Article V of the Constitution has an entrenched clause stating no amendment can be made depriving a state of its equal suffrage in the Senate without it's consent. That means you amend it so every state has 3 Senators, or 1, or 10, but any such amendment that would give one state more Senators than another would require ratification by every state.
This clown, who is a PROFESSOR of "Legal Studies" (proctology?) at the University of PA suggests
1)Well Article V just applies to amendments so Congress can just pass a law giving Cali more Senators (whut?).
2)Because voting rights amendments were ratified the states have already given "consent" to this previously unconsidered proposal and/or Congress would have carte blache to creatively "enforce" them by giving Cali 12 Senators.
3)Maybe "equal suffrage" means something else.
This is literally the dumbest crap I've ever read.
Their more realistic plot to dick around with the Senate is to admit new states (Washington DC, Puerto Rico, USVI?)
This is now a major issue on the "intellectual" left.
The late Senator Moynihan suggested big states could break up, which I'm certain state governments would be loathe to do.
They really do hate the Constitution.
The history of this is that it was a compromise. The bigger states thought each state should be represented in Congress according to population; the smaller states argued that a state is a state is a state, so the representation should be equal.
What the Framers ultimately came up with was a compromise that served both interests and furthered their design of diffusing power.
This design was recreated (at our suggestion) in the constitution of the Federal Republic of Germany, where there are two hoses in Parliament — the Bundestag (translated “people’s house”) and the Landestag (translated “states’ house.”)
We are supposed to be a union of sovereign states in which each state is equal.
It’s true that the Senate is undemocratic. It was supposed to be. Its job is to represent each state, not to represent teh people.
Taht is also why the 17th Amendment should be repealed.
Which would likely not have quite the effect that the Democrats would like.
“Voting Power” makes no sense in this context. You might as well say that the guy in Vermont has 50 times the voting power for governor as the guy in California.
WHen in fact, each person has exactly the SAME voting power to pick their governor, and their senator. Which is that each person has the chance to be in the majority to pick the winner.
I would not oppose California being broken up into multiple states, it is really way too big, big enough that it can pretend to be it’s own country.
Its the “penumbra” of the Constitution.
bump
“Democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts and murders itself. There was never a democracy that did not commit suicide.”
– John Adams, letter to John Taylor, 1814.