6 ms·

The clause about Senate representation was clearly written to prevent 3/4ths of the states from depriving the other 1/4 of their Senate representation. What wo

by raldi 12y ago

The clause about Senate representation was clearly written to prevent 3/4ths of the states from depriving the other 1/4 of their Senate representation. What would happen if 3/4s of the states passed an amendment repealing this clause?

ewoodrich 12y ago
1. They were trying to prevent the largest states from subverting the Connecticut Compromise and establishing a representative system based only on population. 2. No, but not only because of the "loophole". Godel feared that Article V permitted a legally sanctioned dictatorship, but this clause would be irrelevant in that case. It would certainly be possible to reduce the Senate to obsolescence by limiting the powers of the Senate via permissible amendments, while maintaining the original suffrage in the Senate as required. Edit: You have edited your comment, so my replies are no longer clear. I am responding to two questions: what was the intent of the suffrage clause, and is it effective?
dragonwriter 12y ago
The thing you have to understand about laws -- and this is certainly the case with the Constitution -- is that they aren't written for automatons, they are written for humans. The prohibition of changes to representation to the Senate doesn't work as an inescapable barrier and isn't intended, it works as a red-flag warning. The enforcement mechanism it relies on isn't law-as-mystic-amulet, is the same one that enforced the view American colonists had of their proper freedoms when it clashed with the policies of the British Crown.
- stcredzero 12y ago
  The thing you have to understand about laws -- and this is certainly the case with the Constitution -- is that they aren't written for automatons, they are written for humans. Some programmers have a hard time with this.
  - eximius 12y ago
    And some logicians too, apparently.
AnthonyMouse 12y ago
> The clause about Senate representation was clearly written to prevent 3/4ths of the states from depriving the other 1/4 of their Senate representation. Not necessarily. Consider that originally the US Senate was elected by the state legislatures. Representing the people in the federal government was the role of the House, the Senate was to represent the states. So the concern may not have been that 3/4ths of the states would want to disenfranchise the remainder (which was fairly implausible given that the states benefiting from disproportionate representation outnumber the more populous states), but rather that a populist movement could remove the Senate as a check by the state legislatures on federal power. Which is exactly what happened when the Seventeenth Amendment brought about direct election of US Senators.

by raldi 12y ago

ewoodrich 12y ago

1. They were trying to prevent the largest states from subverting the Connecticut Compromise and establishing a representative system based only on population. 2. No, but not only because of the "loophole". Godel feared that Article V permitted a legally sanctioned dictatorship, but this clause would be irrelevant in that case. It would certainly be possible to reduce the Senate to obsolescence by limiting the powers of the Senate via permissible amendments, while maintaining the original suffrage in the Senate as required. Edit: You have edited your comment, so my replies are no longer clear. I am responding to two questions: what was the intent of the suffrage clause, and is it effective?

dragonwriter 12y ago

The thing you have to understand about laws -- and this is certainly the case with the Constitution -- is that they aren't written for automatons, they are written for humans. The prohibition of changes to representation to the Senate doesn't work as an inescapable barrier and isn't intended, it works as a red-flag warning. The enforcement mechanism it relies on isn't law-as-mystic-amulet, is the same one that enforced the view American colonists had of their proper freedoms when it clashed with the policies of the British Crown.

stcredzero 12y ago
The thing you have to understand about laws -- and this is certainly the case with the Constitution -- is that they aren't written for automatons, they are written for humans. Some programmers have a hard time with this.
- eximius 12y ago
  And some logicians too, apparently.

AnthonyMouse 12y ago

> The clause about Senate representation was clearly written to prevent 3/4ths of the states from depriving the other 1/4 of their Senate representation. Not necessarily. Consider that originally the US Senate was elected by the state legislatures. Representing the people in the federal government was the role of the House, the Senate was to represent the states. So the concern may not have been that 3/4ths of the states would want to disenfranchise the remainder (which was fairly implausible given that the states benefiting from disproportionate representation outnumber the more populous states), but rather that a populist movement could remove the Senate as a check by the state legislatures on federal power. Which is exactly what happened when the Seventeenth Amendment brought about direct election of US Senators.