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
This post was promoted to the Main Feed by a Ricochet Editor at the recommendation of Ricochet members. Like this post? Want to comment? Join Ricochet’s community of conservatives and be part of the conversation. Join Ricochet for Free.

There are 94 comments.

Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.
  1. The Reticulator Member
    The Reticulator
    @TheReticulator

    Bryan G. Stephens (View Comment):

    The Reticulator (View Comment):

    Bryan G. Stephens (View Comment):

    The Reticulator (View Comment):

    Bryan G. Stephens (View Comment):

    The Reticulator (View Comment):

    Seawriter (View Comment):
    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:

    If Exxon can be pressured into spending money to promote a carbon tax, the states can be pressured into agreeing to this.

    Please map this out. Thanks.

    I don’t know exactly which way it would be done. But when so much state funding comes from the feds, there are a lot of levers. It probably wouldn’t be as overt as forcing them to set speed limits or else lose highway funding, or accept their police oversight or lose federal police funding, but I wouldn’t count on states’ ability or desire to act independently when their budgets are not independent.

    So your roadmap is that the Federal Government will use its money to bribe states into giving up their Senate Seats?

    No. That probably wouldn’t work, and it would also be too expensive.

    I keep asking on this thread what the pathway people see to elimination of the Senate. I am all ready to be upset and anxious. I just need a plausable pathway.

    Well, letting the ABA have a big influence on Supreme Court nominees is one way to lessen the relevance of the Senate.  That project may have taken a step backwards with the latest ploy on Kavanaugh, which was a step too quick, too far.  So it will have to wait a while before the next two steps forward are taken.

    As to sudden, outright elimination of the Senate?  That’s not going to happen in our current situation. Even Stalin had to lay the groundwork for each step forward in grabbing more power.  And even Stalin/Putin don’t usually know the plausible pathway in advance, but they were/are opportunistic.  

    So I don’t know why you need a plausible pathway, when most tyrannies did not develop over a path carefully planned in detail in advance. 

    • #91
  2. Full Size Tabby Member
    Full Size Tabby
    @FullSizeTabby

    Bryan G. Stephens (View Comment):

    Full Size Tabby (View Comment):

    Bryan G. Stephens (View Comment):

    Judge Mental (View Comment):

    How’s this for an approach, Bryan They put forward a constitutional amendment eliminating the need for future amendments, by giving Congress the power to change the constitution. The argument will be that the constitution isn’t working, but that it’s too hard and takes too long to change it. One last hurdle, and they can do what they want forever.

     

    First off, there is no way such a thing would pass 3/4 of the states. If that would pass, then it is all over anyway. Second, technically, that part cannot be amended. States cannot be stripped of their rights in the Senate if they do not agree.

    Anybody think they’d go so far as to just declare that the Constitution is now obsolete and just ignore it? Nancy Pelosi said 8 years ago that that she didn’t think there needed to be any authority in the Constitution to enact the legislation she wanted (at the time, Obamacare).

    Amend the Senate rules to give each Senator “votes” proportional to the state population. So, each Senator from Nebraska (population about 500,000, I think) would have 1 vote. Each Senator from California (population about 40 million, I think) would have 80 votes.

    What Senator is going to vote for that who is getting screwed? Any such change would require the consent of the people getting screwed.

    Basically, the Democrats can turn into real tyrants if they already are tyrants.

    Well, because they already have. Several Senators have said over the years they want the President and others to do the work of the Senate. They encouraged Obama to use his pen and phone so that the Senate didn’t have to do the hard work of legislating. I think some Senators would be fine with having their vote diminished so long as they could continue to bloviate in front of cameras.

    • #92
  3. Bryan G. Stephens Thatcher
    Bryan G. Stephens
    @BryanGStephens

    The Reticulator (View Comment):

    Bryan G. Stephens (View Comment):

    The Reticulator (View Comment):

    Bryan G. Stephens (View Comment):

    The Reticulator (View Comment):

    Bryan G. Stephens (View Comment):

    The Reticulator (View Comment):

    Seawriter (View Comment):
    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:

    If Exxon can be pressured into spending money to promote a carbon tax, the states can be pressured into agreeing to this.

    Please map this out. Thanks.

    I don’t know exactly which way it would be done. But when so much state funding comes from the feds, there are a lot of levers. It probably wouldn’t be as overt as forcing them to set speed limits or else lose highway funding, or accept their police oversight or lose federal police funding, but I wouldn’t count on states’ ability or desire to act independently when their budgets are not independent.

    So your roadmap is that the Federal Government will use its money to bribe states into giving up their Senate Seats?

    No. That probably wouldn’t work, and it would also be too expensive.

    I keep asking on this thread what the pathway people see to elimination of the Senate. I am all ready to be upset and anxious. I just need a plausable pathway.

    Well, letting the ABA have a big influence on Supreme Court nominees is one way to lessen the relevance of the Senate. That project may have taken a step backwards with the latest ploy on Kavanaugh, which was a step too quick, too far. So it will have to wait a while before the next two steps forward are taken.

    As to sudden, outright elimination of the Senate? That’s not going to happen in our current situation. Even Stalin had to lay the groundwork for each step forward in grabbing more power. And even Stalin/Putin don’t usually know the plausible pathway in advance, but they were/are opportunistic.

    So I don’t know why you need a plausible pathway, when most tyrannies did not develop over a path carefully planned in detail in advance.

    If you want me to be upset and worried that something might happen, I need to believe it is plausible. That does not mean a careful plan in advance. 

    I am not going to get upset when there is no way presented things might happen. 

    • #93
  4. The Reticulator Member
    The Reticulator
    @TheReticulator

    Bryan G. Stephens (View Comment):
    I am not going to get upset when there is no way presented things might happen. 

    I thought we were talking about protecting our form of constitutional government. Getting upset is optional.  

    • #94
Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.