An interesting comment found at NMMNB

The Comment

Again and again, your posts indicate how critical it is that Democrats pack the Supremes as soon as they are able and stuff as many progressive judges onto the federal bench as is humanly possible.

And while we are considering constitutional amendments that may be helpful (abolishing the EC, for example) we might think about putting a dent in judges' life tenure in some way.

Maybe requiring retirement at some point, or limiting tenure to X years, or requiring reconfirmation by the senate or by the people every so many years.

Something to add to the wish list that already has on it an amendment to make representation in the senate proportional to population.

It would have to have at least two articles, the first repealing "and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate" from Article V, and the second mandating proportional representation, perhaps in a manner that keeps the senate smaller than the house.

Republicans would insist that that bit of Article V cannot be amended with the usual process or without the consent of the states to be thus denied.

So, would that mean that every state but California would have to consent?

I guess it might, if this claim were true.

But that's baloney.

Nothing anywhere says that the requirement of consent to denial of equal representation magically entails a further and different requirement of consent to the removal of the requirement of consent to denial of equal representation.

For that matter, nothing anywhere in the constitution says Article V cannot itself be amended in the usual way, in whole or in part.

Indeed, the whole thing could be repealed and an entirely different process of amendment could be created by constitutional amendment.

Though the constitution itself hilariously prescribed its own method of ratification, I will not go so far as to suggest that an amendment prescribing a different rule for ratification of amendments (from Article V) could apply to its own ratification.

That much hilarity might not be a good thing, in the law.

Or maybe it would?

Sorry. I digress.