> [I forwarded John Mage's remarks to Constitution-hater Dan Lazare,
> who responds...]
>
> From: Dhlazare at aol.com
> Date: Tue, 15 Jan 2002 10:22:53 EST
>
> Doug:
>
> John Mage should reread Art. V, the final clause of which states that
> "no state, without its consent, shall be deprived of its equal
> suffrage in the Senate." Since any state can veto any deviation
> whatsoever from the principle of equal state suffrage,
<snip>
I am forwarding this to Lazare so no need to bother yourself further Doug, but I do feel the need to have a last word...
Lazare should reread Art.I, where "equal suffrage" consists in the statement that the Senate shall "be composed of two Senators from each State." No more, no less. Who chooses the two Senators "from each State" is open to amendment, and indeed has been amended. So there is no bar in the Consitituion from two thirds of the Board of the Pacifica Foundation - or Dan Lazare - choosing "two Senators from each State." As to all implied this or that that the *electors* need to be of the state etc, that needs interpretation now, doesn't it? And no-ne would claim that Article V prohibits setting up any scheme for interpretation that the Convention might choose.
But the whole point is that claiming that the wording of Article V "prohibits" this or that is an example of the fetishism and sterile wordchopping that one hopes Lazare is committed to demolishing. That fetishism is real, and is the problem we need to address; Article V is words whose "meaning" depends entirely on the use to which they are put in specific historical circumstances. Hating the Constitution is I fear as much fetishism as revering it.
john mage