It is a shame to see what's happening there now that they have given the Democratic party full control over the state's mechanisms. I think it's striking that one of their 'day one' bills was to forbid election audits and hand-recounts of machine-counted ballots.
The blue cities keep pushing not just to consolidate their wealth and power, but to destroy the culture of the more traditional parts of the states they dominate. Every time they gain power, the cities press for abortion until the moment of birth (to include partial birth), DEI programs to re-educate the population (witness the day-one attacks on VMI), and of course the most expansive gun control they can squeeze through (in defiance of the Supreme Court as well as the state's traditional laws).
It's always sad to watch.
Sad is not the word I would choose.
ReplyDeleteThe Warren court is the origin of this.
Reynolds vs Sims gave total power to the cities, exactly what the founders feared would happen.
The apportioning of state Senators by population, instead of by county, eliminated any rural power.
So every state slides inexorably into socialism, despite almost all of them having most counties on the conservative side.
The recent change is this- it seems when the dem/socialists get power, they are now going all out. There is not even a token attempt at consensus or compromise- they are going do whatever they feel like and the hell with the rest of us.
There is open talk now of retribution on conservatives. I expect it to devolve from officers of the administration, to supporters, and finally down to voter registration.
It is going to come to war. I don't know when, or what the spark will be, but we are no longer one people- we are two societies with diametrically opposed ideas on culture and governance. There is no middle ground left.
And nowhere to run.
Figuring out how to undo the domination of the rural areas by the cities is an important matter. I don't quite know how to do it other than to split up the states; but here are some thoughts to consider.
ReplyDeletehttps://www.facebook.com/share/p/1MHp1WYG1D/
That's a very interesting post. It made me aware of something I hadn't given any thought to before- that 30-33 states have populations bigger than the entire United States at the time of the ratification of the Constitution. So his suggestion of dividing states into regions makes a great deal of sense.
ReplyDeleteCaveat- I am not knowledgeable about the law.
ReplyDeleteIf I understand correctly, the original ruling in Reynolds was the cities were not getting their fair share of the votes.
An argument could be made, and I think it should be made, that that decision did not make anything equal, it just ensured domination of the cities. And had the result of violating the civil rights of the rural counties by denying them representation- exactly what the ruling was about in the first place, just the other side of the coin.
Well, you're right that Warren's rulings hurt us. I think the ruling in Reynolds is pretty clearly putting representation in democratic contexts of "one man, one vote" and "equal representation" being to count strictly by population. The founders probably would disagree, at least a lot of them, as they were always suspect of purer forms of democracy. The mistake here, as I see it is that yes, one man gets one vote, but what the one vote is voting for is up to the state on the whole (for state offices of course) and if it's for representative positions that are not equally dispersed, that's the state's privilege, and not unconstitutional (any more than the electoral college or the original method of selecting US Senators was).
ReplyDeleteCorrupt and decadent as Weimar was, its governments regarded ordinary crimes as crimes. Nazis did not. In the transvaluation of all values the Democrats inflict, infanticide, child mutilation, [I can’t go on] become virtues.
ReplyDeleteFRM