If Your State is a Mess (2016)

ArticleVBlog ^ | March 14th 2016 | Rodney Dodsworth

[Jacquerie]

As opposed to what the Left believes, the purpose of government is not to impose social justice.

That was forgotten in Scotus’ 1964 Reynolds v. Sims ruling.

Citing a non-existent “one man one vote” principle, eight Warren Court black-robes ruled that state legislative districts must be of approximately equal populations. Through a rogue interpretation of the 14th Amendment’s equal protection clause, these masterminds imposed a democratic republic form of government on all fifty states! Never mind the constitution simply guarantees a republican form of government. Scotus illegally overruled centuries of wisdom and imposed social justice democracy instead.

Free government demands the consent of the people. Without our consent, no law is legitimate. But, when law making is entirely in the hands of the people or their representatives, the result is a democratic republic, which history has shown to be hostile to minority rights and eventually end in tyranny.

Instead of representation by county, state senates were transformed into mini-assemblies. By this, Scotus gave large metropolitan areas control of both houses of state legislatures. No longer did rural areas have a counterbalancing voice. No longer was the damage done by urban demagogues limited to high density cities. Reynolds guaranteed the states would eventually succumb to the same leveling social justice forces that have always typified big city government.

Senator Dirksen of Illinois warned that Chicago would come to dominate Springfield. He was right; due to Reynolds, Illinois is near bankruptcy and losing population as people flee high taxes, higher unemployment, and societal destruction.

By what power did scotus so easily, and by a large majority, impose breathtaking change on the fundamental structure of state governments?

Because of the 17th Amendment, the states were defenseless. Without representation in the senate, scotus black-robes had nothing to fear. Why would popularly elected senators oppose the decision? Some, like Dirksen did. But in the aggregate, popularly elected senators were not going to risk reelection for opposing the lofty ideal of “one man one vote.” The media would ask, “How could anyone be against equal representation?

So, when you look around your state and cringe at rising taxation and read of rural county secessionist movements, take the time to consider the long chain of events that brought these situations about.

It all began with the 17th Amendment, and cannot end until the 17th is repealed.

[Teacher317]

eight Warren Court black-robes ruled that

For the younger folks, the Warren Court was by far the most Liberal SCOTUS in US history.

That Court was 9-0 Liberal, while a 9-0 Right-leaning Court has never existed... and yet the Left screams today that 5-4 Right would be unfair.

Personally, it seems obvious that this scale needs to be shifted by 0.5 or more. O'Connor and Kennedy were not Right-leaning. But even with that scale, you can see that for the entire decade of the 60s, the MOST Conservatives Justices were as "right-leaning" as O'Connor and Kennedy... and that's saying a LOT.

It was 6-3 to the Right in the early 50s...

and also notice that ZERO Justices go above a +1.3 to the Conservative side, but SIX Justices go below -1.3 on the Liberal end. (And if you shift the scale by that 0.5, then it's zero above 0.8, and six dipping below -1.8!)

[who_would_fardels_bear]

I believe that Nebraska is the only state smart enough to realize they should be unicameral given the current situation.

[Jacquerie]

Great chart. The 17A made the appointment of Leftist whack-jobs a certainty.

[reg45]

The effect of Reynolds v. Sims was to make state senates redundant.

[Bonemaker]

“If Your State is a Mess (2016)..)”

If? (Illnois).

[LastDayz]

“If Your State is a Mess”

1) It’s probably being run by DemonRats.

2) You might be a redneck.

3) It’s been overrun by LibTards.