Re:Judge refuses to reinstate Parler after Amazon shut it down
by triceratops on Friday January 22, 2021 @12:08AM
(#25868526)
> 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?
Re:Judge refuses to reinstate Parler after Amazon shut it down
by jki275 on Friday January 22, 2021 @12:13AM
(#25868554)
They already have.
If the people don't want things to be that way, they can pass amendments to change it.
Re:Judge refuses to reinstate Parler after Amazon shut it down
by triceratops on Friday January 22, 2021 @12:17AM
(#25868579)
They can't though. The states that would lose representation have the most incentive to block amendments. Amendments aren't done by referenda.
Re:Judge refuses to reinstate Parler after Amazon shut it down
by jki275 on Saturday January 23, 2021 @08:09PM
(#25887804)
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.
Re:Judge refuses to reinstate Parler after Amazon shut it down
by triceratops on Sunday January 24, 2021 @08:43PM
(#25898111)
States != people. People have to vote directly in order for it to be considered a referendum.
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.