letting the elected be in charge of how elections are run. This serves no point or purpose other than a compromise to the currently already sitting states. Also our senate vs representatives model. There is nothing wrong with this, even though it doesn't exist anymore (17th amendment). However it's obvious this was a compromise point because the constitution had to adhere to already sitting states.

(post is archived)

You are currently inside a comment thread.

Click here to see all the comments (7).

[–] • 0 pt

(edited )

Read the state ratification statements. Each state legislature summarized their reasons. Here's one from New York...

https://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/ratny.asp

Rhode Island...

https://teachingamericanhistory.org/document/rhode-islands-ratification/

Virginia...

https://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/ratva.asp

Internet search the rest. BTW, some of these have stronger pro-gun statements than the 2nd amendment. It's pretty clear what the 2a means when you read these.

link