Talk:Entrenched clause

Politics Mid‑importance

	Politics portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Law Low‑importance

	Law portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.LawWikipedia:WikiProject LawTemplate:WikiProject Lawlaw articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

U.S. Senate[edit]

"The other clause, still in effect, states that 'no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal suffrage in the Senate'. This has been interpreted to require unanimous ratification of any amendment altering the composition of the United States Senate."

Is this right? That clause looks to me as if it would permit the following (admittedly unlikely) example: An amendment is proposed to remove Wyoming's right to send one of its senators to Washington. The requisite 38 states ratify, one of which is Wyoming. The state being deprived of its equal suffrage in the Senate has thus given its consent, the composition of the Senate has been altered by a constitutional amendment, but the ratification was not unanimous. And as far as I can see, it doesn't need to be in such a case. I've added a "citation needed" note to that passage because I'd like to know who exactly has interpreted the clause to require unanimous ratification, and if there is significant dissent from that interpretation. 86.136.1.31 23:16, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your example sounds completely accurate. I think as long as at least 3/4, including the state(s) involved, ratify such a change, it would be legitimate. Though both Wyoming consenting to this, and other states continuing to vote against it with Wyoming's consent, do seem quite unlikely! :-) --Xyzzyva 11:15, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with 86.136.1.31 and Xyzzyva. And while very, very unlikely, there could be some amendment/"political deal" that gave Wyoming a bunch of other stuff it wanted in exchange for giving up one senator. Hoping To Help (talk) 09:40, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think the statement that the Supremacy Clause of the U.S. Constitution is an entrenchment clause is in error; the statement "...any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding" should probably be read "any thing in the constitution of any state or the laws of any state notwithstanding"--rather than a statement that no future amendment to the U.S. Constitution may change the supremacy clause. 139.76.128.71 01:19, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

UN Security Council[edit]

Could this provision be considered an entrenched clause[1]:

Amendments to the present Charter shall come into force for all Members of the United Nations when they have been adopted by a vote of two thirds of the members of the General Assembly and ratified in accordance with their respective constitutional processes by two thirds of the Members of the United Nations, including all the permanent members of the Security Council.

Any attempt to eliminate the Permanent Five veto is, itself, subject to the P-5 veto; therefore, all attempts to remove it have been unsuccessful. Captain Zyrain 00:02, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It appears that all of the "Permanent Five" must agree to an amendment. Yes, that seems to be an entrenched clause. What is strange is that many of the Members (including in the "Permanent Five") do not adhere to the UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights, but can still be Members. It seems to me that the UN is only another way that governments waste money. Look at how Russia and China (with Iran) are supporting the fascist regime in Syria.--Ofthehighest (talk) 16:38, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Czech example[edit]

New section:

The Czech Constitution states in its Article 9 dealing with supplementing and amending the Constitution, that "The substantive requisites of the democratic, law-abiding State may not be amended." This provision was invoked in 2009 when the Constitutional Court of the Czech Republic abolished a Constitutional Act adopted to invoke one off early legislative election. The disputed act was seen as an individual decision in violation of then-effective constitutional procedure regulating early elections.

What does "to invoke one off early legislative election" mean? What does "individual decision" mean? —Tamfang (talk) 19:24, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Immutocracy" listed at Redirects for discussion[edit]

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Immutocracy and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 March 28#Immutocracy until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 18:37, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Types of clauses or the concept of entrenchment[edit]

It seems odd to me that this article is about certain types of clauses, rather then about the concept of entrenchment in politics. Nurg (talk) 04:39, 9 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Germany[edit]

Germany's eternity clause doesn't list itself as entrenched, so it could be abolished by the normal amendment process, lifting the entrenchment of Articles 1 and 20 indirectly and making them amendable, couldn't it? David Marjanović (talk) 21:33, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]