Yes, states' rights were an effort in that direction, but the argument is that the system was still designed with centralizing tendencies.
The House of Representatives is still part of the same federal government as the other branches and the Senate. The argument here would be that while those different bodies may be reluctant to relinquish power to another branch, they still all have an incentive to accumulate more power to the federal government.
Senators no longer being state appointees was a blow to decentralization because they were there to see to the interests of the states.
I hadn't really thought about this before, but the House might have made more sense if the districts were somehow required to align with specific community boundaries, even if that meant different numbers of constituents in each district.
Yes, states' rights were an effort in that direction, but the argument is that the system was still designed with centralizing tendencies.
The House of Representatives is still part of the same federal government as the other branches and the Senate. The argument here would be that while those different bodies may be reluctant to relinquish power to another branch, they still all have an incentive to accumulate more power to the federal government.
Senators no longer being state appointees was a blow to decentralization because they were there to see to the interests of the states.
I hadn't really thought about this before, but the House might have made more sense if the districts were somehow required to align with specific community boundaries, even if that meant different numbers of constituents in each district.