Great idea. Who pays for it?
This same phenomenon shows why California will struggle to replace the federal government for funding basic research.
Every time Californians urge to give the federal government more power, even for "good" things, the rules of the game virtually demand it will be used against them. This might be a necessary evil for the bare minimums (military protection, federal court to settle contracts, enforcement of some federal laws), but I don't understand how Californians justify that every positive intention will be turned against them and carry on anyway.
In the US, the rich always win anyway. Full stop.
If you believe otherwise, I’m sorry to say, but you’ve probably not been paying attention.
Under the current administration, as under all administrations, it’s the poor and middle class states that have the problem.
The entire reason we have the senate is because the less populated slave states didn't want to get steam rolled by the the more populated northern free states. It was an anti-democracy measure to ensure low population regions get over-represented.
i.e. California for a very long time, and even on rare occasion today, is constantly harassed by the DEA over intrastate commerce of marijuana despite the federal government having no power to do so. Californians were basically made to fund the extra-constitutional enforcement against them voted for by other states with per-capita outsized votes.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_colonial_and_pre-Fed...
Virginia would had still been the most populous or at least second most populous state if only white people were counted.
Also there were plenty of small states in the Northeast with very small populations.
* Free states: 1,390,067
* Slave states: 1,390,302 - 500,000 = 890,302
> Still not that massive in relative terms
I don't know why you persist in saying this.
[1] https://userpages.umbc.edu/~bouton/History407/SlaveStats.htm
1780 is probably not the best year, though. e.g. New York was still a slave state. Of course the gap only grew bigger over time
Sclerotic severe gerrymandering of every seat in the House of Representatives, enabled by the Roberts Court, though, is new.
tl;dr: the Republican party recognized that demographic shifts were going to make them a permanent minority in the House, so they refused to re-apportion the number of house members after the 1920 census, then in 1929 decided to cap the number of representatives permanently.
The simple fix is to repeal the law and apportion seats properly, likely by significantly growing the size of the House.
However, in typical Democrat fashion, they never bothered repealing the act and re-apportioning properly once they had power to do so.
1: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reapportionment_Act_of_1929
I wonder if this sort of thing has ever been tried.
He was ultimately assassinated in 44BC. I believe his name was Julius Caesar.
Probably led to his downfall. Augustus made sure to squash all potential sources of opposition before taking over.
Also it’s not like Caesar was the first to do what he did. He followed in the steps of a much more brutal and oppressive conservative/reactionary tyrant who almost had him executed a few decades ago.
Also Sulla and his opponents in the preceding civil war. Who paved the way for Cesar.
Sounds like S E C E S S I O N
Mexico
Ideally the Federal gov't gets back into play, but we shouldn't plan for that future. It's a nice to have, but its a single point of failure. Especially if the Supreme Court doesn't believe in the independence of agencies anymore.
As an example, the American Academy of Pediatrics now has their own vaccine schedule, which they didn't have before. Nobody in their right mind trusts the CDC / FDA on this right now.