Won't "originalists" argue that the 13th Amendment is itself unconstitutional because it is at odds with provisions in the Constitution for the Senate and the electoral college?

The amendment provision was put in there ORIGINALLY to allow for changes, but with a very high bar. The high bar was achieved on that amendment.

So, it is consistent with original intent that the document was mutable.

Now, since the originalists are hypocrites and morons, they still might try to argue as you suggest but their own philosophy works against them.

my answer's still nope, regardless.

Or it would have explicitly spelled that out.

That's a ridiculous argument to even consider. Absolutely nowhere in the history, nor recorded discussion of the 13th Amendment was such an idea in anyone's head.

I'd be curious to see where that argument originated since it's not in either of the articles to which you linked.

from anyone associated with the Democratic Party. That narrows it down, I think, especially in today's political climate.

The Senate especially can never be nullified, not even with a Constitutional Amendment.

It just has not been passed yet.

The constitution specifically says that the Senate can never be abolished, not even with an Amendment. Only a ConCon can do it.

To know which Article specifically says that the Senate can never be abolished

“[N]o State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate.”

That all 50 states would have to approve such an Amendment.
It could also be argued that if the Senate is abolished each state would still have equal suffrage (0)

Now naturally the likelihood of an Amendment to abolish the Senate ever passing is just about zero, but it is theoretically possible to abolish it.

I wrote about that in post 23. It would be sort of a super Constitutional Amendment. A unanimous Amendment seems impossible.

Disagree with the second part though. The words "in the Senate" is in there, so there must be a Senate.

Sure it's "theoretically possible to abolish it." There are three ways:

1) All 50 states agree

2) A ConCon

3) Revolution

Any part of the Constitution can be eliminated or changed with a 3/4s agreement by the states. That is currently 38 not 50.

“[N]o State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate.” Look up that part. Every scholar says you either need all 50 states to agree or you need a ConCon.


Also, we could not have banned slavery before 1808, even with a Constitutional Amendment. If you would like to see the written context, I will link it.

Your "interpretation" is bizarre to say the least. An Amendment can change anything and any section of the Constitution.

That's incredibly unlikely in the first place, but I don't agree that this is settled. If the happy moment of a push to abolish this abomination ever came, I expect it would indeed be challenged using the argument you want deployed, but others would argue that this clause in no way pertains to a potential abolition (which would still leave 'equal Suffrage' all around).

1) They could not ban slavery until at least 1808, in Article I, Section. 9, clause 1.

2) The Senate. In Article V one type of amendment is not permitted: “[N]o State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate.” That means at best all 50 states would have to support that Amendment, rather than the 3/4ths.

We could never become a Parliamentary country because of that.

as we have long passed the 1808 mark

As I laid out above- the Senate does not have a guarantee of it's existence, though we could sooner eliminate the office of President than abolish the Senate.

In any case, the OP claim that the 13th Amendment could be interpreted to disband the Senate is ridiculous.

But before 1808, it wasn't possible. Agree with the rest.

Your Constitution is not the one in the National Archives.

Please stop trolling me with your wrong answers. There is no "your" Constitution or "my" Constitution. There is only one US Constitution and that's where I get my info.

You are embarrassing yourself with this misinformation.

If you do a search, there are many writings on why it can't be abolished. Even here what that former Senator said in November we should abolished the Senate, many here replied that it can't happen. I guess you missed it, but I'll try and find it for you.

It does not say what the poster says it says. It does not stop anything from being amended.

“[N]o State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate.”

Members of the Senate and the Electoral College are slaves or subject to involuntary servitude, otherwise you are reading in words that are neither present nor implied

The 13th Amendment is kind of disturbing to me because of the exception clause
that makes it ok for prisoners to be used for slavery or involuntary servitude,
which is common practice to this day.

It's a SMDH