No. Not even with a constitutional amendment. Article V ... "no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate."
Hmmm. It is possible to change a bicameral system from one in which one of the chambers systematically underrepresents states with large populations. That's what the Supreme Court did for all state bicameral legislatures in the 1960s.https://twitter.com/Rassverbs/status/931384196672696321 …
-
-
-
They could all get equally 0 senators
-
If California, New York, Florida, and Texas will decide the fate of the nation, why would other states bother with staying in the union if they won't be represented?
- 1 more reply
New conversation -
-
-
Based on zero authority let alone Constitutional text compelling such a radical step. As usual.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
As for change, you are correct any system can change. So get 2/3rds of the states to agree that NY, CA TX should hold all the power via constitutional Ammendment. However your response shows you don’t get why the system is there to begin with.
-
Then get 100% of those States Legislatures to approve this power grab. Sure things can change the founders made this hard to impossible to change in order to protect the interests of all people and ensure they get a seat at the table.
-
Do Californians Texans and New Yorkers counting as the 'all people' you mentioned? Why wouldn't more equal representation protect all people?
-
I have no problem with equal representation of people. That is what the house is for. The Senate represent equal representation of States. So that a large population center doesn’t dictate to a smaller one. The needs in CA are different then the needs in the Dakotas.
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
So let’s get this straight you want majority rule in the election process. Ignoring the founders fears of tyranny of the majority. So yes it’s possible to change at the risk of becoming mob rule. Think that through Prof, of ideas that majority likes which you don’t
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
I agree, but in fairness, that would require a constitutional amendment, whereas Reynolds v. Sims was decided under the 14th.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
The 17th Amendment forecloses that kind of ruling for the U.S. Senate.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.