Posted on 03/05/2023 9:44:02 AM PST by SeekAndFind
Eastern Washington is next.
“…and bad for the country, and I am opposed to it at all levels.”“
It is worse for the country that demnoscum can “win” now no matter how badly they screwup.
Legislature that wouldn’t move the Idaho-Oregon border but rather call for formal talks between the states’ legislatures about relocating the boundary line.
Why do I think the courts will eventually slap this down? Seems the leftist are fine with conservatives and voters in try to push through legislation, then court-shop until they get want they want (California - Prop 9).
Whoops, Prop 8.
The American story is one of libs/leftists/Yankees (redundant) exploiting the Right and forcing us stay in an abusive relationship for our resources, labor and taxes. There is no coexisting with leftists or the busy body descendants of the Yankee puritans. Time for complete and total separation.
Somebody smarter than I should be able to provide some context on why this happens.
It isn’t well known now, but most states had a local equivalent to the federal Electoral College system. The idea was, rural counties in a state would not be dominated by one or two large cities. The federal supreme court ruled that was unconstitutional and mumbled something about “one man one vote” or something.
I think this is chickens coming home to roost. But I’m not sure.
RE: Eastern Washington is next.
The map of Idaho is going to get bigger if this happens !!
Just off the top of my head:
1. Wasn’t Vermont once part of New York state?
2. Wasn’t Maine once part of Massachusetts?
3. I think the boundary between Massachusetts and New York was moved sometime in the 19th century.
4. Ditto the western border of Missouri was moved from the original boundary.
5. West Virginia broke off from Virginia during the Civil War.
6. When the Dakota territory was becoming a state, it was divided into two parts , with each one admitted as a separate state.
Point being, there have been changes to state boundaries previously in American history. The idea that there can never ever be any changes to any boundaries simply is not historically true.
Of course an Idaho rat would be against adding productive citizens and land for their state. More Political power is the only thing that matters, it is everything.
Think the electoral votes it would pick up. Peel a few away. More states would look at it the same way. Who wins? The left will fight tooth and nail. It’s up to the Oregon legislature. Lost cause?
We’d need the WH and both the house and senate.
“Leftists Are ENRAGED”
The Party of Slavery discovered a while back that they could restore their antebellum lifestyle via wasteful taxation. Thus the outrage when their modern-day slaves get uppity.
I’m generally black pilled, hopefully just a phase, but will say this movement by the good people of Oregon/Idaho does provide a glimmer of hope to my soul.
Leftists, at heart. Are control freaks.
Reynolds v. Sims, 1964
Enshrined the rule of corrupt cities over their states.
Why “bad for the country”? It’s permissible (albeit difficult) under the Constitution. One would think an elected representative might pay attention to the fact that a significant part of her state wants not to be. At the least it serves as a wakeup call that the current Democrat approach of “we have the power, it’s ours forever, and you have to do everything we dream up” might be a bit off-putting?
Then Reynolds v. Sims ruined the whole thing in 1964 by mandating, unconstitutionally, that all state legislative houses have representation proportional to the population (one man, one vote).
We’d need the WH and both the house and senate.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.