New answers tagged

2

Hendrik Hertzberg, in an article in The New Republic in 1987 (a theme issue on the bicentennial of the Convention), proposed that the Senate consist of one member for each State plus an equal number elected at large by single transferable vote, arguing that the entrenchment clause allows it because those Senators who represent States would still be equal ...


2

I see two possibly feasible options The "House of Lords" option: Leave Senate composition alone, but pass Constitutional amendments moving all of its important powers to the House of Representatives. The Senate could continue to be built and debate like it always has, but its now just a debating society. The US Senate was based on the House of ...


14

From a textualist point of view: This is simply amendable by the mechanism you propose. The textualist looks at the plain meaning of the text. From an originalist point of view, this can't be amended. The writers of the constitution clearly intended that the equal representation in the senate clause should not be amended. They would see any attempt to ...


16

Theoretically yes - this was the subject of a 2012 paper by Enrique Guerra-Pujol on the subject of Gödel's Loophole - a purported "inner contradiction" in the Constitution which Kurt Gödel claimed to have discovered in 1947, and would allow the United States to legally transition into a dictatorship. In his paper, Guerra-Pujol describes the ...


7

Yes, this would work, though it would be exceedingly unlikely. Constitutional amendments are fully part of the constitution and they supersede earlier parts. If you could pass a constitutional amendment repealing that part of Article V, then it would no longer apply and you could pass another amendment changing the allocation of Senate seats. Realistically ...


18

For example, would it be legal to propose an amendment repealing the bolded clause, have it ratified by 3/4 of the states and become part of the Constitution, and then separately propose a new amendment overhauling or abolishing the Senate that could be ratified and take full effect with only 3/4 of states ratifying? Or could it even be possible to do both ...


0

It could be a question that they don't know the answer to, or are not confident that they can give a correct answer to without researching further. Even if there were federal agents at Jan 6th, would Sanborn have any reason to evade the question rather than just lie and say that there were none? Yes. Refusing to answer is not a crime. Lying to a ...


3

I don't get this reasoning. In a place like Georgia, which thinks of itself as traditionally Republican, it was a dead heat for the 2020 Potus race, Biden narrowly won Georgia by a margin of 0.23% and 11,779 votes. From the point of view of an urban voter in Georgia, every vote counts, even if they believe it is being suppressed in a rural county. And the ...


Top 50 recent answers are included