Seeing problems though the very American perspective of “it’s what the written constitution says, specifically, that is the problem/solution” is reeeeeeally missing the point.
Here’s a thought: alter Senate voting power based on a state’s growth in population since the previous census. The senators from ten states that have shown the most population growth each get an extra half-vote (thus the state overall gets the equivalent of three votes in the Senate) while the senators from the ten states that have shown the least growth (or the worst shrinkage) each lost half a vote, thus the state overall gets one vote in the Senate. This lasts ten years until the next census. States that encourage reproduction or immigration get rewarded with increased influence over future policy, states that are shrinking are similarly penalized.
Sure, we’re just going to need a unanimous amendment ("… no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate.") to make that happen. I think I can guess at least 10 states that are not going to give consent.
Where does “unanimous” come from? You quoted from a restriction on a states-initiated amendment convention, which has never happened.
Plausibility aside, I don’t get this at all.
Rewarding growing states with extra political power would only ensure that those states can double down on policies that helped them grow in the first place. North Dakota, for instance, could use its extra vote to weaken environmental laws limiting fracking, leading to more fracking and more population for North Dakota. Meanwhile, struggling states would find it that much harder to influence federal policy that could help them revive.
Plus, why would we want to encourage higher birthrates?
I’d always read it to apply to any amendments, regardless of if they’re proposed by a convention or by Congress.
It’s only one sentence, however convoluted the structure may be. The meaning and context are already provided. Anyway, the part about what’s unamendable can itself be amended.
Again, where do you get “unanimous”?
from the part I quoted earlier: “… no state, without its consent, shall be deprived of its equal suffrage in the Senate.” I take that to mean that if someone wants to pass an amendment that would deprive state(s) of “equal suffrage in the Senate” it must do so with their consent.
I suppose I could concoct a bizarre scenario where an amendment to strip a particular state of half its Senators got the required 38 states’ ratification, plus that state’s consent, and wouldn’t have to be “unanimous”. Is that your point?
It’s a suggestion to (slightly) mitigate the disproportionate influence of low-population rural states, if those states are not growing in population. If there’s a complaint that more people move to urbanized states and those states grow in population while not gaining any extra influence in the Senate, this is meant to address that.
Looking at the lists of fastest- and slowest-growing states, I see under this scheme, Utah would gain and New York would lose. Oh, well…
As delighted as I’d be if Senators Romney and Lee were to get half of Senators Schumer and Gillibrand’s vote, I’d oppose this.
As long as we’re proposing utterly implausible ideas for mitigating the disproportionate influence of low-population states – a worthwhile if ultimately unconstitutional goal IMO – I propose we merge smaller states and break up larger ones:
[li]ND and SD = Dakota[/li][li]ID and MT = Montanaho[/li][li]VT and NH = Vampshire[/li][li]CA = N. California & S. California[/li][li]TX = E. Texas & W. Texas[/li][li]NY = Metro NY & Upstate NY[/li][/ul]
Note – this would not universally benefit Democrats, although that would probably be the immediate net effect.
That would be more constitutional than Senate reform. Any Senate reform would most likely lead to a constitutional crisis since it would require an Amendment yet the constitution says that you cannot deprive the states of their representation in the Senate, and so you’d potentially have the Supreme Court rule on the constitutionality of a constitutional amendment, which they’ve never done before. And if they go ahead and rule the Senate reform amendment unconstitutional, even if it is, what’s to stop them from going ahead and ruling other constitutional amendments unconstitutional later down the line?
When 40% of women under age 30 want to leave the country, you have a problem.
In the age of Trump America just keeps getting stupider, meaner, more sexist, more racist, more corrupt, more embarrassing, more backwards, more plutocratic every single day. It is tiring for a lot of people to have to re-fight battles that much of the developed world settled decades ago.
That’s some damning polling there. No way to spin it. This is the Age of Trump.
what is keeping them from moving? There ain’t nobody at anybody’s border that would prevent them from creating a caravan and just driving / walking in. Or hopping a flight and overstaying their visas.