[SeeSharp]

To go there, one would also have to ask if "consent" was given when the states consented to the amendment process in Article V when they ratified it in the first place.
[snip]
Even if they didn't agree with the outcome, they agreed to an amendment process that allowed for 3/4ths of the states to decide for all

Yes. In every single case except this one. Remember the amendment process is Article V, and Article V explicitly says "no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate". It is an explicit exception to the majority rules principle.

The nut of the issue is the question of whether we can have an unamendable provision in a constitution. That's the problem the "without its consent" language was supposed to solve. They really did want equal state representation to be set in stone, but as Grotius and many other philosophers have pointed out, there is no way a legislative body can bind its successors.

FYI: The issue of an unamendable constitutional provision came up in earnest during the proposal and ratification process of the Corwin Amendment, which was Lincoln's attempt to lure the Southern states back into the Union by making slavery permanent. He even mentioned it in his first inaugural address.

[GILTN1stborn]

Thank you!

[Political Junkie Too]

Sorry, real life intruded yesterday.

Rereading Article V, I still don't see how changing the method of choosing is an abridgement of equal suffrage.

Let me ask you this hypothetical. If an amendment were proposed to increase the number of Senators per state to three and exactly 3/4ths of the states chose to ratify that amendment, would that be a violation of consent to you?

The states will all still have equal suffrage in the Senate, even if some states didn't want the third Senator.

-PJ