Pack the Union: Admit New States to Amend Constitution for Equal Representation (user search)
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
April 24, 2024, 03:10:53 AM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  General Politics
  U.S. General Discussion (Moderators: The Dowager Mod, Chancellor Tanterterg)
  Pack the Union: Admit New States to Amend Constitution for Equal Representation (search mode)
Pages: [1]
Author Topic: Pack the Union: Admit New States to Amend Constitution for Equal Representation  (Read 2152 times)
Skill and Chance
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 12,672
« on: January 15, 2020, 02:02:33 PM »

Hmmm... a law making a single family home a state is likely unconstitutional*.  It would be challenged as equivalent to granting a title of nobility to that family.  The 1860 population of the Nevada Territory (just under 7000 at the last census before its statehood) is presumably a safe harbor and that would mean it is possible to make a dense city block of highrises its own state.     


Still, this plan is completely insane and it would have consequences similar to making the existing homeowners/landlords in the tiny states a new class of nobility.  There is no way they turn around and relinquish their newfound near absolute power over the federal government (doubly so if the states are literally in DC).  This type of corruption was common with the railroads/mining companies being the only major employer in some of the small states of the 19th century West, and they were 10-100X the fraction of the total US population as the tiny states in this plan would be.

*A congress committed to structural changes this radical would presumably have packed SCOTUS with 10 of their strongest supporters long before the appeal gets there.

**This would have 100X the destabilizing impact of packing SCOTUS. 
Logged
Skill and Chance
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 12,672
« Reply #1 on: January 15, 2020, 07:03:04 PM »


By reasonable standards, yes.

However, if states representing only 7.8% of the population (actually less) can block any constitutional amendment and are incentivized to do so, what exactly is a reasonable standard?

What exactly is the alternative plan for reform?

The only alternative plan I have heard is no plan (simply to not have reform).

If in another 100 years the population of California has reached 200 times that of Wyoming, will that not be a problem? If so, what should be done about it?

If not, then you don't want reform. But in that case, the reason why you don't want reform is simply that you don't want it on the merits, not that you don't like the particular procedural plan to achieve reform.

Start by admitting each of the overseas territories and (the populated parts of) DC as states.  Then reevaluate after a decade or so.
Logged
Pages: [1]  
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.026 seconds with 12 queries.