The Harvard Law Revie recently published an unsigned law note proposing a plan to give control of the U. S. Senate and House of Representatives to neighborhoods of the District of Columbia divided into 127 new states by an act of Congress, without consent or approval of the existing 50 states or a constitutional convention. HLR’s law note asserts this should be done to equalize voting power among citizens of different states, when the proposed outcome would create a national political aristocracy centered in the DC swamp.
Unfair: Two Senators Per State
The HLR law note mounts its attack against the Constitution and the Republican Party on a premise given wings in the Declaration of Independence. Originally written by Thomas Jefferson more than a decade before the Constitutional Convention as “all men are created equal,” the premise is now restated in HLR as “all are created equal.”
Viewing this premise as violated by actions taken at the Constitutional Convention to establish an upper legislative chamber comprised of two senators from each state, HLR’s law note contends this design must be undone as a matter of deep moral principle because a California resident shares two senators with many more other citizens than does a Wyoming resident, due to those states being at or near opposite ends of population counts among the states.
A Republic, Not A Democracy
But who would seriously dispute that a U. S. Senator’s influence affecting public interests or Senate actions is to some degree directly proportional to the size of state and number of constituents represented? Senators representing larger constituencies commonly raise more money for their campaigns, get more attention, wield more influence and potentially may be more talented because drawn from a larger pool of eligible candidates than senators from less populous states. In every instance, intellect, energy, relationships and values – among other qualities – of individuals elected to that high office greatly affect the quality of representation provided to constituents of U. S. Senators.
The case simply cannot be made that those who signed and ratified the U. S. Constitution did not consider the “all men are created equal” premise when they proceeded to design a bicameral legislative branch of a government intended to be a republic – not a democracy. Representatives in the lower house were to be elected by qualified voters within districts in each state drawn to equalize population, while the upper chamber would be comprised of two representatives (senators) from each state in the federal union.
A decision by the founders that every elected federal legislative official must have a popular constituency of the same size would have precluded the bicameral design which was so essential to attract states with varying sizes, locations, resources and population into the union. Indeed, elevating the sanctity of equal voting power for each person above all other considerations would have required the framers to produce a democracy – not a republic – whereby every citizen would be entitled to vote directly upon every item to be acted upon by the government. Clearly, Franklin and the convention determined to establish a republic in which legislators are elected by eligible voters, thereby submerging the “all (eligible voters) created equal” principle within the greater good.
This has been the express design of the signed Constitution, which has controlled every American federal election since its ratification. Article V of the Constitution expressly requires a two-thirds vote of both the House and the Senate merely to propose any amendment of the Constitution. Then, in addition, three-fourths of all states must have ratified the proposed amendment if it is to become effective.
Subverting The Constitution Is Unacceptable
Rather than respect this careful and clear pathway to amending the Constitution, the HLR law note promotes what amounts to a sneak legislative attack which would scrap the fundamental constitutional design just described. A mere majority vote of House and Senate would pass a law abruptly shrinking the size of the existing District of Columbia to include only the major federal buildings of the Executive, Legislative and Judicial Branches. Simultaneously the excluded areas of DC would be divided into “a bevy” of neighborhood-sized “states” (127 of them, to be exact!) and admitted into the Union.
Each new state created from a DC neighborhood would be entitled to one representative in Congress and two senators in the Senate! HLR’s law note gleefully and revealingly asserts that every DC subdivision voted overwhelmingly for Democrat Party candidates in 2016, so “states” comprised of those subdivisions could be relied upon to elect representatives and senators friendly to the objectives of the Democrat Party. That is the true motive of this attack on the integrity of the Constitution.
This is what passes for intellectual integrity in classrooms, offices and publications of the titular flagship of academic prestige in America at year 2020. Harvard Law is the same academic institution which completed the formal education of Franklin D. Roosevelt. But FDR learned by some means to disguise his true motives with the skills of a professional actor before becoming president (as a Democrat) and imposing the Great Depression on America and the world. Surely FDR would have advised the HLR law notes authors to keep the plot to themselves, at least until after implementation.
Those behind the HLR law note plot would prefer having full power over America formally centered within the very swamp President Donald Trump was elected by landslide to drain. They would do so upon the entirely false pretext that this would achieve fair and equal representation of Americans across the country. In fact, political power under the plotters’ design would be far more centralized in DC than ever before. Only those willing and able to ally themselves with political views of the DC swamp (operatives for the globalist cabal) could hope to advance their local, national or international interests.
Think of the implications of DC being converted into 127 states with 127 congressional representatives and 254 senators. This is proposed as the means to bring fair and equal representation to all Americans across every state!!?? The proposal is entirely outrageous, and a person seeking to advance the plan may be well advised to consider whether doing so is an act of treason to subvert the Constitution.