4 ms·

States are sovereign entities that made a choice years ago to join together in a federal union. The parameters of that union are spelled out in the Constitutio

by jki275 6y ago

States are sovereign entities that made a choice years ago to join together in a federal union. The parameters of that union are spelled out in the Constitution -- you remove that Constitution at peril of the continued existence of that union. Amendments, like the 17th, are one way to change that union, with the consent of those members of it -- but if you push too far there won't be a union any more, because a portion of those states will walk away from a union no longer defined as they define it.

triceratops 6y ago
> if you push too far there won't be a union any more, because a portion of those states will walk away from a union As the lopsidedness of representation grows ever more pronounced, it increases the probability that federal law and policy will diverge significantly from the views of the majority of the nation. This will likely increase disenchantment with the federal government even further, which is just as great a danger to the union. Surely you agree that this situation isn't ideal either, even if the Constitution says it's supposed to be like that?
- jki275 6y ago
  They already have. If the people don't want things to be that way, they can pass amendments to change it.
  - triceratops 6y ago
    They can't though. The states that would lose representation have the most incentive to block amendments. Amendments aren't done by referenda.
    - jki275 6y ago
      Amendments are done by the consent of 2/3s of the states, as is spelled out in the document that governs the union of such states. If you don't want to call that a "referenda", I think you're incorrect, but it doesn't really matter.
      - triceratops 6y ago
        States != people. People have to vote directly in order for it to be considered a referendum.
        jki275 6y ago
        It's a referendum of the states, as was agreed to by the states when the union was formed. It doesn't have to be people voting directly. It shouldn't be.

by jki275 6y ago

triceratops 6y ago

> if you push too far there won't be a union any more, because a portion of those states will walk away from a union As the lopsidedness of representation grows ever more pronounced, it increases the probability that federal law and policy will diverge significantly from the views of the majority of the nation. This will likely increase disenchantment with the federal government even further, which is just as great a danger to the union. Surely you agree that this situation isn't ideal either, even if the Constitution says it's supposed to be like that?

jki275 6y ago
They already have. If the people don't want things to be that way, they can pass amendments to change it.
- triceratops 6y ago
  They can't though. The states that would lose representation have the most incentive to block amendments. Amendments aren't done by referenda.
  - jki275 6y ago
    Amendments are done by the consent of 2/3s of the states, as is spelled out in the document that governs the union of such states. If you don't want to call that a "referenda", I think you're incorrect, but it doesn't really matter.
    - triceratops 6y ago
      States != people. People have to vote directly in order for it to be considered a referendum.
      - jki275 6y ago
        It's a referendum of the states, as was agreed to by the states when the union was formed. It doesn't have to be people voting directly. It shouldn't be.