10-23-2020, 01:02 PM
(10-23-2020, 12:45 PM)fredtoast Wrote: It is absolutely correct.
It's not, and you'll prove it for me in this post.
Quote:I am not saying that different states can't have different laws. What I am saying (and this goes to the original "tyranny of the majority") is that there is no longer a group of small population states that are in danger of being over ruled by large population states because the small population state s no longer have common interests. That was the case when the Constitution was written and the founding fathers were afraid of the large population states exploiting the small population states in the south. But today Delaware has the same interests as New York and nothing in common with Wyoming.
So why does Delaware count but not Wyoming? Your argument flatly contradicts itself. It's ok because Delaware has the same "interests" as Wyoming but it's also ok that Wyoming doesn't have the same interests as New York?
Quote:So the interests of the large population states are no longer different from the small population states. The concerns of the tyranny of the majority by big population states no longer exists
Except you just admitted that this is precisely the case, just not with Delaware. Do you think Wyoming, Wisconsin, Indiana, the Dakotas, Iowa, Missouri, Kansas, Montana and West Virginia have the same "interests" as New York or California? If the answer is no, which it is, than I thank you for making my point for me.
