Question #1

1.  The federal constitution provides that a Senator serves for a six-year term and the President serves for a four-year term.  Do you believe that a Senator should have a longer term than the President?  Why or  why not?

 

2.  Assume there was a proposal to change the federal constitution so that all members of the House, Senate, and the President would be elected at the same time to serve a four-year term.  Would you be in favor of such an amendment?  Why or why not?

 

3.  There were a number of compromises made at the federal Constitutional Convention of 1787 in order to create a constitution that most of the delegates would support.  One such compromise (called the Great Compromise and sometimes called the Connecticut Compromise) provided for a bicameral (two-house) national legislature in which each state’s representation in the House of Representatives was to be based on population, while representation in the Senate was to be equal with two Senators from each state.  The Great Compromise  broke a great deadlock at the convention.  The result of the Great Compromise was that very small states, such as Wyoming and Alaska, each have two Senators, the same as large states, such as California, New York and Texas.  What do you believe is the present day legacy of the Great Compromise upon the power and influence of Senators from large states such as California?

 

4.  After the Articles of Confederation had been in effect for less than ten years, many  people in 1787 believed that the national government was too weak, since it had few powers and most power resided in the states.  The new constitution that replaced the Articles of Confederation was designed to create a strong national government.  Under the current constitution, do you believe that the federal government is too strong or does it still need even greater powers?

Back to American Politics Discussion Home