1

It is an important distinction insofar as sometimes the common interests of the States differ from that of the people. Clearly some elements such as the Senate and Judiciary are meant to represent the States interests, though it is unclear if that’s acknowledged for the whole federal government.

Just reading from the constitution, it seems that Senate representation is the only part that is actually entrenched beyond the possibility of amendment. Because of that it appears that the representation of the States is more important than the people at the federal level.

  • 1
    Ref. to "Just reading from the constitution, it seems that Senate representation is the only part that is actually entrenched beyond the possibility of amendment." - can you be more specific? Without this, the post is quite unclear. – Alexei Jun 24 at 19:38
  • @Alexei - Article V, putting qualifications on what amendments can be passed: "no state, without its consent, shall be deprived of its equal suffrage in the Senate". Of course, nothing prevents an amendment striking that clause, which would then permit another amendment from altering the Senate. – Bobson Jun 24 at 20:08

You must log in to answer this question.

Browse other questions tagged .