Whistle-Blower’s Complaint Is Said to Involve Multiple Acts by Trump

[Dill]

(10-14-2019, 11:22 AM)hollodero Wrote: Well...in an United Europe's parliament with actual legislative power, sure only the number of citizens should determine the number of representatives per country in it. As for a possible second federalistic chamber (our senate),  I can get why one would prefer overrepresenting the smaller countries in such a chamber. But I sure would find it ridiculous if Malta had just as big of a say in it as Germany or France. That would lead to overrepresenting fisher's problems.
But that wouldn't mean cutting into Malta's souvereignty as defined in some kind of European constitution. They can have their taxes, their local laws, independent school systems, court systems and whatnot. Just on matters regarding the whole United States of Europe, I don't feel the need to overrepresent Maltesian citizens. Or Austrian citizens for that matter.

What an interesting exchange.  For over three decades now, I've thought myself more affined to Continental political and legal norms than British/North American, and suddenly, on this issue, I find myself leaning Mill, not Marx. LOL The bedrock is Saxon after all. 

A vote on an EC balanced by a European Parliament, is hardly "as big a say as Germany" in EU affairs.  Their "taxes, local laws, schools and court systems" cannot be wholly independent if they are part of the EU. This is not cutting into their sovereignty if the Maltese people freely decide they gain more power than they lose through the union--and can "Mexit" if they come to think otherwise.   But it does subject them, at points and times  and on some legal matters, to the will of non-Maltese.  How and to what degree that is possible is for me, apparently, a larger concern than for you. You are more worried about the whole, if I understand you.

I am still thinking over what you are saying. It seems to me you are not really advocating federalism, or if so, it is so attenuated as to be unrecognizable to my American eyes.

(10-14-2019, 11:22 AM)hollodero Wrote: States rights have nothing to with it. This is about the federal government, which should represent all Americans equally. And it does not.  And that is just weird.

See, now that doesn't sound "federalist" to me at all. The U.S. is a system of state governments, which also require equal representation, Madison's "double check" on abuse of power.

(10-14-2019, 11:22 AM)hollodero Wrote: On a sidenote, it certainly overrepresents Republicans. Which is why I get that conservatives are fine with that. But especially now, aren't you seriously questioning how a senate could block any presidential impeachment, no matter how severe the accusations, just because a certain political group is grossly overrepresented there?
And I'm trying not to argue that one as an anti-Trump point - this is just weird in a principled sense.

"Principle" is the operative word here.  I'm not for changing existing constitutional arrangements because they don't favor my party or interests this election cycle. And then maybe changing them back if at some time in the future they do.

Again, as someone who grew upon in a small (population) state--one which had been able, for example, to protect its elections from corporate money very well until Citizens United--I view this double state system as a real protection. Your Laender never had such powers, did they? At least not since the Empire.