Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
The Road to Tyranny Begins Here
This has been percolating for some time now but the elevation of Brett Kavanaugh to the United States Supreme Court is going to accelerate the debate and push the following into the mainstream of our politics: The Senate must be abolished or altered so significantly as to render it powerless in the nation’s business.
Before I begin to lay out the arguments that are being presented, let me preface this with the following disclaimer — the Progressive Left is not interested in your civics lessons or talk about the history of the Constitution. For them, the United States is fundamentally flawed and any argument you may wish to make is evidence that you share the same inherent misogyny and racism of the Founding Fathers. You must defend it on their terms and on their terms only.
The Senate, according to the Progressive Left, is undemocratic and non-responsive to the will of the people. It is fundamentally unfair for the smallest state in the Union to have equal representation to, say, California or New York. In just a few short years, goes the argument, up to 70 percent of the population will have but 30 percent of the voice in the upper chamber. As they see it, these smaller states are just too damned Republican and abolishing the Senate in its current form will finally — finally — remove that cancer from the body politic.
As an added benefit, if the Senate is abolished then the rationale behind the Electoral College goes with it. Direct election of the President will allow the urban centers to completely dominate the process.
Next comes the call for the House to be turned into a true body of representation. The state houses must not be allowed to draw Congressional Districts. Many on the left are proposing eliminating districts altogether. First comes the call to for all districts to be “at large,” and then the seats will be divvied up according to the percentage of the vote the parties receive. After that the seats will be further subdivided by demographics. The House must be made to “look like America.” This will, of course, make party chairs the ultimate kingmakers, but that’s ok since the folks pushing these schemes have every intention of being among those that hand out the crowns.
The rallying cry is, and will be, “proportionality.” As the Democratic Presidential primary season kicks off in the next couple of months after the midterms, make sure that word is on your debate bingo card. You will be hearing it a lot. You were promised “the fundamental transformation” of the United States. And you ain’t seen nothin’ yet.
ADDENDUM: Also on your debate bingo card should be a square about the “illegitimacy” of the Supreme Court. They are also laying the foundations for either completely neutering the rulings of SCOTUS and/or presenting a scheme to begin expanding the membership to turn a 5-4 court into a 6-5 court (or greater).Published in Politics
@raygunner: They need time and Treasury’s printing press to line their pockets enough so that, when the end comes under their model, they’ve got the scratch to unass and go to their individual fortresses of solitude. Imposing their plans/philosophy/politics on a single state wouldn’t give them the time or the ready access to cash to score a win big enough to ride out the fall.
The Dems simply want mob rule long enough to manipulate it’s mobs and thugs to vest all power in the State and nothing in the individual. They want to ride that Mob Rule Democracy Train to the point it grants them an effective dictatorship and then they ‘ll get off that train and declare Mission Accomplished!
Till they want the holdouts to welcome them in…
Indeed. What happens if Texas is more friendly to business than California? Well then CA losses business and TX gains, that is unfair tax competition. You’re depriving CA of the funds it needs to bankroll the socialist paradise due to your dirty unfair competition.
If you want to see the argument openly in action follow debates in Europe about EU, Ireland and taxes. That is pretty much their exact argument and Leftists here think the same way.
That is not likely to end well for them:
The military is likely to be drawn from resistant areas.
The areas with the highest density of firearms are most likely to be resistant.
Urban areas are much more vulnerable to loss of services.
When the Soviets wanted to put down the protests at Novocherkassk in 1961, the general in charge (Matvey Shaposhnikov) was not willing to give the order to fire on his own country’s people. So the Soviets brought in another general who did. There will usually be someone willing to do it.
And those people were relatively gentle and sane in comparison to our leftists.
To argue with them on their own terms: “So, minorities should not be protected, and majorities should be able to oppress minorities?”
And right there you have struck the very core of the problem: Progressives are essentially immature children, who refuse to grow up and accept the facts of life. Conservativism is where you will find the grown-ups.
Such a change is so radical as to make the Constitution moot. Before that happens, we should just create an amendment that designates how states can exit the union, in whole or in part, then let the lefties go their own way. We have the layout for most any number of stars on the flag from 13-50.
That is probably a good read on the agenda of the far left and if that minority wins the Presidency with one of their candidates, they will move in that direction. They won’t pay any attention to the constitution. They’ll form urban literacy and training programs to help minorities become employable, and folks will applaud, but it’l be a fraud, and will do what far left governments always do, turn them into propaganda and militant armies, brown shirts, so they don’t have to call out the national guard or rely on the military. BLM that Obama helped create will become an organized centrally directed institution. Is this an exaggeration? Not if the crazies are able to elect one of theirs and if, in that election they take control of Congress. These people are stalinists. As long as they are led by the far left and corrupt dishonest politicians like Schumer follow them the Party is an existential threat to the Republic. They already control most political and information institutions from which they must be rooted out. We don’t need to replace them with conservatives, just with people who believe there is such a thing as truth and that freedom under the rule of law is crucial. They must be out there. Dershowitz cant be the only honest Democrat who sees who these people have become. In the mean time Democrats must be defeated everywhere until they shed the far left and help clean up our schools and the media. Until they again join the fight for freedom under the rule of law even their moderates are part of the problem and so are folks on our side who vote for them just because they hate Trump.
OK, I would like someone to lay out the path, from here to there, of how the Democrats eliminate the Senate without the consent of the States.
I just don’t see how we get to that.
I’ll split the baby on this one.
The entire purpose of the Senate was to represent the States, not the people of the States.
By deciding to elect Senators by popular vote instead of having them selected by state legislations, we’ve essentially turned Senators into de facto Representatives with somewhat larger districts. If the Senate is going to be elected by popular vote, I see a fair argument that each voter should have a roughly equal share of the outcome.
In general, the problem with many conservative “but the Founders wanted…” arguments is that we’ve already changed the playing field dramatically from the original intents, both for the Senate and the Electoral College. I doubt the Founders would recognize or give their blessing to our current pigmy system which is neither democratic nor particularly republican anymore.
For me, the irony of the Democrats turning blue in the face yelling “unfair!” about the Senate is that in many elections, the Senate reflects the partisan split in the popular vote much more faithfully than does the House of Representatives, for the simple reason that House districts can be gerrymandered while Senate districts obviously cannot be. That’s also why the Senate is currently the more centrist of the two chambers.
Yet Democrats seem to miss this point because….rapist on the Supreme Court.
The Senate cannot be removed by amending the Constitution. The Constitution exempts the existence of the Senate or its composition from amendment except if every state agrees:
The Congress, whenever two thirds of both houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose amendments to this Constitution, or, on the application of the legislatures of two thirds of the several states, shall call a convention for proposing amendments, which, in either case, shall be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the legislatures of three fourths of the several states, or by conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other mode of ratification may be proposed by the Congress; provided that no amendment which may be made prior to the year one thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any manner affect the first and fourth clauses in the ninth section of the first article; and that no state, without its consent, shall be deprived of its equal suffrage in the Senate.
I have come to believe that the solution to our obvious political discord is to devolve power from the Federal Government back to the individual states. Doing so would be much more inline with the original intent of our founding fathers and the nation would be much more harmonious. Don’t like your state’s abortion laws? Move to one you like. Don’t like your state’s gun laws? Move. Don’t like your state’s health care laws? Move. Don’t like your states taxes? Move.
“One-size fits all” government doesn’t work for a nation of over 300 million people.
The national government should only have jurisdiction over those issues which are truly national, like foreign relations; national defense; borders and immigration (which will no longer be hot-button issues because the voting/power issue will be gone); commerce between the states and foreign nations; disputes between the states; etc.
Maybe this wouldn’t be a good solution. I’m pretty sure that neither side would be willing to make the compromises to make it happen. But it’s either this, or slice off the left coast and New England and we’re done.
This is the only long term cure.
NOPE. I have FB friends my age and older (which means they should know better, imho) that post these ideas all the time. It’s maddening.
I believe many conservatives see the wisdom in this approach. The problem is that most progressives don’t. Besides Republicans during and just after the Civil War, progressives in the 20th Century were the ones who did great damage to states’ rights by pulling power from the states into the national realm. If Republicans continue to win at the national level, maybe progressives will see the wisdom in this approach.
I know nominal adults who think the same thing, but are convinced that a civil war, properly conducted, would see a Progressive run government sending the military in to eliminate the militias and other right wing elements. The issue would be gun confiscation, so whether the sinners are disarmed or killed it’s a win-win for the forces of social justice.
Plus it’s an end run around that pesky Constitution. We don’t need no stinkin’ amendments!
” …..[t]he Progressive Left is not interested in your civics lessons or talk about the history of the Constitution. For them, the United States is fundamentally flawed …”
Unless they hold power, then, ‘obey’ is the watchword, with the usual pen and phone histrionics.
The ultimate goal, I believe, is not to amend the Constitution but replace it. Watch for state referendums on ballots. If SCOTUS rules that’s unconstitutional, well, who cares what they say? The court is illegitimate. Gorsuch is sitting in a stolen seat and Kavanaugh was installed against the will of the people!
The Left wants to make everyone live by the same rules. Once had a leftist tell me the people of San Francisco should tell the people of Hunstville, AL how to live.
EJ, how does this work, exactly? A state sends more than two people to the Senate?
I believe, from all I’ve read (e.g., Federalist Papers, etc.), that this is the original intent. Getting the original order re-established may prove impossible though.
The ultimate goal is probably a parliamentary system.
To my mind the best possible reform of the Electoral College is not abolished, but rather to award electors by congressional district. With 2 electors being awarded to the winner of the state. This would turn every state into a battle ground state and turn every campaign into a 50 state national campaign where all issues of national interest are debated.
If Exxon can be pressured into spending money to promote a carbon tax, the states can be pressured into agreeing to this.
If we want to devolve power to the states, then we need to let California enact its own internet regulation (net neutrality, so-called) and sanctuary cities.
OK with me. The local internet providers in California (someone is providing the “last mile” service in the location) can slow down everyone’s internet to the slowest common denominator. ICE can withdraw all of its personnel from California and set up border control stations at the California border.
The problem is that California is able to muscle corporations into compliance with their rules across the board. They would be able to assert de facto authority over the rest of the country.