The Harvard Law Reviewhas published a proposal for supposedly enhancing a better democracy than thatwhich the Federal (not really) government now oversees. The proposal has noofficial name but is born, it would appear, from the same milieu as the FrenchRevolution i.e, power to the people—that is, the mob. Harvard Review proposeswhat effectively amounts to a national state-led by mob leaders in Washington.

This would come about, asper the proposal, by a congressional majority vote of dividing the District ofColumbia into 127 neighborhoods which in turn (by congressional majority vote)would become 127 states. Each state would, of course, have two Senators and asingle representative. Each state would be approximately 320 acres.

This new arrangement would give the magnificent morons in the current national capital control of everyone else from sea to shining sea. Government of and by New York City law and California morality. America the Beautiful. A modern French Revolution. Heads would roll. A Robespierre delight.

But this proposal reallyis a result of something that conservatives and Republicans (not always thesame) have
upon themselves. And without a rally to reclaimhistory from the Eric Foner revisionists, this is the American future. Totalrule from Washington. There truly will be an “exceptionalism.”

That “bringing” is theconstant promotion that the United States is not a Union of States, but anamalgamation of states created magically in 1776. This is the Eric Fonernonsense that is peddled whereby States have no sovereign rights. They mayabide in the union only as long as they behave. And if they don’t behave, theywill stay anyway under any number of so-called civil rights laws.

The belief seems to bethat the states upon ratification of the Constitution (years after 1776)surrendered their sovereignty to a national (called federal) government. Thiswhite flag gesture made them no more than whatcounty governments are in relation to their appropriate state.

And now these conservatives claimthat the people are protected by the Electoral College; that is, they claim,the reason the founders put it in was to protect the small states (population)from the large ones. Nonsense! It was in there because sovereign states voted,and not a national conglomeration of people. The people weren’t voting for or againstHillary. The states were.
The Harvard proposal itclaims is to fix America’s “broken democracy.”Every state, in the union, is supposed to be guaranteed a republican form of government–not a democratic form.What about its broken republic? Why are Virginiansbegging for their God-given rights to keep and bear arms (not government-given)from the state of Virginia?Why is it that babies whoare guaranteed life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness while lying “comfortably”in a hamper waiting to get their brains crushed should beg, if they could talk,for the state of Virginia to do them no harm?

Governing foreseen by theFounders, except for foreign-born Hamilton nationalists, was to be local. Itwas to be from the sovereign states they were part of. Nullification wasrighteous and proper. Secession was righteous and proper. Theirs was a republic of republics; republicscomprised of sovereign governments.

Now that great sanctuaryof brilliance, Harvard Law School, manned by modern Jacobins sees a new “age ofreason.” A land where 127 oligarchs created in Washington D.C. will be the U.S.Committee of Public Safety.

Even Robespierre thought suchwas a good idea until one day when he found himself on his knees with his handsbehind his back, and a huge blade of steel racing toward his neck.Hail to The Crimson– andthe Foners. All foolishness is carried out by fools.