Resultado de búsqueda
James Madison, Federalist, no. 58, 395--96. 20 Feb. 1788. One observation however I must be permitted, to add, on this subject, as claiming in my judgment a very serious attention. It is, that in all legislative assemblies, the greater the number composing them may be, the fewer will be the men who will in fact direct their proceedings.
6 de dic. de 2019 · In Federalist #58 James Madison discusses yet another criticism regarding the makeup of the House of Representatives. Specifically, he addresses the concern held by many citizens of larger States that the number of Delegates sent to the House will not grow accordingly with the increase in State populations.
Federalist No. 58 Excerpt: “THE remaining charge against the House of Representatives, which I am to examine, is grounded on a supposition that the number of members will not be augmented from time to time, as the progress of population may demand.
Hence it is by no means certain that a majority of votes, even in the Senate, would be unfriendly to proper augmentations in the number of representatives. It will not be looking too far to add, that the senators from all the new States may be gained over to the just views of the House of Representatives, by an expedient too obvious to be overlooked.
20 de feb. de 2024 · On this day in 1788, Federalist Paper No. 58 is published. It addresses the last of the four objections made to the composition of the House of Representatives: That the number of representatives will be too small and that this problem will get worse over time.Such an objection, Publius notes, assumes that the number of representatives will never be increased.
The Federalist Papers Summary and Analysis of Essay 58. Madison responds to concerns that the number of members of the House will not be increased as population growth demands. Many opponents of the Constitution in larger states were concerned that the smaller states would seek to limit the increase in the number of members allotted to each ...
The widely accepted number for this essay is now 58. However, the publisher of this edition did not use that numbering system, and instead numbered this essay 57. If you are looking for the essay commonly called 57, go to Federalist No. 57.
