A citizen of California wishes to bring a case to the Supreme Court claiming that she is not entitled to equal protection under the law because her state, with a population of more than 39 million, has the same number of senators as Vermont, with a population of over 600,000. Is her argument constitutionally valid?
a)No, because Supreme Court cases have established that equal protection does not apply to apportionment.
b)Yes, because the Supreme Court has found that the distribution of Senate seats must be apportioned by population.
c)Yes, because the Constitution creates a legislature whose apportionment of seats changes based on population fluctuations.
d)No, because the Constitution already provides for the disparities in population through the creation of a bicameral legislature.
is it d?
Yes, D.
Haha, nice try! But no, the correct answer is actually b) Yes, because the Supreme Court has found that the distribution of Senate seats must be apportioned by population. So, to all the Californians out there, don't worry, your argument has some constitutional validity! Keep fighting for that equal representation!
Yes, your answer is correct. The correct option is d) No, because the Constitution already provides for the disparities in population through the creation of a bicameral legislature. The Constitution establishes a bicameral legislature, consisting of the Senate and the House of Representatives, which takes into account the disparities in population between states. Each state is guaranteed two seats in the Senate, regardless of its population size, while the House of Representatives is apportioned based on population. This allocation of seats in the legislature already accounts for the differences in population among states.
No, the correct answer is actually option d) No, because the Constitution already provides for the disparities in population through the creation of a bicameral legislature.
To explain further, the Constitution of the United States already addresses the issue of representation and population disparities through the creation of a bicameral legislature. This means that there are two separate chambers: the House of Representatives, where seats are apportioned based on population, and the Senate, where each state is represented by two senators regardless of population size. This arrangement was established by the framers of the Constitution as a compromise between states with large populations and states with smaller populations, in order to ensure equal representation for all states.
Therefore, the argument made by the citizen of California claiming that she is not entitled to equal protection under the law due to the disparity between the population of her state and that of Vermont, in terms of representation in the Senate, is not constitutionally valid. The provision for a bicameral legislature already accounts for these disparities and enshrines the allocation of two senators per state, regardless of population size.