Entrenched Constitutional Clause
The political reality of reform and realignment of the U.S. Senate with the passage of a Constitutional Amendment would literally be a revolutionary effort. The Constitutional Amendment that is being proposed is unprecedented in American history.
There has never been a Constitutional Amendment that has passed that has attempted to circumvent the entrenchment clause that protects the sovereignty of the State to have equal suffrage under the Constitution, as per Article V. In reality, the only way to achieve political equality for the MSA’s is to literally have a revolutionary change to the core DNA of the Constitution. This surgical DNA reform is needed so the Senate will be able to truly reflect the actual reality of the political urban power base within the country.
What is the Entrenchment Clause?
An entrenched clause or entrenchment clause of a Constitution is a provision that makes certain amendments either more difficult or impossible to pass, making such amendments inadmissible. Overriding an entrenched clause may require a super-majority, a referendum, or the consent of the minority party. Once adopted, a properly drafted entrenchment clause makes some portion of a constitution irrevocable except through the assertion of the right of revolution. Any amendment to a basic law or constitution, which would not satisfy the prerequisites enshrined in a valid entrenched clause would lead to so-called "unconstitutional constitutional law", that is, an amendment to constitutional law text that would appear to be constitutional law by its form, albeit unconstitutional due to the procedure used to enact it or due to the content of its provisions. And once adopted, a properly drafted entrenchment clause makes that portion of a constitution irrevocable except through the assertion of the right of revolution.
Entrenched clauses are, in some cases, justified as protecting the rights of a minority from the dangers of majority rule. In other cases, the objective may be to prevent amendments to the basic law or constitution which would pervert the fundamental principles enshrined in it. However, entrenched clauses are often challenged by their opponents as being undemocratic.
Article V shields the first clause of Article I, Section 3, which provides for equal representation of the states in the United States Senate, from being amended, though not absolutely. This has been interpreted to require unanimous ratification of any amendment altering the composition of the United States Senate. However, the text of the clause would indicate that the size of the Senate could be changed by an ordinary amendment if each state continued to have equal representation. Because of the unique MSA Contiguous Overlay Zone relationship between the States and MSA’s there would be a new typology of governance and power sharing because MSA’s can transcend the boundaries of the states when necessary. This ability to transcend State boundaries signifies that they are both one with the states and yet separate from the states. Making the MSA’s a unique third entity in the trinity of shared power. Therefore, under the new Constitutional Amendment, there would be two layers of political governance recognized in the Constitution for the U.S. Senate and they would be at the State and MSA levels. And since there would be a “new layer of governance” within the United States, it would not, by definition, deprive the “States of their equal suffrage” in the U.S. Senate and would not infringe upon the “Entrenchment Clause” in the Constitution.
The bottom line is that the new Constitutional Amendment that is being proposed does not infringe upon the “Entrenchment Clause” of the Constitution, because this new Constitutional Amendment is proposing that a new layer of representation, within the parameters of the Constitution, would be established, that is separate and unique from the current political system.