Well-Regulated Militias, and More

[Charles Brown]

Good question. Actually, there isn't technically an authoritative opinion, because I am pretty sure there are no court opinions on it, and "authority" means an appellate court case in legal discourse. The reason Im pretty sure there are no court cases is that nobody has ever tried to do it.

But, legal scholars , and , hey, lawyers ( or poli sci doctors ) are legal authorities. 

Lets say there are colorable legal arguments that you could do it. 

I think the logic is that the provision is intended to preserve equality among states if there is a Senate. It is not intended to address the issue of whether or not there is a Senate.  Separation of Powers is basic to the concept of the Constitution. There isn't supposed to be a King. So, to abolish the legislative branch , Congress, altogether would be arguably undoable ( I would argue that). But bicameral, twohouse, legislature is not a fundamental concept to a legislature. You could just have one house. Nothing fundamentally undemocratic about that. 

Actually, abolishing the Presidency would be a step I would propose before abolishing the Senate.

CB


>>> jf noonan <jfn1 at msc.com> 11/04/99 02:42PM >>>
On Wed, 3 Nov 1999, Charles Brown wrote:


> 
> Finally, as Michael says, there is also an authoritative
> opinion that you can amend or repeal the provision you cite.

What does 'authoritative' mean in this context?

--

Joseph Noonan
jfn1 at msc.com