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

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote: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”

Exactly

If the same exact scheme was thought up by someone in Wyoming or Idaho to give statehood to each little county statehood, and the results would be the predictable flood of republicans, the big-brains (ha!) here on DCUM would be on the other side of this. As would the student who wrote this garbage.


Everything is a power grab scheme for dems. Everything.

[Anonymous]

And the name of our city is Washington, DC. After the Father of our Country. Yes, he owned slaves (freed on his death). Sorry if that history hurts your wokeness.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

The proposal isn't to strip anyone of their representation. It's to give everyone in the country equal representation.

[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.

This is so laughable. So people in rural areas don't use electricity or buy food? Most rural areas are far more dependent than cities, without the government handouts -- courtesy of the taxpayers in the cities -- they'd be uninhabitable.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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”

Exactly

If the same exact scheme was thought up by someone in Wyoming or Idaho to give statehood to each little county statehood, and the results would be the predictable flood of republicans, the big-brains (ha!) here on DCUM would be on the other side of this. As would the student who wrote this garbage.


Everything is a power grab scheme for dems. Everything.

You missed the comment on breaking up existing states being far harder than creating new ones from non-state territory.

_NP

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:And the name of our city is Washington, DC. After the Father of our Country. Yes, he owned slaves (freed on his death). Sorry if that history hurts your wokeness.

Anyone who doesn't respect US history, go back to wherever.

And that of course includes everyone. No one is indigenous here.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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”

Exactly

If the same exact scheme was thought up by someone in Wyoming or Idaho to give statehood to each little county statehood, and the results would be the predictable flood of republicans, the big-brains (ha!) here on DCUM would be on the other side of this. As would the student who wrote this garbage.


Everything is a power grab scheme for dems. Everything.

You missed the comment on breaking up existing states being far harder than creating new ones from non-state territory.

_NP

It would instantly be a LOT less hard once 143 new states got created from the 50ish square miles that used to be DC.

I'd predict it would happen within days.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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”

Exactly

If the same exact scheme was thought up by someone in Wyoming or Idaho to give statehood to each little county statehood, and the results would be the predictable flood of republicans, the big-brains (ha!) here on DCUM would be on the other side of this. As would the student who wrote this garbage.


Everything is a power grab scheme for dems. Everything.

Why do you think there are two Dakotas?

Because of a power grab by Republicans.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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”

Exactly

If the same exact scheme was thought up by someone in Wyoming or Idaho to give statehood to each little county statehood, and the results would be the predictable flood of republicans, the big-brains (ha!) here on DCUM would be on the other side of this. As would the student who wrote this garbage.


Everything is a power grab scheme for dems. Everything.

Why do you think there are two Dakotas?

Because of a power grab by Republicans.

Exactly. If there was a non-state entity full of Republicans where this could be done, I guarantee you 100% the GOP would have already done it.

[Anonymous]

This is probably the most attention ever given to a law review article. OP are you a 1L?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Just be aware that because the GOP have packed the courts with illegitimate Trump judges (including 2 illegitimate SCOTUS Trump judges), this would certainly be rejected by the Supreme Court.

So the first step is for liberals to start ignoring Gorsuch and Kavanaugh's illegitimate votes. When a president steals an election by fraud, illegality, and a ton of help from Russia, his judges are fake. Fake president, fake judges.

I just can't with this. It started as a throw away line by John Podesta and has been repeated so often that you guys actually believe yourselves. But it is clearly lunacy. Get over it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:This is probably the most attention ever given to a law review article. OP are you a 1L?

It’s not even a “law review article.” It’s a student note that doesn’t even have an author’s name on it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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”

Exactly

If the same exact scheme was thought up by someone in Wyoming or Idaho to give statehood to each little county statehood, and the results would be the predictable flood of republicans, the big-brains (ha!) here on DCUM would be on the other side of this. As would the student who wrote this garbage.


Everything is a power grab scheme for dems. Everything.

The GOP represents a tiny portion of Americans.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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”

Exactly

If the same exact scheme was thought up by someone in Wyoming or Idaho to give statehood to each little county statehood, and the results would be the predictable flood of republicans, the big-brains (ha!) here on DCUM would be on the other side of this. As would the student who wrote this garbage.


Everything is a power grab scheme for dems. Everything.

The GOP represents a tiny portion of Americans.

If you look outside your immediate bubble, that's simply not true.

[Anonymous]

Democrats don’t vote so this mess is what you get. Until Ds get to the polls expect me re of the same.