Your wanting to consider other States gets down to the whole spiteful point. Why should you give the Federal Government--both Courts and Congress, which has power under it in Section 5, also--the right to veto State action. As for non-residents of any State being imposed upon, the residents of other States cannot, under Article IV of the Federal Constitution, be imposed on in any way greater than the residents. But the whole nature of our Federal compact was to allow the States their local customs and cultures.
You also make a logical error. The Bill of Rights was not intended to establish liberty. It was strictly intended to safeguard the liberty which people already had from Congress. This distinction in the thrust is vital to understanding the thinking of the Founding Fathers, and the intent of the Constitution.
Certainly the State Senate could be revised to represent by county, if the state chose to do so. After all, that's how the US Senate is constructed.
You are simply wrong about this. While Ohio had its check on population in the State House, many States had it in their Senates. The Warren Court, in its reapportionment decisions in the 1960s, based upon the 14th Amendment, basically adopted the same "one man/one vote" rationale, which our foreign policy was also trying to apply to the Third World. You go on to offer the same rationalization, yourself, in discussing the population of the rural counties.
But the point is three fold. First, it should not be the business of any branch of the Federal Government to tell a State that it cannot preserve its Republican institutions by imposing checks on Democracy. That was after all was Madison's principal justification for promoting a Federal Government--a check on Democracy.
Second, having a representative from each County, is the only way that many people in rural Ohio are going to have an easily reachable representative. In Cuyahoga County, you have a whole raft of them within easy driving distance--perhaps walking distance--so you can easily become personally acquainted with the man who is supposed to represent you. That is not so if you are in a County bigger than Cuyahoga, and your representative is two Counties over. He and you will not be operating from the same perceptions of what your community is all about.
Third, there may be greater numbers of votes in urban communities, but there is no inherent virtue--rather quite the contrary, although the morals are not the point. But giving unchecked greater weight to the more populous communities, can easily lead to a situation--has lead to situations all over America--where urban values are imposed on rural America. (Why do you think that States like Maryland, Massachusetts and New York, have such restrictive gun laws, for example? Do you think that the citizens in the rural areas--many on land that has been in their family for generations, back into an earlier era, sought such restrictive legislation?)
The fact is that failing to check the voting power of urban communities--usually, in fact, with far less rooted inhabitants--has proven a disaster for individual rights in America.
You next blame Cleveland's school problems on a rogue Federal Judge! There have been such "rogue" Judges, all over America. In Dayton, it was another Federal Judge. Cincinnati has had to wrestle with what it painted itself into in a "Consent Decree," which has dominated our School Board's decisions on attendance districts, magnet schools, teacher assignments, etc., for over a generation. The point is that local school issues should not be Federalized. That benefits no one.
You say that Abortion should be a Legislative matter. But it isn't because the 14th Amendment put those Federal Judges, with a mind to do so, in a position to impose the NOW agnda on the people of every State in the American Union.
I will try to come back to your other points, later. I have to attend to some other business now, and would not want this to become unreadably long, in any event. But I will return to them.
William Flax Return Of The Gods Web Site