Talk:Entrenchment clause

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] U.S. Senate

"The other clause, still in effect, states that 'no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal suffrage in the Senate'. This has been interpreted to require unanimous ratification of any amendment altering the composition of the United States Senate."

Is this right? That clause looks to me as if it would permit the following (admittedly unlikely) example: An amendment is proposed to remove Wyoming's right to send one of its senators to Washington. The requisite 38 states ratify, one of which is Wyoming. The state being deprived of its equal suffrage in the Senate has thus given its consent, the composition of the Senate has been altered by a constitutional amendment, but the ratification was not unanimous. And as far as I can see, it doesn't need to be in such a case. I've added a "citation needed" note to that passage because I'd like to know who exactly has interpreted the clause to require unanimous ratification, and if there is significant dissent from that interpretation. 86.136.1.31 23:16, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Your example sounds completely accurate. I think as long as at least 3/4, including the state(s) involved, ratify such a change, it would be legitimate. Though both Wyoming consenting to this, and other states continuing to vote against it with Wyoming's consent, do seem quite unlikely! :-) --Xyzzyva 11:15, 15 October 2006 (UTC)