Pack the Union: Admit New States to Amend Constitution for Equal Representation

[Slander and/or Libel]

I think this is a stupid idea, but kind of a clarifying one that allows us to think through *why* it's a stupid idea.

For me, the nickel summary is similar to what Ghost of Ruin said above: Fancy lawyering ain't gonna get us out of our problems. The problem is people with power seizing ever more power, clinging to that power illegitimately, etc. They're not going to look at a clever set of rule changes and say, "Oh, damn, guess I've got to surrender that power now."

I disagree with the responses that say this plan would make it so that Republicans could do the same thing, only because Republicans could do the same thing now. The next time they get the House and Senate and Presidency, we could have North Dakota, South Dakota, East Dakota, West Dakota, Northwest Dakota, Northeast Dakota, Southwest Dakota, and Southeast Dakota. 12 more Republican senators guaranteed, 6 Republican House members guaranteed, even though apportionment games might mean that they would only net 4 members or so. And those wouldn't be temporary states to pass some ambitious agenda and then fold up shop. Those would be durable states meant to preserve a lock on minority power.

[Slander and/or Libel]

Except lol that is the only part of the constitution that just cannot be amended unless every single state wants it to be amended.

That is not really a constraint. If nothing else, you can always pass an amendment that says "The Senate shall have no powers whatsoever," pass other amendments to turn it into effectively a House of Lords equivalent, etc.

That strikes me as a bit of an underhanded workaround that goes against the spirit of the clause, in which states cannot be forced to give up their representation in the Senate without their consent. I think you could pass amendments that change or limit the scope of the Senate's power to some extent, but to strip it of all or even most of its power? I don't think that would hold up in court.

1) Pass an amendment that amends that part that says you can't change allocation of senators.

2) Pass an amendment changing allocation of senators.

[Slander and/or Libel]

1) Pass an amendment that amends that part that says you can't change allocation of senators.

2) Pass an amendment changing allocation of senators.

And what, I'm supposed to not have the same hangups about that? You're just sweeping the dirt under the rug.

I'm not saying you're supposed to like it. I'm just outlining a way it could theoretically be done that wouldn't survive any court challenges because it would be, after the amendments, entirely constitutional.

[Slander and/or Libel]

1) Pass an amendment that amends that part that says you can't change allocation of senators.

2) Pass an amendment changing allocation of senators.

And what, I'm supposed to not have the same hangups about that? You're just sweeping the dirt under the rug.

I'm not saying you're supposed to like it. I'm just outlining a way it could theoretically be done that wouldn't survive any court challenges because it would be, after the amendments, entirely constitutional.

it can't be done that way. It's absurd on it's face to think you can change through the amendment process what the amendment process says you can't change.

Yes it's a loophole that survives the rules of formal logic, but it's even more ridiculous than stripping the Senate of all its power and would not survive a court challenge.

If the Founders had wanted to entrench any part against amendment, they could have said, for instance, "The process outlined in Article V shall be the sole means of amendment of this constitution, and no amendment shall in any manner affect the text of Article V." By including this *in* article V, there would be no way to get it out. But it's not done that way. Sure, this isn't going to happen, I don't dispute. But law is about what's written, not about what we wish were written, right?

[Slander and/or Libel]

If the Founders had wanted to entrench any part against amendment, they could have said, for instance, "The process outlined in Article V shall be the sole means of amendment of this constitution, and no amendment shall in any manner affect the text of Article V." By including this *in* article V, there would be no way to get it out. But it's not done that way. Sure, this isn't going to happen, I don't dispute. But law is about what's written, not about what we wish were written, right?

You really think they intentionally left that out so that the allocation of Senators could be changed by a 2 step process that would have the same number of votes as the one step process?

It's not in there because it's implicit.

As a purely theoretical exercise, there's a path there, yes.

No, I never said I believed that they wrote it this way intentionally to allow a two step process to amend the part they said couldn't be amended. What I said is that regardless of what they intended, that's what they wrote.