One of the potential problems with state secession is it would bring in more terrible Senators. A Senator from a red/purple Cascadia would most likely be in the mold of Mitt Romney. I wouldn't have high hopes for Illinois either as a lot of their reps outside the Chicago metro are buffoons like Adam Kinzinger. Peeling off western Virginia into West Virginia could be a mixed bag, Virginia would never be in play statewide again, but would maybe result in two more automatic electoral votes for West Virginia. I also saw a proposal to peel off the bottom row of counties in Minnesota and have them join Iowa, which isn't a huge population shift, but would be good for them.
The strategy is still worth considering and pursuing where it makes sense though. Beyond the politics, there are real people living in these areas getting dominated by urban liberals who despise them. They should be encouraged to make better lives for themselves and their posterity.
Reynolds v Sims was a really queer decision. As Mr Brimelow notes the judges said that for state legislatures both houses had to be drawn up based solely on population because of the 14th Anendment’s Equal Protection Clause. Of course that isn’t true for the federal government, where the Senate is based on the man made and historical determinations of state boundaries, regardless of the populations of each individual state. So are counties in a state by the way, which was the typical way state senators were chosen.
(Baker v Carr was the root of the problem, because that 1962 decision overturned precedent which denied the court jurisdiction in apportionment cases. They were reserved for the “political” branch — the legislature and the people. And once they arrogated that right to the judicial branch, all the other nonsense with redistricting followed.)
So the Supreme Court held that what was good enough for the US government as determined by the Constitution was not good enough — was unconstitutional in fact — for the states because of a clause in an Amendment that was interpreted that way by them.
Peter, under those circumstances it is far more likely that a future Supreme Court (Democratic) will find the US Senate unconstitutional and mandate apportionment of Senate seats by population than that it will tolerate secession.
One of the potential problems with state secession is it would bring in more terrible Senators. A Senator from a red/purple Cascadia would most likely be in the mold of Mitt Romney. I wouldn't have high hopes for Illinois either as a lot of their reps outside the Chicago metro are buffoons like Adam Kinzinger. Peeling off western Virginia into West Virginia could be a mixed bag, Virginia would never be in play statewide again, but would maybe result in two more automatic electoral votes for West Virginia. I also saw a proposal to peel off the bottom row of counties in Minnesota and have them join Iowa, which isn't a huge population shift, but would be good for them.
The strategy is still worth considering and pursuing where it makes sense though. Beyond the politics, there are real people living in these areas getting dominated by urban liberals who despise them. They should be encouraged to make better lives for themselves and their posterity.
So true. Always early, always right.
Reynolds v Sims was a really queer decision. As Mr Brimelow notes the judges said that for state legislatures both houses had to be drawn up based solely on population because of the 14th Anendment’s Equal Protection Clause. Of course that isn’t true for the federal government, where the Senate is based on the man made and historical determinations of state boundaries, regardless of the populations of each individual state. So are counties in a state by the way, which was the typical way state senators were chosen.
(Baker v Carr was the root of the problem, because that 1962 decision overturned precedent which denied the court jurisdiction in apportionment cases. They were reserved for the “political” branch — the legislature and the people. And once they arrogated that right to the judicial branch, all the other nonsense with redistricting followed.)
So the Supreme Court held that what was good enough for the US government as determined by the Constitution was not good enough — was unconstitutional in fact — for the states because of a clause in an Amendment that was interpreted that way by them.
Peter, under those circumstances it is far more likely that a future Supreme Court (Democratic) will find the US Senate unconstitutional and mandate apportionment of Senate seats by population than that it will tolerate secession.
Hello 100 California Senators!
America isn't a "sinking ship" it is a "SUNK ship" I hate to say. We the people are fat, happy and lazy and impotent - so here we are unfortunately.
Except doesn't the Congress that you discount in your second bullet point have to approve such redrawing of state boundaries?
You cowards who are afraid of the people and bow down to 5the elite are pitiful. What nonsense you spew. Each voter is equal.