Harvard Law Review: Avoid permanent minority rule in the US by making DC into *many* states

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Yeah sure. And we'll to the same thing with every one-stoplight town in every red state on the map. Our states, our rules. Just like DC.

Except we have a lot more.

So you can go from being governed by a conservative minority, to be governed by a conservative majority.


Your decision.

Whooosh. You completely missed the point.

[Anonymous]

And, who will be the Senators? The DC Council? Just resigned Jack Evans?

[Anonymous]

OMG, you all are taking the summary of the article at face value and missing the point. Start over and don't read the DC part too literally.

[Anonymous]

Waste of paper. Not even worth reading.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Waste of paper. Not even worth reading.

That sums up most law review articles.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We haven’t had a civil war I quite some time, so maybe we are due.

I hope you are a troll, otherwise this is an incredibly stupid comment.

Not at all. Such a naked attempt to make rural states subservient to the coasts could very well lead to a civil war, or potentially Velvet Revolution and a peaceful separation in a better case.

+1, the next civil war will be an urban vs rural one.

Cities don't grow food. Cities don't produce energy. Cities don't have most of the power plants that produce the electricity in the power grid.

What cities DO have is an abundance of libs who like to tell others how they can live. And frankly, we rural folk don't need that.

So when you folks start the next civil war, probably with some kind of gun confiscation stunt, we're going to wait until the next winter, take down all the high tension wires that supply you with electrical power, blow the pipelines that supply the gas that keeps your cities warm, the water aquaducts that give you your city water, and blockade the interstates where your food comes in.

Then you can freeze and starve all winter.

We'll fight whoever's left alive in the spring.


That's what the next civil war will look like. And we're training for it all the time.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We haven’t had a civil war I quite some time, so maybe we are due.

I hope you are a troll, otherwise this is an incredibly stupid comment.

Not at all. Such a naked attempt to make rural states subservient to the coasts could very well lead to a civil war, or potentially Velvet Revolution and a peaceful separation in a better case.

+1, the next civil war will be an urban vs rural one.

Cities don't grow food. Cities don't produce energy. Cities don't have most of the power plants that produce the electricity in the power grid.

What cities DO have is an abundance of libs who like to tell others how they can live. And frankly, we rural folk don't need that.

So when you folks start the next civil war, probably with some kind of gun confiscation stunt, we're going to wait until the next winter, take down all the high tension wires that supply you with electrical power, blow the pipelines that supply the gas that keeps your cities warm, the water aquaducts that give you your city water, and blockade the interstates where your food comes in.

Then you can freeze and starve all winter.

We'll fight whoever's left alive in the spring.


That's what the next civil war will look like. And we're training for it all the time.

First off, you are everything that is wrong with this country. Setting that aside, though, what do you think the US armed forces will be doing all this time. Or do you automatically assume they will side with you?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We haven’t had a civil war I quite some time, so maybe we are due.

I hope you are a troll, otherwise this is an incredibly stupid comment.

Not at all. Such a naked attempt to make rural states subservient to the coasts could very well lead to a civil war, or potentially Velvet Revolution and a peaceful separation in a better case.

Last time didn’t work out too well for them.

But sure, bring on the fat bubbas and their guns. They seem to think liberals aren’t armed or something.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We haven’t had a civil war I quite some time, so maybe we are due.

I hope you are a troll, otherwise this is an incredibly stupid comment.

Not at all. Such a naked attempt to make rural states subservient to the coasts could very well lead to a civil war, or potentially Velvet Revolution and a peaceful separation in a better case.

+1, the next civil war will be an urban vs rural one.

Cities don't grow food. Cities don't produce energy. Cities don't have most of the power plants that produce the electricity in the power grid.

What cities DO have is an abundance of libs who like to tell others how they can live. And frankly, we rural folk don't need that.

So when you folks start the next civil war, probably with some kind of gun confiscation stunt, we're going to wait until the next winter, take down all the high tension wires that supply you with electrical power, blow the pipelines that supply the gas that keeps your cities warm, the water aquaducts that give you your city water, and blockade the interstates where your food comes in.

Then you can freeze and starve all winter.

We'll fight whoever's left alive in the spring.


That's what the next civil war will look like. And we're training for it all the time.

First off, you are everything that is wrong with this country. Setting that aside, though, what do you think the US armed forces will be doing all this time. Or do you automatically assume they will side with you?

DP. Who do you think actually serves in the military? Sure, there are inner city poor, but do you think they will want to die for this liberal fever dream? The DCUM/Harvard Law Review set doesn’t serve with very limited exceptions.

[Anonymous]

This is a “note” written by a student editor of the Law Review. There’s nothing wrong with students, of course. But this wasn’t written by a constitutional scholar or even a lawyer.

Before someone says, “But Harvard! And professors must have helped!” No. If you’ve never published a law review article or been on a law review, they have basically zero peer review. Bad ideas are commonplace, as are flat-out legal errors. This isn’t the product of faculty workshops and it doesn’t represent any sort of consensus. It‘a the musings of a Harvard student, of which many are published each year in the Harvard LR.

[Anonymous]

The rural comment is foolish.

America’s cities drive our economy. Without them, America is a third world country.

Sick and tired of low-educated rural people ruling this country because billionaires buy their votes with propaganda on Fox.

Just as we changed the constitution to ban slavery, we will change the constitution to reform the Senate and Electoral College. And DC is going to lead that effort.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:This is a “note” written by a student editor of the Law Review. There’s nothing wrong with students, of course. But this wasn’t written by a constitutional scholar or even a lawyer.

Before someone says, “But Harvard! And professors must have helped!” No. If you’ve never published a law review article or been on a law review, they have basically zero peer review. Bad ideas are commonplace, as are flat-out legal errors. This isn’t the product of faculty workshops and it doesn’t represent any sort of consensus. It‘a the musings of a Harvard student, of which many are published each year in the Harvard LR.

Nope.

Here’s mainstream support from actual thoughtful smart writers. Yes they’re mostly on the left. Sad state of conservative and centrist pundits today, no?
NY Mag writer https://twitter.com/EricLevitz/status/1216080012862009348
Vox writer: https://twitter.com/dylanmatt/status/1216078181632892928
Law professor: https://twitter.com/dylanmatt/status/1216089180729528320

The idea works constitutionally.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is a “note” written by a student editor of the Law Review. There’s nothing wrong with students, of course. But this wasn’t written by a constitutional scholar or even a lawyer.

Before someone says, “But Harvard! And professors must have helped!” No. If you’ve never published a law review article or been on a law review, they have basically zero peer review. Bad ideas are commonplace, as are flat-out legal errors. This isn’t the product of faculty workshops and it doesn’t represent any sort of consensus. It‘a the musings of a Harvard student, of which many are published each year in the Harvard LR.

Nope.

Here’s mainstream support from actual thoughtful smart writers. Yes they’re mostly on the left. Sad state of conservative and centrist pundits today, no?
NY Mag writer https://twitter.com/EricLevitz/status/1216080012862009348
Vox writer: https://twitter.com/dylanmatt/status/1216078181632892928
Law professor: https://twitter.com/dylanmatt/status/1216089180729528320

The idea works constitutionally.

You curtly replied “nope” to statements that are true. Dumb.

The fact that you found three other people who may agree with an idea means quite little.

[Anonymous]

Pg. 1060 reveals the student’s real goal here:

“Second, every measurable subdivision of D.C. voted overwhelmingly for the Democratic party in the 2016 election, so the Democratic caucus in Congress could be confident that new states created within the District would elect like-minded delegations to Congress.93”

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The rural comment is foolish.

America’s cities drive our economy. Without them, America is a third world country.

Sick and tired of low-educated rural people ruling this country because billionaires buy their votes with propaganda on Fox.

Just as we changed the constitution to ban slavery, we will change the constitution to reform the Senate and Electoral College. And DC is going to lead that effort.

Great. Get started on that Amendment process. I think you'll have a little trouble getting all those rural states to ratify something that will strip them of their representation though.

Still, you should try anyway. It'll keep you occupied, and not screwing something else up.