That’s not the impression I had gotten. Here’s the quote from Article 5:
Seems like the only application for calling a convention is proposing amendments, not a complete re-write. If the big states want to screw over the little ones for Senate Suffrage, they could (if Amending that part of Article 5 is valid at all) do it without going through the Senate itself, but completely at the state level.
I’ve never heard of this. How many times has it happened and when?
My point in my first post is that if the political atmosphere were just right, you wouldn’t even need to do the one-two punch of amending Article V, then ratifying the “No Senators for North Dakota” amendment.
Let’s say enough entities involved in the amendment process get this ND idea into their heads, and for whatever reason, don’t conisder the negative ramification for their own state (3/4ths of all state legislators have it in for ND, etc.) So the Amendment meets all the criteria, other than, you know, it conflicts with the Constitution. However, the National Archivist, an avid anti-Dakotan himself, officially places the illegal Amendment into the document.
North Dakota sues to get it removed, of course, and the Supes, assuming a majority of them happen to be against North Dakota Senate representation themselves, could simply state, against all logic, mind you, that the new Amendment did not conflict with the spirit and intent of Article V, and it stays.
What happens then?
Well, once you have a Supreme Court that is dead-set against reading the words that are right there in the constitution, you have a problem that goes beyong North Dakota.
Assuming the government - including the Supreme Court - is still working within its constitutional directives, Article V would need to be changed before the “no Senators for North Dakota” act or Amendment could ever be considered valid.
True, but assuming they are of that mindset for whatever reason, what’s to keep them from behaving as I described, and what is to remedy it afterward?
I dunno…the President declaring martial law and having the Supreme Court summarily executed? Once you talk about the government ignoring the constitution wholesale, what’s to stop anyone in government from doing anything, however outlandish?
Any state can do that, not just Texas; somewhere in the Constitution the issue of new states is addressed, and it says that basically all parties to the creation have to consent, including Congress IIRC.
Yes, but the agreement that was made when Texas joined the US said that Texas could split itself up into smaller states, which Congress would be obliged to admit. In other words, the consent has already been given.
It seems to me that the Texas splitting into five states issue was covered here before, but I can’t find it now. Basically, though, from what I remember, Texas has already used up that right, since the land which used to be the Republic of Texas is now spread across five different states (mostly Texas itself, of course, but also parts of Oklahoma, New Mexico, and a couple of others).
It says no state may be deprived of equal representation in the Senate w/o it’s consent. If you get the states consent than you can deprive them