Or the judges. I’m sure that even if it were unanimously approved, there would be someone with enough standing to sue for unconstitutionality, and if enough judges were on the side of inertia, it would get struck down. And if the people aren’t prepared to use force I don’t think they’d be prepared to ignore the judges either. So you’d have to wait for them to retire or “persuade” them by other means.
I’ll respond more tomorrow, but the Supreme Court dismissed challenges to the Eighteenth and Nineteenth Amendments, so I’m not so sure that judges would be on the side of inertia. Those opinions are interesting reads, by the way, if a bit terse.
Suppose there were an amendment to abolish the Senate entirely and devolve all its powers and functions on the House of Representatives? Would that be incompatible with Article V? After all, it would not be depriving any state of its “equal suffrage” in the Senate. 
:rolleyes: So,
what’s your beef with the State of Rhode Island and Providence Plantations? :dubious:
I was just about to ask this. Rhode Island may be the smallest state by land area, but not by population. Seven states have fewer people.
Frankly, I’d like to get them Wyoming Senators outta there…
I think abolishing the Senate would be consistent with Article V, because each state’s representation is still equal to every other state’s, and because this has been proposed by people who seem to have read the Constitution, at least as far as Article V.
Still, there’s something about those people from Rhode Island that–that–that–just makes me want to change the Constitution!
Hell, I feel that way about Maryland.
Maybe I’m misremembering from the late unpleasantness but don’t the SCOTUS ruling from just after the War explicitly state that there is NO legal means for seccession at this point? So even if this occured Rhode Island’s options would be submit or armed rebellion.
slaps Gadarene upside the head
Yes, Gads, the line preventing the amendment of equal Senate representation could be removed by amendment. Then equal Senate representation could be abolished (oh, happy day!). But it wouldn’t be easy. The equal Senate representation is a big part of what got some states to sign on (& in fact why the county, um, state of Delaware was the first–it was the best deal they were going to get).
[QUOTE=foolsguineaYes, Gads, the line preventing the amendment of equal Senate representation could be removed by amendment.[/QUOTE]
Yes, but would such an amendment have to be unanimous, or just the usual three-fourths of the state legislatures? That’s the key question.
Even three-fourths might be hard to get – there are so many underpopulated, overrepresented states!