This
paper written by Madison discusses the second charge against the number
of representatives in the House of Representatives that,
if too small, might not have adequate knowledge on the interests of
their constituents. In this regard, Madison poses two fundamental
questions: 1) What are the interests of the constituents that the
representatives need to be acquainted with? 2) What local
legislation is required for federal legislation with respect to
commerce, taxation, and the militia?
According to Madison, Taxation
involved in the regulation of commerce within the states will
more diffusive, but a few intelligent men from different parts of a
State can bring sufficient knowledge to the federal legislative process
due to a great difference in the laws across a State.
Additionally, many of the representatives will be or have been members
of the State legislatures where all of the local knowledge and interests
of the State are assembled. The same may be said of the militia.
Having
previously argued that representatives need considerable knowledge and
then a two year term was necessary to acquire it, Madison
argues that the knowledge previously discussed was interstate knowledge
whereas here it is intra-state.
Knowledge about all the other States requires being in the
legislative body for considerable time but local knowledge is obtained
prior to election.
At
the end, Madison, as to the exact number of representatives for a given
population, gives the examples of the two kingdom of England
and scottland. Though some numerical and logistical manipulations he
shows that people’s interests are supported by representatives at a
ratio to population of one per 28,670, which justifies the number of one
per 30,000 in the Constitution.
No comments:
Post a Comment