> “Jeepers, what time period did this map capture? What would a more up-to-date map look like?”
It’s a very recent map. Most counties as you mentioned are sparsely inhabited and many of them are greatly controlled as federal lands.
The blue ‘streaks’ have been described by Obama himself as an ‘Urban Archipelago’.
The good news is that state legislatures take into account counties no matter how sparsely populated they may be. Political Scientists know that in general state legislatures are more representative of rural interests and tend to tilt towards conservative issues and policies than would normally be the case given a straight population representation.
Although conservatives greatly outnumber liberals nationwide, the results of elections and referendums hinge greatly on turnout which in turn hinges on how well issues resonate with voters. For example, to ratchet up turn out from conservatives, issues such as same-sex marriage, illegal aliens and Obamacare taxes (emerging) are ‘emotional triggers’.
With respect to the structural ‘state focused’ amendments discussed in this thread, the issues are relatively ‘innocuous’ so that opposition in terms of emotional advocacy will be difficult to muster. On this note I’ve changed views just this past week that the term ‘States Rights’ can be used by the left and its MSM as a euphemism for ‘segregation’, ‘racism’ and ‘White Privilege’ with all the attendant symbols of rebel flags and so on. In other words ‘States Rights’ creates flak and noise that is not needed and COS does not need to utilize any emotional triggers like those used by Donald Trump for example. I like what Donald Trump is doing publicly on the national stage but I am thinking of an average calm low-key state legislator who is receptive to considering a COS focused on States and their role in the Constitution.
So maybe the single topic for COS could move from ‘States Rights and Control of States Rights’ to ‘A New Role for States in the US Constitution’; something along those lines. what do you think?
As for the ALEC Convention in San Diego, I’m in touch with the Media and Public Affairs group and have received a list of panelists and their contact info just this morning. So I expect to get more information on the presentation for that agenda item this week. The agenda item for “Article V – Proposed Rules for a Convention of States” takes place starting at 9:30 am and finishes shortly before Ted Cruz’ talk at the plenary lunch session on Friday July 24.
Here’s a link to the full agenda:
http://www.alec.org/annual-meeting/annual-meeting-agenda
The fact that COS is even on the agenda is a huge statement in itself and placing its time before Ted Cruz assures lots of exposure and participation. Some state legislators have been hearing from the grassroots but more legislators need to hear. The annual ALEC meeting usually has about 2000 state legislators in attendance which is a good portion of the 7,398 total. It would be good to get a Freeper or two to that Friday meeting’s Q&A. Cost will be about $1000 to $1400 per person with airfare and lodging. I can donate or I’m thinking of possibly flying down there on my own expense as it is only a 3 hour flight from where I’m at. But having the panelists names and contact info is probably enough to follow up on.
It seems to me (FWIW) that the gist of the structural amendments you propose is not to establish a "new role" for the States, but merely to repair the original constitutional architecture, the erosion of which has deprived the States of their due weight in the functioning of our constitutional, republican system as envisioned by the Framers. This mischievous, subversive destruction really got started with Amendment XVII. In short, the "Left progressive axe" was first successfully struck against the States, by eliminating their direct representation qua individual States in the national Congress. After a "long train of abuses," it is clear that U.S. senators no longer represent/speak for their States; nor do they speak for the citizens of their States (they are too far removed and thus unaccountable to them, for the reasons you powerfully cited in an earlier post on this thread). The upshot is, they only represent/speak for themselves; which boils down to their principal concern, which is reelection.
You cite Senator John McCain as a prime example. In the primaries, he runs to the right. In the general election, he moves to the middle, or even to the left. It's all about getting reelected. And since he can command donations from deep pockets, due to his long Washington experience and contacts with K Street, he doesn't have to rely on the nickel-and-dime contributions of his direct constituents. The upshot is, he gets reelected every time, on the strength of his own personal "legend." In short, John McCain represents no one other than himself, for the virtually exclusive benefit of his own future political fortunes....
It is time, and past time for these old lions to simply pass away. Unaccountable to anything beyond their own personal political survival, they do not serve either their State or the people of their State.
However, I think it would be nice if the people of the State that elected them had the right to recall them for due cause. Currently, i.e., in the post-Amendment XVII era, once elected, they are deemed "federal officers" that, under Article I, Section 5, cannot be challenged or removed by the people of the State that elected them. So, to whom are they accountable, since they are neither accountable to their State legislature nor to the people of their State?
So I think I prefer your original proposal, "States Rights and Control of States Rights," rather than your revised proposal, "A New Role for States in the US Constitution."
And the four heads you touch on — (1) Recall of US Senators (2) Repeal of the 17th (3) Term limits for US Senators and (4) State quash of specific federal matters —would seem to hold great promise for the restoration of the original federal architecture ordering State vis-a-vis national relations. Indeed, this balance of powers was the original prescription of federalism under the Constitution.
I'm praying for the success of the ALEC conference re: rules and procedures of a COS for Proposing Amendments. May God bless, Godspeed them. Please keep me posted, Hostage, of any breaking news you hear of.
Thank you ever so much for writing!!!