If you would like more information about what’s happening in Oregon, please FReepmail me. Please send me your name by FReepmail if you want to be on this list.
Posted on 03/18/2023 12:30:10 PM PDT by thegagline
It would be a matter for the states involved, obviously.
Where does the federal government have any say? I’m sure any new states requires ratification or whatever.
Besides, it’s CalvinBall all the way down anyway. Why does everyone insist on dotting all the i’s and crossing all the t’s at this point? Why should I care 12 states over what they do in Oregon anyway? Let them decide.
Interesting you mention that, prior to World War II, Democracy was defined as “Rule by the masses. Attitude toward property communistic. Results in license, anarchy, discontent. Mobocracy”.
After World War II, the popular definition was changed to this vague, anodyne, freedom sounding boilerplate. The official line on AFRTS public service slots was that only Democracy could keep a country free of despotism or dictators, it wouldn’t be possible for totalitarianism, the people wouldn’t never allow it.
Some of the old broadcasts haven’t aged very well at all.
Democracy, like the German “Democratic” Republic. Or The “Democratic” Peoples Republic of Korea.
The rural/urban divide isn’t just in Oregon.
Take: Georgia, Illinois, NY, Michigan, Wisconsin, Colorado, Arizona, New Mexico, North Carolina, Ohio, Washington and coming soon….South Carolina and Tennessee
I would say the threshold is WWI, the blurring of the distinction rapidly picked up pace during and after WWII.
Democrats won't initially like this idea any more than they like Greater Idaho, because as mentioned above they are not interested in good government - they desire to rule over the peasants. But the idea of a State of Chicago having two new Democrat Senators and more House seats than the remaining State of Illinois might tempt some of them to at least explore the idea.
They don't care. People who don't agree with progressives are not considered deserving of basic civil rights. The constant bleating of "Our Democracy" means that to their majority absolutely everything is up for grabs including the property, the wealth, and the children of anyone outside it - and their civil rights as well, which is why the Founders rejected democracy and opted for a republic. The proggies will turn dissident or disobedient areas into barbed-wire prison camps before they'll allow them freedom.
Well, I won’t quibble over exact time frame. The point I was making is the absolute sea change in definitions. Sound familiar?
Even the word itself “Democracy” is not mentioned, not even once, in the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution nor the Bill of Rights. There’s a reason for that, and it is because the government was setup the way it was precisely to try and prevent what is happening now.
Yes, but crazy is more prevalent in the urban areas, not just per capita. Numerous experiments with lab animals has shown things get . . . weird .. like what we’re seeing now, when people are stacked up too tightly.
Agree!
State Level Electoral College.
Each county gets 3 votes.
Your guy/gal sweeps with more than 66% they get all 3
50.1 to 65.9…..your guy/gal gets 2 votes, loser gets 1. That way they can’t bitch about it not being overwhelming.
I doubt you’d have a Democrat Governor, Lt Gov, SecState, AG in any but 3 or 4 states.
And no amount of fraud in the cities or Democrat areas could overcome that
I like it but Reynolds vs Sims would probably get in the way.
I see your point.
It still might work as they’ll be fewer “districts”.
However, in light of that I wonder how the NC case would be affected. If they win then no one but the legislature can make the rules.
I think it’s every state in the union.
Where does the federal government have any say?
Something like that was common earlier. Many state legislatures apportioned the seats according to counties. The Supreme Court did away with it in the 1960s. Baker v. Carr. “One Man One Vote.”
The Tenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, a part of the Bill of Rights, was ratified on December 15, 1791. It expresses the principle of federalism, also known as states’ rights, by stating that the federal government has only those powers delegated to it by the Constitution, and that all other powers not forbidden to the states by the Constitution are reserved to each state.
************************************************************
Aggressive and fastidious enforcement of the 10th Ammendment upon the federal government by the states would, long term, and in just this mans opinion, be better for America.
If you would like more information about what’s happening in Oregon, please FReepmail me. Please send me your name by FReepmail if you want to be on this list.
The Supreme Court did away with it in the 1960s. Baker v. Carr. “One Man One Vote.”
Question: If it’s one man, one vote, then why do we still have the Electoral College on the federal level?
That decision should be the answer to the Left’s dream of the popular vote. Damn near every law, at every level is just a copy of one above it. Some charges require a certain “level of jurisdiction” while others do not.
Georgia has Simple Battery(state charge). Atlanta has Disorderly Conduct(city charge) that has the same exact criminal elements.
So, why not implement an Electoral College procedure just like the ones used for electing the President? The President is the Chief Executive of the USA. A Governor is a Chief Executive of their respective state.
The case that the NC legislature has before SCOTUS, if I’m getting it right, exactly challenges the Baker decision. The Constitution states that the state legislatures make the rules. In NC, the legislature made the rules. Democrats challenged the rules and went to court, where the liberals on the state supreme court sided with the Left, citing the typical discrimination crap. But, if the NC Legislature wins and SCOTUS rules according to what’s written in the Constitution, then neither the courts nor Elias can ever file a lawsuit again, unless they can prove violations of the Voting Rights Act, which I don’t think is easy to do these days.
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.