CDZ Do you think that a revolution or uprising in America is inevitable in the future? Or incredibly unl

[dcraelin]

• A balanced budget amendment
• A redefinition of the General Welfare Clause (the original view was the federal government could not spend money on any topic within the jurisdiction of the states)
• A redefinition of the Commerce Clause (the original view was that Congress was granted a narrow and exclusive power to regulate shipments across state lines–not all the economic activity of the nation)
• A prohibition of using international treaties and law to govern the domestic law of the United States
• A limitation on using Executive Orders and federal regulations to enact laws (since Congress is supposed to be the exclusive agency to enact laws)
• Imposing term limits on Congress and the Supreme Court
• Placing an upper limit on federal taxation
• Requiring the sunset of all existing federal taxes and a super-majority vote to replace them with new, fairer taxes
• The Strategy - Convention of States

Seriously? You won't see it.

here is my outline of a new constitution that focuses on less ideological changes Outline of a new Constitution US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum tho I like a number of the above

You can't justify getting rid of the current Constitution.

the irrationality of the Senate alone is justification for CHANGING it, not getting rid of it.
why should RI have the same amount of Senators as California?

Any vote coming out of the Senate is a joke as a result....it has no rational foundation.

You need to read Article V again. It specifically addresses that issue.

well I dont think my proposal violate anything in article V.......all states would still have two Senators......

Contrarily...a convention could split into smaller states to make more equitable.

 

[dcraelin]

Youre kind of a Debbie-downer arent you...Sadly I think your largely right ......I think tho that the excitement will generate attention and the self-interested element will be lessened.

I have to accept that appraisal. Though I prefer "cynic", it just sounds more manly. There has been a call for a convention since the 70's. How's the excitement level so far?

lol, well things keep getting worse with our governance and I think people understand that. More people want one...once/ if we get one the excitement level will skyrocket.

What makes you think more people want one?

They are upset with our politics and I think more and more realize it is at least in part due to a structural problem with the Constitutions setup ..there is the movement spoken to above....and polls showing peoples desire for a 3rd party....which cant really happen without Constitutional change.

There is nothing in the Constitution which prevents a 3rd party. Nothing. There are in fact more than three parties and occasionally a 3rd party candidate will make an impact. We just don't elect them. But there is nothing in the Constitution which prevents you from voting for a 3rd party, promoting a 3rd party or running candidates under a 3rd party. If people actually wanted a 3rd party, as you claim, then there would be one. The fact that there isn't is solid evidence your claim about the desires of people is just not true.

As to people being upset with politics, they have always been upset with politics. There has never been a time in our history when we weren't upset with politics. That's the nature of politics.

While many state politicians have attempted to garner votes by pushing for a constitutional convention, there really is no impetus within the citizenry for one. If there were one, all it would really accomplish would be to give paid vacations to our state legislators on the tax payer's dime and significantly increase alcohol sales and prostitution in the hosting city.

BS, Our voting methods end to channel support to two parties....and it is a disservice to the people.

 

[PratchettFan]

• A balanced budget amendment
• A redefinition of the General Welfare Clause (the original view was the federal government could not spend money on any topic within the jurisdiction of the states)
• A redefinition of the Commerce Clause (the original view was that Congress was granted a narrow and exclusive power to regulate shipments across state lines–not all the economic activity of the nation)
• A prohibition of using international treaties and law to govern the domestic law of the United States
• A limitation on using Executive Orders and federal regulations to enact laws (since Congress is supposed to be the exclusive agency to enact laws)
• Imposing term limits on Congress and the Supreme Court
• Placing an upper limit on federal taxation
• Requiring the sunset of all existing federal taxes and a super-majority vote to replace them with new, fairer taxes
• The Strategy - Convention of States

Seriously? You won't see it.

here is my outline of a new constitution that focuses on less ideological changes Outline of a new Constitution US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum tho I like a number of the above

You can't justify getting rid of the current Constitution.

the irrationality of the Senate alone is justification for CHANGING it, not getting rid of it.
why should RI have the same amount of Senators as California?

Any vote coming out of the Senate is a joke as a result....it has no rational foundation.

You need to read Article V again. It specifically addresses that issue.

well I dont think my proposal violate anything in article V.......all states would still have two Senators......

Contrarily...a convention could split into smaller states to make more equitable.

What Article V says is that no state can be deprived of its equal suffrage in the Senate without its consent, not that it has to have at least two. Do you think Rhode Island is going to agree that California can have more senators than it?

 

[PratchettFan]

I have to accept that appraisal. Though I prefer "cynic", it just sounds more manly. There has been a call for a convention since the 70's. How's the excitement level so far?

lol, well things keep getting worse with our governance and I think people understand that. More people want one...once/ if we get one the excitement level will skyrocket.

What makes you think more people want one?

They are upset with our politics and I think more and more realize it is at least in part due to a structural problem with the Constitutions setup ..there is the movement spoken to above....and polls showing peoples desire for a 3rd party....which cant really happen without Constitutional change.

There is nothing in the Constitution which prevents a 3rd party. Nothing. There are in fact more than three parties and occasionally a 3rd party candidate will make an impact. We just don't elect them. But there is nothing in the Constitution which prevents you from voting for a 3rd party, promoting a 3rd party or running candidates under a 3rd party. If people actually wanted a 3rd party, as you claim, then there would be one. The fact that there isn't is solid evidence your claim about the desires of people is just not true.

As to people being upset with politics, they have always been upset with politics. There has never been a time in our history when we weren't upset with politics. That's the nature of politics.

While many state politicians have attempted to garner votes by pushing for a constitutional convention, there really is no impetus within the citizenry for one. If there were one, all it would really accomplish would be to give paid vacations to our state legislators on the tax payer's dime and significantly increase alcohol sales and prostitution in the hosting city.

BS, Our voting methods end to channel support to two parties....and it is a disservice to the people.

Voting methods are not in the Constitution. That is controlled by the respective states. Do you think the state delegates are going to vote to relinquish that control to the federal government?

 

[dcraelin]

here is my outline of a new constitution that focuses on less ideological changes Outline of a new Constitution US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum tho I like a number of the above

You can't justify getting rid of the current Constitution.

the irrationality of the Senate alone is justification for CHANGING it, not getting rid of it.
why should RI have the same amount of Senators as California?

Any vote coming out of the Senate is a joke as a result....it has no rational foundation.

You need to read Article V again. It specifically addresses that issue.

well I dont think my proposal violate anything in article V.......all states would still have two Senators......

Contrarily...a convention could split into smaller states to make more equitable.

What Article V says is that no state can be deprived of its equal suffrage in the Senate without its consent, not that it has to have at least two. Do you think Rhode Island is going to agree that California can have more senators than it?

doesnt need to under an article V convention, I guess depends on your definition of suffrage for a state. Two Senators is what they are promised. I think Rhode Islanders woud be fair minded enough to agree.

 

[dcraelin]

lol, well things keep getting worse with our governance and I think people understand that. More people want one...once/ if we get one the excitement level will skyrocket.

What makes you think more people want one?

They are upset with our politics and I think more and more realize it is at least in part due to a structural problem with the Constitutions setup ..there is the movement spoken to above....and polls showing peoples desire for a 3rd party....which cant really happen without Constitutional change.

There is nothing in the Constitution which prevents a 3rd party. Nothing. There are in fact more than three parties and occasionally a 3rd party candidate will make an impact. We just don't elect them. But there is nothing in the Constitution which prevents you from voting for a 3rd party, promoting a 3rd party or running candidates under a 3rd party. If people actually wanted a 3rd party, as you claim, then there would be one. The fact that there isn't is solid evidence your claim about the desires of people is just not true.

As to people being upset with politics, they have always been upset with politics. There has never been a time in our history when we weren't upset with politics. That's the nature of politics.

While many state politicians have attempted to garner votes by pushing for a constitutional convention, there really is no impetus within the citizenry for one. If there were one, all it would really accomplish would be to give paid vacations to our state legislators on the tax payer's dime and significantly increase alcohol sales and prostitution in the hosting city.

BS, Our voting methods end to channel support to two parties....and it is a disservice to the people.

Voting methods are not in the Constitution. That is controlled by the respective states. Do you think the state delegates are going to vote to relinquish that control to the federal government?

yes, to a certain extent....

 

[PratchettFan]

You can't justify getting rid of the current Constitution.

the irrationality of the Senate alone is justification for CHANGING it, not getting rid of it.
why should RI have the same amount of Senators as California?

Any vote coming out of the Senate is a joke as a result....it has no rational foundation.

You need to read Article V again. It specifically addresses that issue.

well I dont think my proposal violate anything in article V.......all states would still have two Senators......

Contrarily...a convention could split into smaller states to make more equitable.

What Article V says is that no state can be deprived of its equal suffrage in the Senate without its consent, not that it has to have at least two. Do you think Rhode Island is going to agree that California can have more senators than it?

doesnt need to under an article V convention, I guess depends on your definition of suffrage for a state. Two Senators is what they are promised. I think Rhode Islanders woud be fair minded enough to agree.

The intent there was perfectly clear. Each state is to have an equal number of senators, unless a given state consents to have less. And you can't change that by amendment because Article V says you can't. The reason this was set up in the first place is because the smaller states were not willing to be overshadowed by the larger states, and I seriously doubt that attitude has changed. And the reason this is in Article V is because the smaller states wanted an iron clad assurance that it was not going to happen in the future.

 

[PratchettFan]

What makes you think more people want one?

They are upset with our politics and I think more and more realize it is at least in part due to a structural problem with the Constitutions setup ..there is the movement spoken to above....and polls showing peoples desire for a 3rd party....which cant really happen without Constitutional change.

There is nothing in the Constitution which prevents a 3rd party. Nothing. There are in fact more than three parties and occasionally a 3rd party candidate will make an impact. We just don't elect them. But there is nothing in the Constitution which prevents you from voting for a 3rd party, promoting a 3rd party or running candidates under a 3rd party. If people actually wanted a 3rd party, as you claim, then there would be one. The fact that there isn't is solid evidence your claim about the desires of people is just not true.

As to people being upset with politics, they have always been upset with politics. There has never been a time in our history when we weren't upset with politics. That's the nature of politics.

While many state politicians have attempted to garner votes by pushing for a constitutional convention, there really is no impetus within the citizenry for one. If there were one, all it would really accomplish would be to give paid vacations to our state legislators on the tax payer's dime and significantly increase alcohol sales and prostitution in the hosting city.

BS, Our voting methods end to channel support to two parties....and it is a disservice to the people.

Voting methods are not in the Constitution. That is controlled by the respective states. Do you think the state delegates are going to vote to relinquish that control to the federal government?

yes, to a certain extent....

What do you base that on?

 

[dcraelin]

the irrationality of the Senate alone is justification for CHANGING it, not getting rid of it.
why should RI have the same amount of Senators as California?

Any vote coming out of the Senate is a joke as a result....it has no rational foundation.

You need to read Article V again. It specifically addresses that issue.

well I dont think my proposal violate anything in article V.......all states would still have two Senators......

Contrarily...a convention could split into smaller states to make more equitable.

What Article V says is that no state can be deprived of its equal suffrage in the Senate without its consent, not that it has to have at least two. Do you think Rhode Island is going to agree that California can have more senators than it?

doesnt need to under an article V convention, I guess depends on your definition of suffrage for a state. Two Senators is what they are promised. I think Rhode Islanders woud be fair minded enough to agree.

The intent there was perfectly clear. Each state is to have an equal number of senators, unless a given state consents to have less. And you can't change that by amendment because Article V says you can't. The reason this was set up in the first place is because the smaller states were not willing to be overshadowed by the larger states, and I seriously doubt that attitude has changed. And the reason this is in Article V is because the smaller states wanted an iron clad assurance that it was not going to happen in the future.

Like I said before, My proposal would still let them have 2 senators a piece

 

[dcraelin]

They are upset with our politics and I think more and more realize it is at least in part due to a structural problem with the Constitutions setup ..there is the movement spoken to above....and polls showing peoples desire for a 3rd party....which cant really happen without Constitutional change.

There is nothing in the Constitution which prevents a 3rd party. Nothing. There are in fact more than three parties and occasionally a 3rd party candidate will make an impact. We just don't elect them. But there is nothing in the Constitution which prevents you from voting for a 3rd party, promoting a 3rd party or running candidates under a 3rd party. If people actually wanted a 3rd party, as you claim, then there would be one. The fact that there isn't is solid evidence your claim about the desires of people is just not true.

As to people being upset with politics, they have always been upset with politics. There has never been a time in our history when we weren't upset with politics. That's the nature of politics.

While many state politicians have attempted to garner votes by pushing for a constitutional convention, there really is no impetus within the citizenry for one. If there were one, all it would really accomplish would be to give paid vacations to our state legislators on the tax payer's dime and significantly increase alcohol sales and prostitution in the hosting city.

BS, Our voting methods end to channel support to two parties....and it is a disservice to the people.

Voting methods are not in the Constitution. That is controlled by the respective states. Do you think the state delegates are going to vote to relinquish that control to the federal government?

yes, to a certain extent....

What do you base that on?

it is common sense that Rhode Island should not have the same power in the Senate as California...by any rational method...asked directly on that topic I am sure Rhode Islanders would see the truth to that.

 

[PratchettFan]

You need to read Article V again. It specifically addresses that issue.

well I dont think my proposal violate anything in article V.......all states would still have two Senators......

Contrarily...a convention could split into smaller states to make more equitable.

What Article V says is that no state can be deprived of its equal suffrage in the Senate without its consent, not that it has to have at least two. Do you think Rhode Island is going to agree that California can have more senators than it?

doesnt need to under an article V convention, I guess depends on your definition of suffrage for a state. Two Senators is what they are promised. I think Rhode Islanders woud be fair minded enough to agree.

The intent there was perfectly clear. Each state is to have an equal number of senators, unless a given state consents to have less. And you can't change that by amendment because Article V says you can't. The reason this was set up in the first place is because the smaller states were not willing to be overshadowed by the larger states, and I seriously doubt that attitude has changed. And the reason this is in Article V is because the smaller states wanted an iron clad assurance that it was not going to happen in the future.

Like I said before, My proposal would still let them have 2 senators a piece

Your proposal is that they would have less senators than other states. That is in direct conflict with Article V. Whether it is 2 or 20, Rhode Island has to have the same number as California unless Rhode Island consents to have less. There is no way they are going to consent.

Unless I am misunderstanding you and you no longer are suggesting that they should have less.

 

[dcraelin]

well I dont think my proposal violate anything in article V.......all states would still have two Senators......

Contrarily...a convention could split into smaller states to make more equitable.

What Article V says is that no state can be deprived of its equal suffrage in the Senate without its consent, not that it has to have at least two. Do you think Rhode Island is going to agree that California can have more senators than it?

doesnt need to under an article V convention, I guess depends on your definition of suffrage for a state. Two Senators is what they are promised. I think Rhode Islanders woud be fair minded enough to agree.

The intent there was perfectly clear. Each state is to have an equal number of senators, unless a given state consents to have less. And you can't change that by amendment because Article V says you can't. The reason this was set up in the first place is because the smaller states were not willing to be overshadowed by the larger states, and I seriously doubt that attitude has changed. And the reason this is in Article V is because the smaller states wanted an iron clad assurance that it was not going to happen in the future.

Like I said before, My proposal would still let them have 2 senators a piece

Your proposal is that they would have less senators than other states. That is in direct conflict with Article V. Whether it is 2 or 20, Rhode Island has to have the same number as California unless Rhode Island consents to have less. There is no way they are going to consent.

Unless I am misunderstanding you and you no longer are suggesting that they should have less.

NO my proposal is that they would still have 2 Senators apiece, just that those Senators would not necessarily have a full 2 votes each. They may have a fraction more or less.

 

[PratchettFan]

There is nothing in the Constitution which prevents a 3rd party. Nothing. There are in fact more than three parties and occasionally a 3rd party candidate will make an impact. We just don't elect them. But there is nothing in the Constitution which prevents you from voting for a 3rd party, promoting a 3rd party or running candidates under a 3rd party. If people actually wanted a 3rd party, as you claim, then there would be one. The fact that there isn't is solid evidence your claim about the desires of people is just not true.

As to people being upset with politics, they have always been upset with politics. There has never been a time in our history when we weren't upset with politics. That's the nature of politics.

While many state politicians have attempted to garner votes by pushing for a constitutional convention, there really is no impetus within the citizenry for one. If there were one, all it would really accomplish would be to give paid vacations to our state legislators on the tax payer's dime and significantly increase alcohol sales and prostitution in the hosting city.

BS, Our voting methods end to channel support to two parties....and it is a disservice to the people.

Voting methods are not in the Constitution. That is controlled by the respective states. Do you think the state delegates are going to vote to relinquish that control to the federal government?

yes, to a certain extent....

What do you base that on?

it is common sense that Rhode Island should not have the same power in the Senate as California...by any rational method...asked directly on that topic I am sure Rhode Islanders would see the truth to that.

You switched subjects. We were talking about states giving up their control over voting. You said they would to a certain extent and I was wondering what you based that conclusion on. I see nothing in past behavior which would lead me to that conclusion.

As to Rhode Islanders agreeing they should have less a say in the senate than a more populous state, I see absolutely no chance of that ever happening. There would be no benefit to them to do it and they don't have to do it. Further, there is no chance at all of it being passed, since it would mean half of the states would be giving up power to the more populous states and it takes 3/4's of the states to approve an amendment. You'd have better odds winning the lottery 100 times in a row.

 

[PratchettFan]

What Article V says is that no state can be deprived of its equal suffrage in the Senate without its consent, not that it has to have at least two. Do you think Rhode Island is going to agree that California can have more senators than it?

doesnt need to under an article V convention, I guess depends on your definition of suffrage for a state. Two Senators is what they are promised. I think Rhode Islanders woud be fair minded enough to agree.

The intent there was perfectly clear. Each state is to have an equal number of senators, unless a given state consents to have less. And you can't change that by amendment because Article V says you can't. The reason this was set up in the first place is because the smaller states were not willing to be overshadowed by the larger states, and I seriously doubt that attitude has changed. And the reason this is in Article V is because the smaller states wanted an iron clad assurance that it was not going to happen in the future.

Like I said before, My proposal would still let them have 2 senators a piece

Your proposal is that they would have less senators than other states. That is in direct conflict with Article V. Whether it is 2 or 20, Rhode Island has to have the same number as California unless Rhode Island consents to have less. There is no way they are going to consent.

Unless I am misunderstanding you and you no longer are suggesting that they should have less.

NO my proposal is that they would still have 2 Senators apiece, just that those Senators would not necessarily have a full 2 votes each. They may have a fraction more or less.

Uh huh. Let me repeat, Article V does not mention a number. It says equal suffrage. What you are describing is not equal suffrage, so without the consent of each individual state affected it cannot be done.

 

[dcraelin]

BS, Our voting methods end to channel support to two parties....and it is a disservice to the people.

Voting methods are not in the Constitution. That is controlled by the respective states. Do you think the state delegates are going to vote to relinquish that control to the federal government?

yes, to a certain extent....

What do you base that on?

it is common sense that Rhode Island should not have the same power in the Senate as California...by any rational method...asked directly on that topic I am sure Rhode Islanders would see the truth to that.

You switched subjects. We were talking about states giving up their control over voting. You said they would to a certain extent and I was wondering what you based that conclusion on. I see nothing in past behavior which would lead me to that conclusion.

As to Rhode Islanders agreeing they should have less a say in the senate than a more populous state, I see absolutely no chance of that ever happening. There would be no benefit to them to do it and they don't have to do it. Further, there is no chance at all of it being passed, since it would mean half of the states would be giving up power to the more populous states and it takes 3/4's of the states to approve an amendment. You'd have better odds winning the lottery 100 times in a row.

you are not following.....and your missing my proposal on the Senate which I would base on renewable resource base....so it would truely represent something like what the rhetoric on the Senate is, that it gives less populous rural states a voice....it would not be based on population............

right now the Senate is based on an old outdated new england aristrocracy........and religious differences

 

[dcraelin]

doesnt need to under an article V convention, I guess depends on your definition of suffrage for a state. Two Senators is what they are promised. I think Rhode Islanders woud be fair minded enough to agree.

The intent there was perfectly clear. Each state is to have an equal number of senators, unless a given state consents to have less. And you can't change that by amendment because Article V says you can't. The reason this was set up in the first place is because the smaller states were not willing to be overshadowed by the larger states, and I seriously doubt that attitude has changed. And the reason this is in Article V is because the smaller states wanted an iron clad assurance that it was not going to happen in the future.

Like I said before, My proposal would still let them have 2 senators a piece

Your proposal is that they would have less senators than other states. That is in direct conflict with Article V. Whether it is 2 or 20, Rhode Island has to have the same number as California unless Rhode Island consents to have less. There is no way they are going to consent.

Unless I am misunderstanding you and you no longer are suggesting that they should have less.

NO my proposal is that they would still have 2 Senators apiece, just that those Senators would not necessarily have a full 2 votes each. They may have a fraction more or less.

Uh huh. Let me repeat, Article V does not mention a number. It says equal suffrage. What you are describing is not equal suffrage, so without the consent of each individual state affected it cannot be done.

that depends on what the definition of suffrage is....for a state....and I suggest keeping 2 senators would qualify yet...........if not, then breaking up the larger states would accomplish the same object.

here is the definition I found "the right to vote in political elections."...Two Senators per state would have equal rights to vote

 

[PratchettFan]

Voting methods are not in the Constitution. That is controlled by the respective states. Do you think the state delegates are going to vote to relinquish that control to the federal government?

yes, to a certain extent....

What do you base that on?

it is common sense that Rhode Island should not have the same power in the Senate as California...by any rational method...asked directly on that topic I am sure Rhode Islanders would see the truth to that.

You switched subjects. We were talking about states giving up their control over voting. You said they would to a certain extent and I was wondering what you based that conclusion on. I see nothing in past behavior which would lead me to that conclusion.

As to Rhode Islanders agreeing they should have less a say in the senate than a more populous state, I see absolutely no chance of that ever happening. There would be no benefit to them to do it and they don't have to do it. Further, there is no chance at all of it being passed, since it would mean half of the states would be giving up power to the more populous states and it takes 3/4's of the states to approve an amendment. You'd have better odds winning the lottery 100 times in a row.

you are not following.....and your missing my proposal on the Senate which I would base on renewable resource base....so it would truely represent something like what the rhetoric on the Senate is, that it gives less populous rural states a voice....it would not be based on population............

right now the Senate is based on an old outdated new england aristrocracy........and religious differences

You are missing the fact that you can't do it. It is specifically prohibited under Article V. Nor would any state which did not live up to your "renewable resource" standard agree to it.

 

[PratchettFan]

The intent there was perfectly clear. Each state is to have an equal number of senators, unless a given state consents to have less. And you can't change that by amendment because Article V says you can't. The reason this was set up in the first place is because the smaller states were not willing to be overshadowed by the larger states, and I seriously doubt that attitude has changed. And the reason this is in Article V is because the smaller states wanted an iron clad assurance that it was not going to happen in the future.

Like I said before, My proposal would still let them have 2 senators a piece

Your proposal is that they would have less senators than other states. That is in direct conflict with Article V. Whether it is 2 or 20, Rhode Island has to have the same number as California unless Rhode Island consents to have less. There is no way they are going to consent.

Unless I am misunderstanding you and you no longer are suggesting that they should have less.

NO my proposal is that they would still have 2 Senators apiece, just that those Senators would not necessarily have a full 2 votes each. They may have a fraction more or less.

Uh huh. Let me repeat, Article V does not mention a number. It says equal suffrage. What you are describing is not equal suffrage, so without the consent of each individual state affected it cannot be done.

that depends on what the definition of suffrage is....for a state....and I suggest keeping 2 senators would qualify yet...........if not, then breaking up the larger states would accomplish the same object.

here is the definition I found "the right to vote in political elections."...Two Senators per state would have equal rights to vote

Nice try, but we both know that is hocum. A half vote is not the same thing as a full vote. Look up the definition of "equal". If your vote counts for two of mine, they are not equal.

 

[dcraelin]

yes, to a certain extent....

What do you base that on?

it is common sense that Rhode Island should not have the same power in the Senate as California...by any rational method...asked directly on that topic I am sure Rhode Islanders would see the truth to that.

You switched subjects. We were talking about states giving up their control over voting. You said they would to a certain extent and I was wondering what you based that conclusion on. I see nothing in past behavior which would lead me to that conclusion.

As to Rhode Islanders agreeing they should have less a say in the senate than a more populous state, I see absolutely no chance of that ever happening. There would be no benefit to them to do it and they don't have to do it. Further, there is no chance at all of it being passed, since it would mean half of the states would be giving up power to the more populous states and it takes 3/4's of the states to approve an amendment. You'd have better odds winning the lottery 100 times in a row.

you are not following.....and your missing my proposal on the Senate which I would base on renewable resource base....so it would truely represent something like what the rhetoric on the Senate is, that it gives less populous rural states a voice....it would not be based on population............

right now the Senate is based on an old outdated new england aristrocracy........and religious differences

You are missing the fact that you can't do it. It is specifically prohibited under Article V. Nor would any state which did not live up to your "renewable resource" standard agree to it.

First of all, I've already said I think It is legal..... second I dont know how much different the renewable resource standard would be, I dont think for most states it would be all that different from current voting power. some eastern seaboard states California, Texas and Alaska are likely to be only states with large changes.

 

[dcraelin]

Like I said before, My proposal would still let them have 2 senators a piece

Your proposal is that they would have less senators than other states. That is in direct conflict with Article V. Whether it is 2 or 20, Rhode Island has to have the same number as California unless Rhode Island consents to have less. There is no way they are going to consent.

Unless I am misunderstanding you and you no longer are suggesting that they should have less.

NO my proposal is that they would still have 2 Senators apiece, just that those Senators would not necessarily have a full 2 votes each. They may have a fraction more or less.

Uh huh. Let me repeat, Article V does not mention a number. It says equal suffrage. What you are describing is not equal suffrage, so without the consent of each individual state affected it cannot be done.

that depends on what the definition of suffrage is....for a state....and I suggest keeping 2 senators would qualify yet...........if not, then breaking up the larger states would accomplish the same object.

here is the definition I found "the right to vote in political elections."...Two Senators per state would have equal rights to vote

Nice try, but we both know that is hocum. A half vote is not the same thing as a full vote. Look up the definition of "equal". If your vote counts for two of mine, they are not equal.

why should you care about "equal" it is obvious that the current system does not treat the states equally as California by any measure should have more voting power than RI.....Second I dont know its hocum.....when we think of people being equal its a different thing from states being equal ...substitute the definitions words with the requirement....
no state shall be deprived of its equal right to vote in political elections....they have the equal right to vote...tho they wouldnt have equal voting power.....as they dont have now...so that is no change.

Also is the prohibition applicable only before one thousand eight hundred and eight, only on state called amendments?...it is I think unclear.

(I see states can use a convention as a form of ratification which I think contradicts an earlier argument you made. )

but also..if perhaps the courts would agree with you...then you can work backwards, create smaller states from the ripped-off states now, on a formulaic basis. It would probably be harder to get to as equal a position as you could with the above but you could get closer.