How do we stop all the Red states from becoming another California
COVID19 has shown us how the progressives love power and hate personal liberty. Yet more and more states keep going blue. Why is this? How do we stop it?
Here’s the problem, in the 80’s people got disgusted with California and its blueness. So, they moved out to states like Oregon. Oregon in the 80’s saw the influx of Californians and the resultant cost of living increases in their state, some put out signs saying “Welcome to Oregon – now go home.”
But it didn’t work, as many Californians still moved there. After they settled in Oregon, they voted for the same destructive policies that they had voted for in California. As a result turned Oregon ultra-liberal, and made a mess of it.
Then, Californians thought, OK, Washington State looks good so they went there and repeated the process. Naturally Washington went ultra-liberal soon after.
When the entire West coast became the “Left” coast, folks fleeing California and those liberal states due to their high taxes and/or progressive policies, decided to move out to Colorado instead.
But as always, once they got there, they voted for the same policies that they’d voted for in California. And Colorado went liberal. Remember when Colorado was the heart of the conservatives, with Focus on the Family and many large conservative ministries. Now look at it.
Today, everyone is now looking at Idaho. But won’t history will repeat itself there too? Within 10-20 years Idaho will become liberal.
How do we stop the spread of this disease?
It’s going to take over the entire US at this rate.
But here’s the part we forget.
It’s inevitable. Once there are enough liberals, say in Multnomah county in Oregon, they get a majority of liberals elected to local city councils. They don’t even need to be a majority. They just need to be active. This is easy, especially since Christians and Pastors tend not to get involved in politics. Most Christians don’t vote and most pastors won’t talk about laws and policies. They seem to forget that it was Christians and pastors who got involved in politics to stop Widow Immolation in India, Bride Kidnapping in Scandinavia, Slavery around the world and change thousands of laws that even atheists accept as normal today. Christians are also the ones leading the fight against Sex Trafficking.
So, without the voice of Christians, liberals come to power and do what comes natural to them. They create new programs for low income housing, where there wasn’t a huge need before. They build new high-density buildings and government assistance programs. They attract more and of a certain kind of people to the center of town. These folks are only there because of the magnet programs that the liberals have created. Had they stayed where they were, they would have worked harder to be self-sufficient and most probably have thrived. But with handouts being advertised, they gravitate to these handout centers and get stuck in a socio-economic downward spiral. By the way, have you ever wondered why any Mayor or Governor would want homeless people in their city? See some of the links at the end of this article to see why.
These incoming folks, self-screen because they are attracted to the handouts from government. And they eventually feel it’s a right (watch this video to learn the difference between rights vs. goods or services).
Well, eventually those few liberal counties have enough of a population that they end up with more voting power the rest of the entire state. In States like Washington, something like 9 counties own a majority of the seats in the state senate and assembly. These counties control the other 30. In California 3 major metro areas, LA, SF and San Diego control the entire state.
As a result, today in Oregon, Washington and California, conservatives want to split up and carve out their own new state. In Eastern Washington they want to join Idaho. Which is interesting because Idaho was originally carved out of the Washington Territories in 1863.
The Washington Territory (green) and the State of Oregon in 1859
Creating a new state is hard and it is not a long-term solution.
- It’s hard to carve out a new state, because the liberals have no incentive to give up a taxpaying base that brings in money and doesn’t take much of it back.
- It’s not a long-term solution. Those new states, if they ever are carved out, will be so well managed financially, have better opportunities, be cleaner, and won’t have homeless sleeping on the sidewalks and camping on their streets and creating health hazards. Liberals will see that and want to move to the new state and then they’ll just vote for the same madness that ruined their former state. And the vicious cycle will repeat itself until all of America is BLUE.
But how do we stop this from happening? Is it an inevitable disease that will kill liberty in America?
Here’s one of the root problems: You see in each state’s Capitol they have an assembly and a senate with a fixed number of members in each chamber. What happens is that both the State Assembly and the State Senate are appointed proportionately to the population of the state. So, as the state liberal population grows in the city centers, they simply end up with more assembly members and more senators and they take over that state’s congress. These population centers then control and run the entire state. And since the liberals attract more liberals and repel conservatives (they start fleeing), it’s like a disease, once it sets in you can’t stop it. It feeds on itself and grows.
But that’s NOT the case in Washington DC. In the US Senate, every state gets 2 senators. It doesn’t matter if they are California with 37M or Idaho with 1.8M.
Why is this important?
Because the founding fathers didn’t want the most populous states to run the country. It’s part and parcel of the electoral college.
On a side note:
It’s not often remembered, but originally the US DC Senators were supposed to be appointed by the State Legislature and not elected by the people. This was so that they could control any nonsense that the mob elected US House of Representatives may come up with, despite how popular those bad policies were with the masses. The idea was that the US Senate would stop any bad spending plans and bad laws. It’s was true representative government, with the States having the most power to veto things. It was put there by the founding fathers precisely for that reason. Sadly, this was changed with the 17th Amendment around the same time that the private Federal Reserve was created.
Yet, today, while US Senators are elected through a popular vote, they still can regulate the laws coming out of DC, if it’s not good for their state. Sadly, as states go blue, more and more US Senators will end up being liberals.
But why is this all relevant?
I had an idea one day. What if we could change the State Senate to be like the US Senate? Let’s take Idaho as an example. If Idaho which is still conservative, can pass a law saying that from now on, their local State Capitol senators are going to be assigned at the rate of 1 or 2 per county, not proportionally assigned like in CA.
That means even if the county that Boise is in, becomes huge and ends up with 15M people, they will only have 2 senators in the Boise Capitol and that way you won’t end up with a few populous counties running the entire state. These senators could stop all the nonsense proposed by the State Assembly.
I figured you could only do it in a fully conservative state. Ask the folks of that state if they wanted to be protected from becoming another California or Washington or Colorado and have the house, senate and Governors vote accordingly.
Now I thought this was a genius idea…. until I started doing research on it.
So, here’s what I found. I found that I was about 230 years behind the founders of the states.
Did you know that until 1964, all counties in all states had only 1 or 2 senators per county in their state Capitol? For instance, LA County only had 1 senator though they had 400,000 residents vs. Alpine county which had 1 senator and only 400 residents.
The smaller counties were protected from the tyranny of mob rule.
That means my idea is not new, and not mine, and in fact WAS the rule of law for almost 180 years of American History.
It all changes
Then in 1964, a few supreme court cases were passed by the most liberal Supreme Court till that time. Reynolds vs. Sim (1964), Baker v. Carr (1962) and Wesberry v. Sanders (1964). It was Justice Earl Warren’s court and on it were many of the justices who in 1973 gave us Roe vs. Wade—the Court that discovered “a faint shadow” of privacy that allowed women to kill their unborn babies. As if you are allowed to kill anyone in private.
The Justices took it upon themselves to dictate that the states had to be governed like a democracy. They claimed that the 2 local Senators per County violated the US Constitution because it wasn’t one man one vote?
“The eight justices who struck down state senate inequality based their decision on the principle of “one person, one vote.” In his majority decision, Chief Justice Earl Warren said “Legislators represent people, not trees or acres. Legislators are elected by voters, not farms or cities or economic interests.” In addition, the majority simply denied the argument that states were permitted to base their apportionment structures upon the Constitution itself, which requires two senators from each state despite substantially unequal populations among the states.”
It wasn’t that they didn’t see the problem. One brave senator Everett Dirksen of Illinois led a fight to pass a constitutional amendment allowing legislative districts based on land area, similar to the United States Senate. He warned that:
“[T]he forces of our national life are not brought to bear on public questions solely in proportion to the weight of numbers. If they were, the 6 million citizens of the Chicago area would hold sway in the Illinois Legislature without consideration of the problems of their 4 million fellows who are scattered in 100 other counties. Under the Court’s new decree, California could be dominated by Los Angeles and San Francisco; Michigan by Detroit.”
They knew what would happen and it did.
The founding fathers wrote right into the Constitution that we should not have one man one vote in the US Senate; and for the rest of their lives, many of those founders returned to their states as governors and leaders knowing that fact and never writing or bringing it up as unconstitutional (as far as I know). So how on earth could it be unconstitutional?
What if we could reverse that very rotten Supreme Court ruling?
What if we had a Supreme Court that would go back to the original intent of the Constitution? We don’t need an amendment. We simply need a court with originalists/strict constructionists.
So, here’s what I think we need to do.
- Make sure Trump gets re-elected.
- Make sure he adds one more or maybe 2 more Supreme court nominees who are originalists. Originalists believe that we should go to the original intent of the law and if we don’t like it, we have to change it through an amendment process – not randomly on the whims and preferences of the SCOTUS.
Yes, we have a majority now, but one of them is Chief Justice Roberts who is a wild card and often votes against reason. Maybe Ginsberg will retire.
- We get a state like Idaho (or any state that has a conservative house, senate and governorship) to pass a law that says: Every county in the state has to revert back to the pre-1964 allocation of 1 or 2 senators per county as they used to.
This law will be challenged (if it isn’t, we make sure it is by getting someone to sue us, to ensure it goes all the way to the Supreme Court).
The SCOTUS then overrules the past rulings as invalid and unconstitutional. At least 2 judges have noted that past rulings should not determine future rulings, especially if those rulings were faulty. In legal terms this is called Stare Decisis. Which if you think about it, is a concept rotten to the core. Just because a group of Judges biasedly made a bad decision, why should free people be stuck with it?
Now two things could happen. The ideal case would be that the SCOTUS says all states have to go back to the original method because the ruling was negated all the way back to 1964 and all subsequent laws are invalidated. This would mean even California would have to do this!! Imagine what California could be, if those 3 metropolitan areas didn’t run the entire state.
The non-ideal but most probable second option would be that the SCOTUS says that any State that wants to go back to this system could do so if they wished. This is the most likely because after the 1964 Ruling, most state legislatures still had to approve the lousy SCOTUS ruling and implement it. But this would mean that all conservative states could pass a law to return to the pre 1964 system. This would prevent any changes in California, Oregon or Washington but if any new states were carved out, they’d be protected.
In later years (after we win this first battle) some of the States could also try to pass a state amendment to say that the governor is also chosen by an electoral vote like the president, not by a majority vote. This is critical to ensure that each county is viewed as significant as any of the major metropolitan centers, and ensures that at least 2 branches of state government will be chosen by logical and rational people.
Folks, the reasoning for the original ruling is full of holes. We just need some originalist judges to rule on it. We need some constitutional attorneys to agree to work with us. We don’t need any liberals to agree with us, we don’t need a majority of the US to agree. We just need Idaho or another conservative state to work with us and we need the Supreme Court.
This is important and it could be done. If we do it, we can stop the liberal disease in America. If we don’t, well, first Idaho will become liberal, followed by Texas, then South Carolina and so on until one day, the US will become Venezuela.
Contact me, comment below, share this page and join our movement to alert Red State Legislators about what they can do (see below).