Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #51  
Old 08-28-2019, 11:06 AM
Max S. is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2017
Location: Florida, USA
Posts: 1,574
Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka View Post
It takes 38 states to ratify an amendment. Why would any of the 15 states that do not get an additional senator ratify this plan?
As others have mentioned, it would take all 50 states because "no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate." (U.S. Const. art. V).

candide, unless you think you can convince every state in this nation that such an amendment is in their best interest, your proposal is dead in the water.

~Max
  #52  
Old 08-31-2019, 03:11 AM
Little Nemo is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Western New York
Posts: 82,483
Quote:
Originally Posted by Max S. View Post
As others have mentioned, it would take all 50 states because "no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate." (U.S. Const. art. V).

candide, unless you think you can convince every state in this nation that such an amendment is in their best interest, your proposal is dead in the water.

~Max
I think it could be done with fewer than fifty states but it would have to be a multi-step process. First, you'd have to enact a constitutional amendment removing the section you referred to. This amendment would not deprive any state of its equal suffrage so it would not require the consent of every state. It could be enacted by the normal majority for an amendment.

Then once the amendment was enacted, you could enact a second amendment changing the way the Senate worked. There would no longer be a requirement to get every state's consent because that requirement would have been eliminated by the first amendment. This amendment could now also be enacted by a normal majority.
  #53  
Old 08-31-2019, 07:38 AM
Chronos's Avatar
Chronos is online now
Charter Member
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: The Land of Cleves
Posts: 85,159
The general interpretation is that a provision of the Constitution which limits what amendments can be passed is itself, by its nature, unamendable.

Anyway, it'd be easier to just scrap the Constitution entirely and start over.
  #54  
Old 08-31-2019, 09:42 AM
E-DUB's Avatar
E-DUB is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Posts: 4,822
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chronos View Post
The general interpretation is that a provision of the Constitution which limits what amendments can be passed is itself, by its nature, unamendable.

Anyway, it'd be easier to just scrap the Constitution entirely and start over.
Which General came up with that interpretation? Seriously, does it SAY that? "Not only can't you amend sections X, Y, and Z, but you can't amend this one either." Because, if not.........................
  #55  
Old 08-31-2019, 11:15 AM
HurricaneDitka is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 14,612
Even if this scheme were allowed, it just gets us back to: "Why would any of the 15 states that do not get an additional senator ratify this plan?"
  #56  
Old 08-31-2019, 12:01 PM
Little Nemo is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Western New York
Posts: 82,483
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chronos View Post
The general interpretation is that a provision of the Constitution which limits what amendments can be passed is itself, by its nature, unamendable.

Anyway, it'd be easier to just scrap the Constitution entirely and start over.
I disagree. I don't think there's any part of the Constitution that's completely permanent. Constitutional amendments can even eliminate existing parts of the Constitution. Look at how the 21st Amendment overturned the 18th Amendment.

In that case, the new text explicitly repealed the older text. But the 12th Amendment changed the procedure of electing Vice Presidents without explicitly repealing the procedure in Section V. However, you didn't see Hillary Clinton arguing that Section V was still in the Constitution and she was entitled to be the Vice President.
  #57  
Old 08-31-2019, 01:25 PM
elucidator is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Further
Posts: 60,071
Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka View Post
Even if this scheme were allowed, it just gets us back to: "Why would any of the 15 states that do not get an additional senator ratify this plan?"
Sometimes, with some people, it is difficult to explain why the gift of democratic equality actually grows by being shared. The Major Dudes tell us that we must cherish such people as brothers and sisters, even when they clutch undeserved power and scream "Mine!".

Of course, that is not always easy. Do we dare? We do dare, do dare. All the livelong day.
__________________
Law above fear, justice above law, mercy above justice, love above all.
  #58  
Old 08-31-2019, 01:50 PM
E-DUB's Avatar
E-DUB is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Posts: 4,822
Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka View Post
Even if this scheme were allowed, it just gets us back to: "Why would any of the 15 states that do not get an additional senator ratify this plan?"
If people weren't willing to give up positions of privilege in the interest of fairness and it simply being the right thing to do we wouldn't have ANY civil rights laws, because they were passes by those with the privilege.
  #59  
Old 09-11-2019, 01:07 PM
Max S. is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2017
Location: Florida, USA
Posts: 1,574
Quote:
Originally Posted by Little Nemo View Post
I think it could be done with fewer than fifty states but it would have to be a multi-step process. First, you'd have to enact a constitutional amendment removing the section you referred to. This amendment would not deprive any state of its equal suffrage so it would not require the consent of every state. It could be enacted by the normal majority for an amendment.

Then once the amendment was enacted, you could enact a second amendment changing the way the Senate worked. There would no longer be a requirement to get every state's consent because that requirement would have been eliminated by the first amendment. This amendment could now also be enacted by a normal majority.
The constitutionality of such a procedure might make for an interesting thread on its own. Nevertheless, this would be extremely difficult to pull off, especially if it takes a number of years for enough states to ratify phase one. Even so, candide would still need to convince some of the small states to give up their protection, and then convince them again to give up their equal representation.

~Max
  #60  
Old 09-12-2019, 07:18 PM
PhillyGuy is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: Pennsylvania U.S.A.
Posts: 1,446
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chronos View Post
Anyway, it'd be easier to just scrap the Constitution entirely and start over.
I agree. Far easier.

There is a precedent. The Articles of Confederation required approval from every state, to be changed. And yet George Washington took office, under the new Constitution, without that.

The basic idea of the Articles of Confederation -- weak executive, strong legislature -- is better than the presidential system that replaced it. But improving the Articles of Confederation by amendment may have been impossible due to the requirement for unanimity before a change could take effect. Throwing out the whole thing gave more of a a feeling of legitimacy. (So much so that holdout states eventually bought in.)

I can't imagine letting the President pardon whomever he wants ever being passed as an amendment. You can only slip in such outrages when you change everything.
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 08:04 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

Send questions for Cecil Adams to: cecil@straightdope.com

Send comments about this website to: webmaster@straightdope.com

Terms of Use / Privacy Policy

Advertise on the Straight Dope!
(Your direct line to thousands of the smartest, hippest people on the planet, plus a few total dipsticks.)

Copyright 2019 STM Reader, LLC.

 
Copyright © 2017