Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 08-24-2019, 02:03 AM
candide is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Columbus, OH
Posts: 198

The Senate is unfair. Thoughts on Changing Article 1.


There are three areas where I believe the Constitution allows for a more equitable government going forward in the 21st Century.

First, Article Three does not proscribe a size for the Supreme Court (nor for lower courts). We can expand the Court.

Second, Article One does not specify the size of the House of Representatives. Let’s increase the HoR for the first time since 1920.

The third point also involves Article One and would mean amending the Constitution. Article One, Section Three gives each state two Senators which is unfair. It should be changed.

In every other area of government, the Supreme Court has found that the doctrine of “one man, one vote” prevails. But because two Senators per state is written into the Constitution, the Supreme Court will not find that equal or even equitable representation is required.

And, because of the complex construction of the United States, I think that equal representation in the Senate is impossible as the Constitution is currently written. We must more equitably distribute delegates to the U.S. Senate. I would do that by increasing the Senate by 50 (fifty) members.

Additional Senatorial seats would be allocated to states based upon population. The three largest states would be apportioned five Senators. The next nine largest would be apportioned four Senators each, and twenty-three states would be apportioned three Senators. Every other state would have two Senators representing them in Congress.

Of course, not all Senators would be added at the same time. Currently, Senate seats are divided into Classes One, Two and Three. After a federal census, say in 2030 there would be a reapportionment for the House of Representatives. At the same time there would be an apportionment for new seats in the Senate. States would not be able to add a new Senator until they had an open Class. For state adding multiple Senate seats, they would be allowed to add only one new Senator every two years.

In other words, if California, by far our largest state, had incumbent elections for Senator in 2032 and 2034, it would not be eligible to elect a third Senator until 2036. Then in 2038 it would vote for a second new Senator. The same year it would have an election for an incumbent Senator’s seat. The same would happen in 2040. In 2042, the first added Senator would now be an incumbent and be running alone.

Language in the amendment would require that all Senatorial seats be at-large. Texas would get three new seats and the crazies in that State Legislature would try to divide into representative districts. Districts can be gerrymandered. New York, Fla and Cali would do the same thing, I’m sure.

The way this will pass is that 35 states are offered additional representation. The argument to state legislatures must be, “More representation, more grease!” That’s something the goobers back home can’t pass up. Plus: more federal jobs, more military money, more infrastructure money.

There are some problems with this. Kentucky isn’t going to want to give up Moscow Mitch. Small states will hate it and resist, but if all the medium-sized states that get an extra Senator act according to their interests, they’ll go for it. I think a couple of small states would vote for it, too, namely Vermont, Rhode Island and, perhaps, Hawaii.

There are also problems with reapportionment in the opposite direction. I’ve thought about it a little bit and at this point it doesn’t seem the biggest concern.

I believe in more Democracy, not less. I want to walk down the street and knock on my Rep’s door. So telling me this is never going to happen is something I know.

What do you think about the unfair nature of the US Senate? How can it be fixed?
  #2  
Old 08-24-2019, 05:14 AM
Lord Feldon's Avatar
Lord Feldon is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Ohio, USA
Posts: 6,620
It can't be fixed that way. The Constitution functionally prohibits this kind of amendment without unanimous consent. 38 states is not enough, you'd need all 50, and as you say, "small states will hate it and resist."

The only solution I see, and it won't be happening so I don't expend much mental energy on it, is a constitutional amendment on par with the Parliament Act of 1911 in the UK, to simply remove the upper house from some of its current functions, and shift from true bicameralism to, whatever you'd call it, one-and-a-half-cameralism.

Last edited by Lord Feldon; 08-24-2019 at 05:19 AM.
  #3  
Old 08-24-2019, 06:14 AM
RetroVertigo is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 1,682
[snip]
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lord Feldon View Post
is a constitutional amendment on par with the Parliament Act of 1911 in the UK, to simply remove the upper house from some of its current functions,
User name checks out.
  #4  
Old 08-24-2019, 06:20 AM
PatrickLondon is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2015
Location: London
Posts: 3,640
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lord Feldon View Post

The only solution I see, and it won't be happening so I don't expend much mental energy on it, is a constitutional amendment on par with the Parliament Act of 1911 in the UK, to simply remove the upper house from some of its current functions, and shift from true bicameralism to, whatever you'd call it, one-and-a-half-cameralism.
And bear in mind that any UK legislation on the powers of the respective houses of parliament rests on the assumption that the executive is embedded in and accountable to parliament, primarily through the one elected house. That means the upper house does not have the authority and legitimacy of elections, only that of the wisdom of second thoughts and often a broader range of expertise to help revise hasty or ill-drafted legislation. That's a very different set-up from yours.
  #5  
Old 08-24-2019, 09:50 AM
ekedolphin is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Suffolk, VA
Posts: 5,260
You want to expand the size of the Supreme Court? Hell no, not while Trump is in office, thank you very much.
  #6  
Old 08-24-2019, 10:08 AM
octopus's Avatar
octopus is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 9,197
The first and third proposed changes are bad. The second should be doable and desirable.

If people want a different senator ratio then the populous states ought to split into a few states.

Last edited by octopus; 08-24-2019 at 10:10 AM.
  #7  
Old 08-24-2019, 10:49 AM
E-DUB's Avatar
E-DUB is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Posts: 4,859
Quote:
Originally Posted by octopus View Post
The first and third proposed changes are bad. The second should be doable and desirable.

If people want a different senator ratio then the populous states ought to split into a few states.
I'm good with the idea that every 40 years or so the largest state should be bisected and that the smallest one should merge with one (or more) of its neighbors, keeping the number at fifty. (Of course you couldn't do much about Alaska or Hawaii. And maybe for sentiment , leave the original 13 alone.)

But the bar on changing the composition of the Senate could be gotten around simply by doing TWO amendments, the first removing said proscription, and the second actually doing it. (I say "simply" even though I know it wouldn't be.)

Last edited by E-DUB; 08-24-2019 at 10:49 AM.
  #8  
Old 08-24-2019, 11:10 AM
Flyer is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Colorado
Posts: 3,383
Quote:
Originally Posted by candide View Post
The third point also involves Article One and would mean amending the Constitution. Article One, Section Three gives each state two Senators which is unfair. It should be changed.

In every other area of government, the Supreme Court has found that the doctrine of “one man, one vote” prevails. But because two Senators per state is written into the Constitution, the Supreme Court will not find that equal or even equitable representation is required.
Two points--

#1. LIFE is unfair. Get over it. Nobody ever promised you that outcomes would be equal.

#2. If you stop and think about it, you'll find that having a fixed number of Senators per state is, in fact, equal representation. Every man in every state gets to vote on precisely the same number of Senators. Location, education, wealth, health, etc.--none of that makes any difference whatsoever. That is precise and exact equality in every respect.

If you make the number of Senators vary according to state population, then people in large states will get to vote for more Senators than people in small states. That's the exact opposite of "one man, one vote."
  #9  
Old 08-24-2019, 11:38 AM
Chronos's Avatar
Chronos is offline
Charter Member
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: The Land of Cleves
Posts: 85,514
Is it worth pointing out the math failure there?
  #10  
Old 08-24-2019, 01:00 PM
Lance Turbo is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: Asheville, NC
Posts: 4,323
Math failure is the least of his problems. Flyer is not a fan of democracy. For this reason it is difficult to take his thoughts on the subject seriously.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Flyer View Post
Ah, yes. The thread wouldn't be complete without some liberal frothing at the mouth because somebody refused to prostrate himself to the god of "Democracy."

Democracy is nothing more than mob rule covered with a veneer of civilization.

Or, as somebody else so aptly put it, "Democracy is two wolves and one sheep voting on what to have for dinner."
  #11  
Old 08-24-2019, 01:11 PM
Ruken is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: DC
Posts: 7,659
Re: increasing the size of the House, anyone know what the physical limitations are for fitting everyone in the room? Although I imagine they can exempt themselves from fire codes.
  #12  
Old 08-24-2019, 01:14 PM
octopus's Avatar
octopus is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 9,197
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ruken View Post
Re: increasing the size of the House, anyone know what the physical limitations are for fitting everyone in the room? Although I imagine they can exempt themselves from fire codes.
Couldn’t they Skype?
  #13  
Old 08-24-2019, 01:19 PM
Thudlow Boink's Avatar
Thudlow Boink is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Lincoln, IL
Posts: 27,780
Quote:
Originally Posted by candide View Post
The third point also involves Article One and would mean amending the Constitution. Article One, Section Three gives each state two Senators which is unfair. It should be changed.

In every other area of government, the Supreme Court has found that the doctrine of “one man, one vote” prevails. But because two Senators per state is written into the Constitution, the Supreme Court will not find that equal or even equitable representation is required.
The whole point of the Senate is that each state gets equal representation as every other state. That was considered very important when the Constitution was written (the smaller states didn't want joining the Union to render them powerless and influence-less); and it's still important to lots of people today.

We had a similar thread not too long ago. I think this is the one I'm remembering:
Should we abolish the Senate?
  #14  
Old 08-24-2019, 02:28 PM
Ruken is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: DC
Posts: 7,659
Quote:
Originally Posted by octopus View Post
Couldn’t they Skype?
Maybe those creepy tablets on wheels!

"I didn't actually vote for that; I got hacked!"

I'm sure we could work something out. But I'm still curious about the physical space.
  #15  
Old 08-24-2019, 04:11 PM
Velocity is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Posts: 15,672
If you make the Senate proportional to population, then it's just a smaller, more powerful House. It would be somewhat redundant.

The whole point is that one house reflects the population, amd the other doesn't.
  #16  
Old 08-24-2019, 04:51 PM
E-DUB's Avatar
E-DUB is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Posts: 4,859
Quote:
Originally Posted by Velocity View Post
If you make the Senate proportional to population, then it's just a smaller, more powerful House. It would be somewhat redundant.

The whole point is that one house reflects the population, amd the other doesn't.
Well, except that the longer (and staggered) terms would still tend to insulate the Senate from transient political phenomena.
  #17  
Old 08-24-2019, 05:30 PM
zamboniracer is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Above the Uecker seats.
Posts: 4,969
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ruken View Post
Maybe those creepy tablets on wheels!

"I didn't actually vote for that; I got hacked!"

I'm sure we could work something out. But I'm still curious about the physical space.
Is RFK Stadium still standing? They could use the grandstand as meeting chambers. :-)
  #18  
Old 08-24-2019, 06:18 PM
DrFidelius's Avatar
DrFidelius is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 1999
Location: Miskatonic University
Posts: 12,550
Capping the number of Representatives and the direct election of Senators were two of the biggest errors in Twentieth Century American politics.
Senators were to represent their state, not the population and so should be selected by the state legislature.
__________________
The opinions expressed here are my own, and do not represent any other persons, organizations, spirits, thinking machines, hive minds or other sentient beings on this world or any adjacent dimensions in the multiverse.
  #19  
Old 08-24-2019, 07:03 PM
Chronos's Avatar
Chronos is offline
Charter Member
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: The Land of Cleves
Posts: 85,514
Their state is the population of their state.
  #20  
Old 08-24-2019, 08:57 PM
Zakalwe's Avatar
Zakalwe is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Tallahassee, FL
Posts: 4,993
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrFidelius View Post
Capping the number of Representatives and the direct election of Senators were two of the biggest errors in Twentieth Century American politics.
Senators were to represent their state, not the population and so should be selected by the state legislature.
This implies that there is some entity called "the state" that is NOT the people who reside in that state. Who is this "state" and why the fuck should we care what "it" thinks about anything?
  #21  
Old 08-24-2019, 10:08 PM
silenus's Avatar
silenus is online now
Isaiah 1:15/Screw the NRA
Charter Member
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: SoCal
Posts: 51,741
All that does is gerrymander the Senate as well as the House. Definitely in the Republican playbook.
  #22  
Old 08-24-2019, 10:19 PM
Little Nemo is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Western New York
Posts: 82,866
Quote:
Originally Posted by Velocity View Post
If you make the Senate proportional to population, then it's just a smaller, more powerful House. It would be somewhat redundant.
Assuming Senatorial elections remained as they are now, a difference would be that Senators would be elected by the entire population of their state rather than representing a portion of the state as most Representatives do. Every Senator would be a Senator-at-large.

This would have an interesting effect in that states where the population favors one party would see that party's influence getting magnified. Texas, for example, has been a reliably Republican state. So if it elected five Senators, they presumably would all be Republicans. And we can assume New York's five Senators would all be Democrats.
  #23  
Old 08-24-2019, 11:17 PM
PhillyGuy is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: Pennsylvania U.S.A.
Posts: 1,462
Unless I missed it, no one has yet pointed out that amendments to change the Senate advantage of small states are forbidden by the how--to-amend language in Article 5:

Quote:
no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate.
As for splitting California, Texas, and so forth, to get around this -- it's up to the Supreme Court, but if the whole idea is to reduce the suffrage of other states, that appears to me unconstitutional as well.

Reducing the power of the Senate might be a constitutional. But none of it is practical.

You could say that with a President who keeps on talking about third terms and president-for-life, threatens the press, orders American companies out of China, and so forth, a concern with such a small defect in the U.S. constitution is quaint. We've got bigger threats to to democracy to deal with.

Last edited by PhillyGuy; 08-24-2019 at 11:22 PM.
  #24  
Old 08-24-2019, 11:18 PM
E-DUB's Avatar
E-DUB is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Posts: 4,859
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrFidelius View Post
Capping the number of Representatives and the direct election of Senators were two of the biggest errors in Twentieth Century American politics.
Senators were to represent their state, not the population and so should be selected by the state legislature.
Yes, and No.

The idea that "States" have "interests" separate from their populations is patently absurd and exists only to rationalize a disenfranchisement of people vis a vis the upper chamber of Congress advocated by antidemocratic oligarchs-in-waiting . And the idea of throwing that process back to the (incredibly gerrymandered) state Legislatures is patently offensive and serves only to reinforce the validity of the first sentence of this paragraph.
  #25  
Old 08-25-2019, 01:59 PM
FlikTheBlue is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 1,847
Quote:
Originally Posted by E-DUB View Post
I'm good with the idea that every 40 years or so the largest state should be bisected and that the smallest one should merge with one (or more) of its neighbors, keeping the number at fifty. (Of course you couldn't do much about Alaska or Hawaii. And maybe for sentiment , leave the original 13 alone.)

But the bar on changing the composition of the Senate could be gotten around simply by doing TWO amendments, the first removing said proscription, and the second actually doing it. (I say "simply" even though I know it wouldn't be.)
Yes, let’s fuse North and South Dakota into just Dakota and split California up into North and South California (NOT East and West). We could split it just north or south of Fresno, making Fresno land on the side that’s more blue. Sounds like a great plan to me .

Last edited by FlikTheBlue; 08-25-2019 at 02:02 PM.
  #26  
Old 08-26-2019, 03:01 PM
YamatoTwinkie is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 1,322
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zakalwe View Post
This implies that there is some entity called "the state" that is NOT the people who reside in that state. Who is this "state" and why the fuck should we care what "it" thinks about anything?
"the state" in this case, is "the state government". There is a certain logic to having the representatives that the people in your state entrust to write and enforce state laws be the same representatives that can ensure a qualified US Senator goes to the US Capitol.

Right now, any yahoo can get elected US Senator for 6 years running on a populist message with zero prior experience in government. As a result, instead of acting as a team with the state government to jointly represent the state's interests in an effective manner, the Senator can be completely at odds with the rest of the state, often pursuing a personal agenda.

Whether this is a bug or a feature is up to you.

Last edited by YamatoTwinkie; 08-26-2019 at 03:04 PM.
  #27  
Old 08-26-2019, 03:16 PM
HurricaneDitka is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 14,958
Quote:
Originally Posted by FlikTheBlue View Post
Yes, let’s fuse North and South Dakota into just Dakota ...
I don't think there's a mechanism to merge two states together aside from a Constitutional amendment, is there (and that probably requires unanimous consent from all states in this case)?
  #28  
Old 08-26-2019, 06:01 PM
Chronos's Avatar
Chronos is offline
Charter Member
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: The Land of Cleves
Posts: 85,514
I don't think it would take anything more on the federal level than just an ordinary law. Both of the merging states would need whatever process is laid out for amending their state constitutions, though, and that'd be a tough sell.
  #29  
Old 08-26-2019, 07:26 PM
D'Anconia is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2014
Posts: 4,628
Article IV, Section 3, Clause 1:

New States may be admitted by the Congress into this Union; but no new State shall be formed or erected within the Jurisdiction of any other State; nor any State be formed by the Junction of two or more States, or Parts of States, without the Consent of the Legislatures of the States concerned as well as of the Congress.
  #30  
Old 08-27-2019, 01:07 AM
candide is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Columbus, OH
Posts: 198
Quote:
Originally Posted by D'Anconia View Post
Article IV, Section 3, Clause 1:

New States may be admitted by the Congress into this Union; but no new State shall be formed or erected within the Jurisdiction of any other State; nor any State be formed by the Junction of two or more States, or Parts of States, without the Consent of the Legislatures of the States concerned as well as of the Congress.
Thank you, D'Anconia for pointing this out.

I don't want to create new states or to merge states. Although, I started thinking about this because of a Malcolm Gladwell podcast, "Revisionist History." I think it is titled "Divide and Conquer."

He suggests that The legislation that allowed the Republic of Texas to become the state of Texas also allows Texas to be split into five (or six) parts. The United States has already approved this legislation in 1845. It's very provocative.

Some states are too big and should split and some states are too small and should merge, But that's not going to happen in this country. So we should have a more fair system in the Senate. That's what I was proposing.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Little Nemo View Post
This would have an interesting effect in that states where the population favors one party would see that party's influence getting magnified. Texas, for example, has been a reliably Republican state. So if it elected five Senators, they presumably would all be Republicans. And we can assume New York's five Senators would all be Democrats.
This is an interesting idea, wrong, but interesting.

In smaller states, I agree. The lens of the electorate might dictate one of the two parties we currently have . But I would suggest, that when you have at-large elections, it allows charismatic, smart, dynamic candidates with good ideas, who are not of the dominant party to succeed. That's what I want.

I live in Ohio. I don't think Ohio will go for Trump in 2020. In 2018 Ohio voted for Sherrod Brown for Senate for the third time. It's because Sherrod Brown always has a great ground game, he is terrific at constituent relations, and he understands the concerns of workers. Good candidates with good messages can win in states that tend to lean the other way: ask Arnold Schwarzenegger.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Velocity View Post
If you make the Senate proportional to population, then it's just a smaller, more powerful House. It would be somewhat redundant.

The whole point is that one house reflects the population, and the other doesn't.
Again, I don't want to create a huge Senate. I want to increase it by 50%. Basta!

And, frankly, its fifty extra seats and that is not 50% if DC and PR were to be given statehood.

Big states like California, Texas, Florida and New York that have populations 68, 50, 41 and 37 times the smallest state, Wyoming, respectively, deserve more representation in the Senate. That's my argument.

Under my proposal, the biggest states, CA, TX and FL would have only 2.5 times the representation in the new Senate than WY.

NY, maybe our most important state, only twice that of Wyoming.

What's wrong with that?
  #31  
Old 08-27-2019, 01:12 AM
Velocity is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Posts: 15,672
Quote:
New States may be admitted by the Congress into this Union; but no new State shall be formed or erected within the Jurisdiction of any other State; nor any State be formed by the Junction of two or more States, or Parts of States, without the Consent of the Legislatures of the States concerned as well as of the Congress.
How much consent is required? 2/3?

If not, it sounds like this would be fairly easy if, say, the Republicans held both houses of Congress and the Texas legislature, and decided to chop Texas up into bits to give the GOP a super-majority in the Senate.
  #32  
Old 08-27-2019, 01:31 AM
HurricaneDitka is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 14,958
Quote:
Originally Posted by candide View Post
... What's wrong with that?
Nothing's necessarily "wrong with that" per se, but you're asking smaller states to accept a change in the terms of the "deal" and give up some relative power to larger states. Do you plan to give them anything in return for this, or do you just expect them to go along with your plan out of sheer generosity or some shared sense of fairness? What's in it for Wyoming (and all the other small states)?

Last edited by HurricaneDitka; 08-27-2019 at 01:33 AM.
  #33  
Old 08-27-2019, 01:35 AM
D'Anconia is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2014
Posts: 4,628
Quote:
Originally Posted by Velocity View Post
How much consent is required? 2/3?

If not, it sounds like this would be fairly easy if, say, the Republicans held both houses of Congress and the Texas legislature, and decided to chop Texas up into bits to give the GOP a super-majority in the Senate.
I am not a Constitutional scholar, but since the clause doesn't mention a 2/3 or other supermajority, I would assume it's a simple majority.
  #34  
Old 08-27-2019, 01:49 AM
candide is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Columbus, OH
Posts: 198
Here's What I wrote:

Quote:
Originally Posted by candide View Post
Additional Senatorial seats would be allocated to states based upon population. The three largest states would be apportioned five Senators. The next nine largest would be apportioned four Senators each, and twenty-three states would be apportioned three Senators. Every other state would have two Senators representing them in Congress.
Thanks, by the way, for reading it. And using your intellects to calculate....

What I'm giving 2/3s of the states is an additional Senator.

Is that equitable?
  #35  
Old 08-27-2019, 01:52 AM
candide is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Columbus, OH
Posts: 198
At least one additional Senator, I mean, for 35 states as currently constituted.
  #36  
Old 08-27-2019, 02:11 AM
HurricaneDitka is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 14,958
Quote:
Originally Posted by candide View Post
At least one additional Senator, I mean, for 35 states as currently constituted.
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?
  #37  
Old 08-27-2019, 02:30 AM
candide is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Columbus, OH
Posts: 198
How do you get 38? I just read the Constitution to be certain.

By my calculation, 2/3 of 50 is always 34. How do you calculate 38?
  #38  
Old 08-27-2019, 02:35 AM
candide is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Columbus, OH
Posts: 198
The answer to the second question is that the New England, Mid-Atlantic will take care of its own. DE, NH, VT, RI and maybe, if they pay attention, WV, will be taken care of.....
  #39  
Old 08-27-2019, 02:45 AM
HurricaneDitka is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 14,958
Quote:
Originally Posted by candide View Post
How do you get 38? I just read the Constitution to be certain.

By my calculation, 2/3 of 50 is always 34. How do you calculate 38?
An amendment has to win approval of 2/3 of Congress and be ratified by 3/4 of the States (38):

Quote:
The Congress, whenever two thirds of both houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose amendments to this Constitution, or, on the application of the legislatures of two thirds of the several states, shall call a convention for proposing amendments, which, in either case, shall be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the legislatures of three fourths of the several states, or by conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other mode of ratification may be proposed by the Congress; provided that no amendment which may be made prior to the year one thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any manner affect the first and fourth clauses in the ninth section of the first article; and that no state, without its consent, shall be deprived of its equal suffrage in the Senate.
And I've highlighted another relevant section at the end. Your proposal appears, to me at least, to run afoul of this "equal suffrage" requirement.
  #40  
Old 08-27-2019, 02:52 AM
candide is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Columbus, OH
Posts: 198
Touche. idem.
  #41  
Old 08-27-2019, 06:48 AM
Paul in Qatar is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Dammam, Saudi Arabia
Posts: 12,998
All I have to offer is the observation that it would make more sense to elect three senators from each state. That way at least one would come up every two years.
__________________
800-237-5055
Shrine Hospitals for Children (North America)
Never any fee
Do you know a child in need?
  #42  
Old 08-27-2019, 09:28 AM
Steve MB is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Northern VA
Posts: 13,455
Quote:
Originally Posted by E-DUB View Post
I'm good with the idea that every 40 years or so the largest state should be bisected and that the smallest one should merge with one (or more) of its neighbors, keeping the number at fifty. (Of course you couldn't do much about Alaska or Hawaii. And maybe for sentiment , leave the original 13 alone.)

But the bar on changing the composition of the Senate could be gotten around simply by doing TWO amendments, the first removing said proscription, and the second actually doing it. (I say "simply" even though I know it wouldn't be.)
It could also be worked around by an amendment that did not affect states' equal representation in the Senate, but left that body with no power or responsibility other than selecting one building, roadway, or geographic feature each year to name after Ronald Reagan (see, I'm bending over backwards to give something to the other side of the aisle!).
__________________
The Internet: Nobody knows if you're a dog. Everybody knows if you're a jackass.

Last edited by Steve MB; 08-27-2019 at 09:29 AM.
  #43  
Old 08-27-2019, 09:43 AM
Steve MB is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Northern VA
Posts: 13,455
Quote:
Originally Posted by PhillyGuy View Post
As for splitting California, Texas, and so forth, to get around this -- it's up to the Supreme Court, but if the whole idea is to reduce the suffrage of other states, that appears to me unconstitutional as well.
Clearly, splitting up states (with the consent of the affected state legislature*) is constitutional, given that it's happened several times.

*The most recent such partition was facilitated by the fact that the legitimate state legislature of Virginia was meeting in Union-controlled territory, eliminating any need to consult the gang of traitors assembled in Richmond.

Quote:
Originally Posted by candide View Post
He suggests that The legislation that allowed the Republic of Texas to become the state of Texas also allows Texas to be split into five (or six) parts. The United States has already approved this legislation in 1845.
This provision seems to have been left out of the currently operative 1870 admission of Texas to the Union, so it's a dead letter.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Paul in Qatar View Post
All I have to offer is the observation that it would make more sense to elect three senators from each state. That way at least one would come up every two years.
It would make more sense as a matter of abstract neatness. However, the practical effect would be to exacerbate the distortions created by the electoral college system; given that, it would be preferable to give each state only one senator (which would not run afoul of the equal representation clause) and/or to expand the House (thus diluting the flat +2 electoral vote allocation for each state).
__________________
The Internet: Nobody knows if you're a dog. Everybody knows if you're a jackass.
  #44  
Old 08-27-2019, 09:58 AM
Saint Cad is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: N of Denver & S of Sanity
Posts: 13,609
Quote:
Originally Posted by candide View Post
How do you get 38? I just read the Constitution to be certain.

By my calculation, 2/3 of 50 is always 34. How do you calculate 38?
True but 3/4 of 50 is (rounded up to) 38. Not really sure why you think only 2/3 of the states need to ratify an amendment for it to take effect.
BUT the reality is you need unanimous consent of all the states. Re-read the last line in Article V.
Quote:
no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate.
__________________
When I was a boy, a mere lad, A FAERIE APPEARED UNTO ME AND TOLD ME I WOULD BE BOTH POPE AND KING! But … I am a bastard. And a pretender.

-Richard Hariss

Last edited by Saint Cad; 08-27-2019 at 09:58 AM.
  #45  
Old 08-27-2019, 12:09 PM
Little Nemo is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Western New York
Posts: 82,866
Quote:
Originally Posted by candide View Post
He suggests that The legislation that allowed the Republic of Texas to become the state of Texas also allows Texas to be split into five (or six) parts. The United States has already approved this legislation in 1845. It's very provocative.
Gladwell got the tense wrong. The legislation allowed Texas to be split up into other states. This map shows the original borders of Texas - which includes land that is now part of six different states.
  #46  
Old 08-27-2019, 03:22 PM
Saint Cad is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: N of Denver & S of Sanity
Posts: 13,609
Quote:
Originally Posted by Little Nemo View Post
Gladwell got the tense wrong. The legislation allowed Texas to be split up into other states. This map shows the original borders of Texas - which includes land that is now part of six different states.
Let's actually look at the part of the Treaty that deals with this
Quote:
New states, of convenient size, not exceeding four in number, in addition to said state of Texas, and having sufficient population, may hereafter, by the consent of said state, be formed out of the territory thereof, which shall be entitled to admission under the provisions of the federal constitution.
It looks like this would be in effect even today since there is no expiration. So Texas can break up into at most 5 sovereign states (not become parts of other states). But wait! Can't any state do that if they wish? Ahh but admission of new states require the consent of Congress. I read this as the consent of Congress to admit these states has been given a priori.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Steve MB View Post
This provision seems to have been left out of the currently operative 1870 admission of Texas to the Union, so it's a dead letter.
Although a lot of references use the term "re-admitted" Texas was not admitted in 1870 since it never seceded (Texas v. White) so the Treaty is still in effect.
__________________
When I was a boy, a mere lad, A FAERIE APPEARED UNTO ME AND TOLD ME I WOULD BE BOTH POPE AND KING! But … I am a bastard. And a pretender.

-Richard Hariss

Last edited by Saint Cad; 08-27-2019 at 03:25 PM.
  #47  
Old 08-27-2019, 04:01 PM
Bijou Drains is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 9,422
Maybe it was mentioned but up until around 1920 senators were not voted on directly by voters. They were picked by state legislators. So it was a big change to direct election of senators.
  #48  
Old 08-27-2019, 04:16 PM
Little Nemo is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Western New York
Posts: 82,866
Quote:
Originally Posted by Saint Cad View Post
Let's actually look at the part of the Treaty that deals with this

Although a lot of references use the term "re-admitted" Texas was not admitted in 1870 since it never seceded (Texas v. White) so the Treaty is still in effect.
The treaty isn't still in effect. It never was in effect.

A treaty was negotiated between Texas and the United States and then submitted to the Senate for approval. The Senate rejected it.

Congress then passed a separate bill authorizing the President to annex Texas (subject to Texan approval).
  #49  
Old 08-28-2019, 07:37 AM
DrFidelius's Avatar
DrFidelius is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 1999
Location: Miskatonic University
Posts: 12,550
If a corporation can be a "person" with goals and responsibilities separate from the people who happen to work there, a state can as well.
__________________
The opinions expressed here are my own, and do not represent any other persons, organizations, spirits, thinking machines, hive minds or other sentient beings on this world or any adjacent dimensions in the multiverse.
  #50  
Old 08-28-2019, 11:53 AM
Deeg is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 3,648
My problem with these proposals is that they don't try to make the government system better, they try to make it more liberal (which I know is the same thing for many people). This puts the proposal in the same category as gerrymandering. While I am sympathetic to the goal I am aware that if the roles were reversed and it was conservatives attempting to make these changes the Dope would be apoplectic. For example, I can't imagine the uproar if Republicans were trying to increase the size of SCOTUS right now to forestall future Democrat attempts to pack the court.

Instead of trying to game the system maybe Democrats should change their message or do a better job of getting their message across.
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 10:50 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