Posted on 07/21/2020 6:29:31 AM PDT by Kaslin
The Supreme Court’s decision to effectively make eastern Oklahoma into Indian territory may force the state to sever into two. Why does that have to be a bad thing? Within the continental U.S., when it comes to states, the more the merrier.
If not for all the other crises and daily outrages boosted by mass media, the news of Oklahoma potentially losing half its state land to the sovereign nation of the Muscogee (Creek) tribe might have garnered more Americans’ attention for a bit longer.
The decision was led by Justice Neil Gorsuch, who despite being Trump’s first pick for the high court sided with the four liberal justices. They ruled narrowly that eastern Oklahoma was in fact Indian territory with regard to state criminal law, but the legal consequences will be innumerable.
All Americans should welcome this opportunity to reconsider their state borders as well as all regulatory boundaries.
Unfortunately, most conservatives haven’t latched on to that take. Sure, it’s not an ideal situation when a conservative state like Oklahoma gets politically upended by a few federal judges, but this can lead to a better outcome if a new state is a result.
Before getting into the benefits that Oklahoma residents may enjoy, let’s consider the wider ramifications for conservative victory nationwide.
After a favorable vote in the House of Representatives, Democrats are closer than ever to achieving statehood for Washington, DC. Yet Republicans have no national counter-strategy? Making DC a state has been a nationally unifying issue for Democrats, because they are well aware of the political stakes, including two new Democrats in the Senate.
Republicans should be as unified across the country to support their own local efforts. There are many to choose from already. There are competing efforts to break away rural Californians from their state, and there are pushes to divide New York up into two or three chunks. This year, some Illinois counties will vote on removing Chicago from their state.
Kentucky, Maine, and West Virginia all became states after breaking off from another, so it’s not the crazy notion some opponents will make it out to be.
Similar campaigns are ongoing in Oregon (to join a new Greater Idaho) and Virginia (to become part of West Virginia). In relatively recent history, the proposed states of Northern Colorado and Superior (Michigan) have also been proposed.
Conservatives are well aware of the ungovernableness of many blue states. Take California for instance. Its state assembly is made up of 80 legislators, with each one “representing” roughly a half-million people.
Whether it’s taxation, gun control, or political underrepresentation, many Americans are realizing they need to vote with their feet and move or otherwise try a political solution that doesn’t wait on a federal election.
The Republican Party must pay closer attention, then get involved where it’s prudent. And it will be prudent somewhere soon because Democrats are the ones with the momentum to ensure permanent federal dominance for themselves in the near future. That is apparent in Arizona, Florida, Georgia, Texas, Virginia, and elsewhere.
As the French philosopher, Montesquieu said, “Power ought to serve as a check to power.”
That doesn’t strictly mean Republicans vs. Democrats, but rather, more importantly, it should mean the States vs. the Federal government. Conservatives will not fare well under a strong, centralized Democratic government, but if there are enough conservative states, a fully Democratic federal government will be nonetheless weakened by their uncooperation.
If the Democrats gain statehood for the District of Columbia or Puerto Rico, Republicans should work to add four states of their own to maintain competitiveness in the Senate and electoral college. The pursuit is worthwhile, however, even if Democrats claim a perpetual majority, simply because more states are harder for the feds to push around.
That’s what the Founders intended for this system of government, “laboratories of democracy” as Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis called the states.
Decentralization would benefit the Native Americans in eastern Oklahoma all the same. They pursued as much in the early part of the last century by proposing the State of Sequoyah. Now that area holds 60 percent of the refinery capacity of the fourth-largest oil-producing state.
As long as the federal government manages the land as its territory, the Native Americans can’t expect to reach the land’s potential for economic development or profit.
So, let Oklahoma come to discover there’s a silver lining in this seemingly dark cloud. Let the nation watch as more competition between states percolates, and let those who wish to go their own way do so as well.
Bringing state capitols closer to the governed will ease some of the political tensions dividing our country, and it will reduce Washington, DC’s grip on power to a more reasonable level as well. Conservatives must recognize this for their own political survival as well as for the sake of preserving America as a constitutional republic.
If Oklahoma splits in two, the Dems will go berserk.............
I’ve been saying for years that PA should donate Philthadelphia (aka West Camden) to the People’s Democratic Republic of New Jersey.
Both states would benefit.
None of them would have the valid reasons to split like the UP Of Michigan has over the Lower.
Two completely different peoples and areas.
Matter of fact. I told people that the UP should become its own country. Personally, I could make it the richest country on the face of the earth if it was got away from the corrupt US Government.
Crazy? The UP has international borders, Could have large International ports. The largest deposit of copper in the world. Large deposits of other industrial minerals. The largest stands of prime hardwood, such as maple, in the world. It does have some oil-not much, but some.
The natural resources in the UP built much of the USA. During WW2, over 90% of the iron ore used in the production of war materials came from the UP of Michigan.
> It should split into an Indian Nation and Oklahoma. <
Right. No other Indian Nation is a state. So I’m a bit puzzled why folks are talking about that now.
What’s the future? half the territory given to descendants of those who had their land taken from them? And the other half given to descendants of slaves?
Is that our future?
I understand that. But I think its time to tell them to put up or shut up. If they want the land (and all of the hassles that go along with it) they can have it, rule it, tax it, and live off it.
Lets see how long THAT lasts.
https://www.loc.gov/resource/g4020.ct011160/?r=-0.089,-0.438,1.111,1.808,90
This author is ignorant of many facts and the ones he does know he is twisting to create wild speculation.
The tribes and the State will work this out. Only the radical factions will try to exploit this. One radical faction though includes the foolish governor stitt. His position on ttribal gaming is just nuts as one example of his foolishness.
Uh, thanks but no thanks.
We already live here.
Sorry....’bout that.
All Americans should welcome this opportunity to reconsider their state borders as well as all regulatory boundaries.
*************
The Seminole Indians held South Florida for quite a while.
I vote to split off Miami/Dade, Monroe, Broward etc. into a separate state called South Florida.
I’m tired of their Dem election shenanigans.
What is the reaction of the folks on the ground?
What do you think will happen?
Not to mention the fact that if the author had even the slightest knowledge of Oklahoma politics he would know that the portions of Oklahoma that are now effectively reservations have historically been the most blue areas of Oklahoma. Creating two states will result in more Democrat senators.
Dont forget N.Y.
In 1845, when the Republic of Texas joined the United States, part of the treaty was that Texas could split into 5 states.
**************
Four more senators?
Mostly conservative?
Unfortunately with the migration of libs out of their muddied, fouled home states, and the resulting contamintions of the areas moved to, it might be necessary to isolate/quarantine the areas to which they have moved and started to pollute (defined: “the presence in or introduction into the environment of a substance or thing that has harmful or poisonous effects”).
Nothing is going to happen. This wasn’t about land ownership, it was about criminal justice system. Native Americans in that part of OK can’t be tried by state authorities anymore.
The Republican counter-proposal to DC statewide is to retrocede the City of Washington to Maryland, giving that state 1 more Congressman (until the next apportionment) and 1 more Electoral Vote, and taking away DC’s 3 Electoral Votes.
Alexandria and Arlington were originally part of DC and were retroceded a long time ago.
The original idea of DC is that it would be a capitol district and wouldn’t have a vote. Such an idea was implemented in other countries, e.g., Brazil; but, nowadays this isn’t thoughr fair.
With regard to Guam and other incorporated territories too small to be admiitted as states, I suggest:
They be allowed to associated with a state, providing that state and the U.S. Congress approves, for the purpose of apportionment and voting in federal elections.
Puerto Rico, I’d condition admission as a state on it’s resolution of its current debt problems, and adoption of balanced budget and sinking fund provisions in its state constitution.
California, with 40 million people, California is the largest state; with Texas second with 30 million, Florida and New York next with about 20 million each, and six states with 10 to 13 million.
Split California into two, North and South, and you simply wind up with two very Democratic states, one dominated by Los Angeles and the other by the San Francisco metropolitan area. Split California into four states: (L.A., S.F., North and South), and you’d have two very Democratic states and two purple states, each about 10 million. North California could remain California with its capital at Sacramento, and southern California could be named Reagan.
Split Texas into three states: Austin/San Antonio (retaining the name Texas), Houston (which is, after all, the name of Sam Houston), and Dallas/Fort Worth which could be named (Audie) Murphy. Each of these would be purple states.
Split New York into two states: New York (duh?) and Roosevelt (both Theodore and Franklin). One of these states would be very Democratic and the other competitive.
Split Florida into two states with a dividing line near Orlando. The northern part would retain the name Florida, and the southern part could be named Lincoln. Both of these states would be competitive.
All of the divisions would result in states of about 10 million and we would no longer have any super states; just a lot of states in the range of 10 to 13 million people.
BTW freeze the number of stars on the flag at 50.
If it’s anything like the Iron Range in MN, then its populated by lifelong Democrats. I’ve rarely seen a more welfare-dependent constituency in my life. They may speak like conservatives, but that never seems to translate into voting—a free lunch beats working for far too many people. For most, cutting Federal spending sounds terrific, until it’s your pork on the table.
The natural resources in the UP built much of the USA. During WW2, over 90% of the iron ore used in the production of war materials came from the UP of Michigan.
*************************
Natural resources are really GREAT. But it takes other resources to make them into something useful.
“No man is an island...”
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.