Re:Gerrymandering and a cure for it – the shortest splitline...
by schoen on Wednesday September 30, 2015 @02:17AM
(#10302107)
Technically it says that "no state, without its consent, shall be deprived of its equal suffrage in the Senate" so the Senate could presumably be abolished by constitutional amendment if all states agreed. (I wonder about replacing the Senate with another legislative house and giving the existing Senate largely ceremonial responsibilities without formally abolishing it -- would that count as depriving the states of equal suffrage in the Senate?)
[ Parent
| on HN ]
Re:Gerrymandering and a cure for it – the shortest splitline...
by pc86 on Wednesday September 30, 2015 @11:04AM
(#10304477)
Presumably any amendment that would abolish or sufficiently alter the Senate would simply remove that article as well.
The phrase "the Constitution prohibits this amendment" doesn't make any sense because an amendment to the Constitution cannot by definition be unconstitutional.
Re:Gerrymandering and a cure for it – the shortest splitline...
by JoeAltmaier on Wednesday September 30, 2015 @11:05AM
(#10304490)
Perhaps that was meant to say, it would make the Constitution internally contradict itself?