9

1.

seems to me to be a pure straw man --

2

DR. MICHENER: Straw man, in the sense that it

3

is no longer valid.

4

MR. SCANLAN: It hasn't been valid for 150

5

years.

6

DR. MICHENER: But it is not a straw man. The

7

reason I mentioned it is that historically this is the

8

argument that led to the strong arguments for bicameralism.

9

MR. SCANLAN: It would not be an argument for

10

bicameralism today.

11

DR. MICHENER: What happened was the original

12

arguments died and other arguments were substituted for

13

them.

14

MR. SCANLAN: I want to make clear this is not

15

an argument today that would justify it.

16

DR. MICHENER: I say the argument is no longer

17

made today. As a matter of fact, the other argument which

18

has been made up until very recently is that the two houses

19

permit representation of two different interests or inter-

20

ests in two different chambers and, of course, historically,

21

this is the one that has been the strong argument in the