The Harvard Law Review has published a proposal for supposedly enhancing a better democracy than that which the Federal (not really) government now oversees. The proposal has no official name but is born, it would appear, from the same milieu as the French Revolution i.e, power to the people—that is, the mob. Harvard Review proposes what effectively amounts to a national state-led by mob leaders in Washington.
This would come about, as per the proposal, by a congressional majority vote of dividing the District of Columbia into 127 neighborhoods which in turn (by congressional majority vote) would become 127 states. Each state would, of course, have two Senators and a single representative. Each state would be approximately 320 acres.
This new arrangement would give the magnificent morons in the current national capital control of everyone else from sea to shining sea. Government of and by New York City law and California morality. America the Beautiful. A modern French Revolution. Heads would roll. A Robespierre delight.
But this proposal really is a result of something that conservatives and Republicans (not always the same) have brought upon themselves. And without a rally to reclaim history from the Eric Foner revisionists, this is the American future. Total rule from Washington. There truly will be an “exceptionalism.”
That “bringing” is the constant promotion that the United States is not a Union of States, but an amalgamation of states created magically in 1776. This is the Eric Foner nonsense that is peddled whereby States have no sovereign rights. They may abide in the union only as long as they behave. And if they don’t behave, they will stay anyway under any number of so-called civil rights laws.
The belief seems to be that the states upon ratification of the Constitution (years after 1776) surrendered their sovereignty to a national (called federal) government. This white flag gesture made them no more than what county governments are in relation to their appropriate state.
And now these conservatives claim that the people are protected by the Electoral College; that is, they claim, the reason the founders put it in was to protect the small states (population) from the large ones. Nonsense! It was in there because sovereign states voted, and not a national conglomeration of people. The people weren’t voting for or against Hillary. The states were.
The Harvard proposal it claims is to fix America’s “broken democracy.”
Every state, in the union, is supposed to be guaranteed a republican form of government–not a democratic form.
What about its broken republic?
Why are Virginians begging for their God-given rights to keep and bear arms (not government-given) from the state of Virginia?
Why is it that babies who are guaranteed life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness while lying “comfortably” in a hamper waiting to get their brains crushed should beg, if they could talk, for the state of Virginia to do them no harm?
Governing foreseen by the Founders, except for foreign-born Hamilton nationalists, was to be local. It was to be from the sovereign states they were part of. Nullification was righteous and proper. Secession was righteous and proper. Theirs was a republic of republics; republics comprised of sovereign governments.
Now that great sanctuary of brilliance, Harvard Law School, manned by modern Jacobins sees a new “age of reason.” A land where 127 oligarchs created in Washington D.C. will be the U.S. Committee of Public Safety.
Even Robespierre thought such was a good idea until one day when he found himself on his knees with his hands behind his back, and a huge blade of steel racing toward his neck.
Hail to The Crimson– and the Foners. All foolishness is carried out by fools.