In California, Hate Won Again

American Greatness ^ | 12 Nov, 2025 | Edward Ring

[Amendment10]

Thank you for referencing that article MtnClimber.

In California, Hate Won Again

---

Misguided, constitutionally low-information voters in the whole country with too much voting power (17th Amendment) keep reelecting the same worthless celebrity career lawmakers of the constitutionally limited power (hint), unconstitutionally big federal government who obviously couldn't care less about doing their constitutionally enumerated duty to guarantee each state a republican form of government.

Article IV, Section 4: The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government [emphasis added], and shall protect each of them against Invasion; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened) against domestic Violence.

So why are oppressed voters of renegade states (California, Illinois, New York, etc.) that have been pirated by corrupt politicians being singled out as Trump-haters, especially since Trump hasn't yet finished his mission of restoring voting integrity.

President Trump On 2020 Election Fraud: “We Now Know Everything!” (10.26.25)

Gerrymandering for example, should be regarded as blatant evidence of Democrats rigging an election imo, a violation of Section 2 of the 14th Amendment if such is the case imo. That section is a penalty for states where voting integrity has been compromised, but is wrongly being ignored imo.

Note the zero tolerance, "hair trigger" wording of that section which federal and state governments, under the boots of the corrupt, constitutionally undefined political parties, are evidently ignoring imo.

• But when the right to vote at any election

• is denied to any

• or in any way abridged,

• Section 2: Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election [all emphases added] for the choice of electors for President and Vice President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the Executive and Judicial officers of a State, or the members of the Legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such State. [Apportionment of Representatives]

Here is third party opinion that both state and federal governments are wrongly ignoring Section 2 imo.

• No serious effort was ever made in Congress to effectuate § 2, and the only judicial attempt was rebuffed.2 , cert. denied, 328 U.S. 870 (1946). —Apportionment Clause

• The Section had long been dead. But there are two camps of legal scholars who wish to revive it. The first consists of those who would like to see Section Two enforced to punish states that abridge their citizens’ right to vote, especially in the wake of Shelby County v. Holder. Recently, Joshua Geltzer, the executive director at Georgetown’s Institute for Constitutional Advocacy and Protection and the former senior director for counterterrorism at the National Security Council, added himself to this camp. The second camp is using Section Two, which distinguishes on the basis of gender, as evidence that Section One’s Equal Protection Clause does not prohibit gender-based discrimination. Jonathan Mitchell spearheads this movement. —The Worrisome Ghost of the Fourteenth Amendment’s Second Section

Note Thomas Jefferson's advice against ignoring parts of the Constitution.

The general rule [is] that an instrument is to be so construed as to reconcile and give meaning and effect to all its parts. --Thomas Jefferson to -----, 1816. ME 14:445

[sauropod]

Bkmk