‘State Packing’: The Gun Control Battlespace Isn’t One Dimensional

DC puerto rico statehood gun rights second amendment

(AP Photo/Susan Walsh)

Reader Steve Cañón writes:

Many comments made by readers on TTAG seems to indicate that too many gun owners are fighting the last war. “Assault weapons” bans, bump stock prohibitions, registration, etc. Many expect the ever-increasing gun control laws in this country to eventually result in and armed, kitted-up special teams going through neighborhoods, house-to-house, kicking-in doors and ransacking residences to find and confiscate firearms.

That results in cries molon labe, vows not to comply, and the requisite railing about patriots, non-patriots and what to do with public officials who don’t live up to their duty to uphold and protect the Constitution. Others think most Americans will go quietly, giving up their guns. The whole thing usually devolves into internecine keyboard warfare amongst presumptive allies.

But wait, there’s more. Much more.

There are stealthier threats to our Second Amendment rights that most gun owners aren’t seeing. They pay attention to direct attacks in the form of new gun control laws. But if we’re not careful, we could be outflanked by forces that would impose an irreversible victory on the political front that just could change politics as we have known it.

While you’re distracted by social media background checks and “red flag” laws and issuing calls for secession and breaking up existing states, the anti-Constitution, anti-gun guerrilla team is looking to create new states, too. But they’re a lot more likely to succeed.

The leftists are moving to enact statehood for Puerto Rico, and Washington D.C. (to be called Washington-Douglass). Those two new states would be thoroughly and permanently “blue,” with two senators each, of course. Such a result would shift the balance in the Senate and could forever end the ability of Republicans (or any pro-constitution party) to gain control in the upper chamber again. And remember…that’s where judicial appointments are vetted and confirmed.

The bottom line? The imagined, planned-for, frontal assaults on gun owners — “assault weapons bans,” registration and house-to-house confiscations — make for an excellent diversionary tactic, while the flanks are rolled-up by maneuvering groups sealing off escape routes for gun owners.

If you think court packing (already being contemplated by Democrats and other leftists) is a threat to Second Amendment rights, “state packing” — adding two new sure-to-be-blue stars to the flag — would be orders of magnitude worse for the right to keep and bear arms in the United States

Beware being suckered by the bright shiny object that’s waived in your face. The battlespace is not one-dimensional.

 

comments

  1. avatar pwrserge says:

    D.C. Constitutionally can’t be a state. Puerto Rico is too broke to become a state. I am interested in splitting off red sections of existing blue states.

    – All of Illinois outside Cook County
    – Upstate New York
    etc…

    1. avatar Geoff PR says:

      Statehood requires the consent of the states, right? Kill it that way…

      Oh, and we have this news :

      “Man charged with distributing live stream of mass shooting denied bail”

      http://news.trust.org/item/20190318055420-hji6v

      1. avatar Sam I Am says:

        “Statehood requires the consent of the states, right?”

        Requires consent of a state only if a new state is created from within the boundaries of a state. Then Congress must grant admission. Blue states already have the control necessary to permit a portion to be surrendered for the creation of a new blue state.

        If you look at the Californication plan for new states, each is dominated by a radically liberal urban center (outnumbering the population in the non-urban areas of each proposed new state. If it becomes impossible to create a new state called Washington-Douglass, five new and blue states could be created from Californication (which, overall, would be worse). The result would be ten new, leftist senators.

        If we can’t stop blue states from frustrating our constitutionally protected rights, how will they be stopped from increasing their number of states?

        1. avatar GunnyGene says:

          Well, sure. Let’s Balkanize the entire country. “No State shall consist of more than 100 sq. miles in area.” That oughta make everyone happy. 😉

        2. avatar Jbw says:

          Instead of new states parts of Illinois could absorbed into neighboring states like Iowa, Indiana, Missouri. Chicago stays as illinois, the rest of us get to go somewhere else

        3. avatar Stevewonderful says:

          “Statehood requires the consent of the states, right?”
          “Requires consent of a state only if a new state is created from within the boundaries of a state. Then Congress must grant admission.”

          INCORRECT!!

          “New States may be admitted by the Congress into this Union; but no new States shall be formed or erected within the Jurisdiction of any other State; nor any State be formed by the Junction of two or more States, or Parts of States, without the Consent of the Legislatures of the States concerned as well as of the Congress.” ~ Article IV, Section 3, Clause 1
          https://www.heritage.org/constitution/#!/articles/4/essays/125/new-states-clause

        4. avatar Sam I Am says:

          Yes, exactly as I said.

          I am not grasping your point.

        5. avatar Eli2016 says:

          “If you look at the Californication plan for new states, each is dominated by a radically liberal urban center (outnumbering the population in the non-urban areas of each proposed new state.”

          A disturbing thought but one that has some truth attached. I would add that corporations can also play a big part in “State Packing”. One has only to look at Hawaii as a prime example where foreign corporations have played a major role in this almost totally democratic and absolute gun-controlled state. More recently, Nevada turned into a “super-majority” democrat state with the help of Bloomberg. Beware of Google, Apple, and FB to determine much of the course of statehood in our country.

      2. avatar Nanashi says:

        Congress can however give a standing offer that state legislatures can take up at any time. Texas being able to divide into 4 states if its state legislature agrees is such a situation. Theoretically attaching federal money to it (same way the drinking age of 21 was achieved, even easier if attached to a bailout instead of highway funds) can force agreement.

    2. avatar Sam I Am says:

      “D.C. Constitutionally can’t be a state.”

      And constitutionally, state and federal governments cannot infringe on RTKBA.

      1. avatar Kyle says:

        Constitution is barely birdcage liner at this point. Washington is just too far gone to care about the constitutions.

        1. avatar Mad Max says:

          Then I guess we’re going to have to make them care about the Constitution again. Eventually. If they don’t figure it out themselves.

    3. avatar WARFAB says:

      Upstate New York would absolutely love to ditch NYC and the idiots they vote into office.

      1. avatar BatPenguin says:

        Southern Illinois would love to ditch Chicago!

        1. avatar Dennis Sumner says:

          The once great state of Vermont checking in. Chittenden County should have an electric fence around it, a very high one!!

      2. avatar SAFEupstateFML says:

        Last time we considered a split upstate couldn’t afford to exist on its own, the time before that NYC would have had trouble. The way things are now with spending it will not matter until things get bad enough to require fiscal intervention all around.

        1. avatar HP says:

          New York State is already losing 50,000 residents per year, but NYC’s population continues to grow. I don’t care if we would be poor up here. This isn’t even about guns, this is about upstate being whittled to little more than a forested grave yard at the rate things are going. The split needs to occur. You can’t fall off the floor.

    4. avatar CanoeIt says:

      Better yet, separate the major metro centers from the state it resides in, like The way Washington DC is separate separate from Maryland. They can spend THEIR money on whatever pet projects they want, laws they pass only affect them, ect. Limit the number of Representatives available to them so that they cannot out vote the rest of the state, and the problem will cure itself in 5-10 years. I don’t see this as a Dems v Repubs battle, this is urban vs rural.

      1. avatar Red says:

        “…I don’t see this as a Dems v Repubs battle, this is urban vs rural…”

        Actually, no, this is a far deeper than that, this is a battle of the sexes. Women have bought the progressive line and have mobilized against their own self interest and this country.

        Don”t believe? Search for the red state, blue state maps under the criteria, if only women voted, verses if only men voted. Obama would never have been elected. They have, unfortunately, become the face of tyranny in America. All of the newest Dem leaders are women (Cortez, Omar, Sinema, Kamala, Tlaib, Gillabrand…Booker).

        1. avatar strych9 says:

          “…Booker”

          LOL!

        2. avatar bryan1980 says:

          You also forgot Beta, I mean, “Beto”!

  2. avatar edward kenway's ghost says:

    The fact exists Libtards are also going about nullifying the electoral system by allowing states to determine winners of national elections by popular vote. At last count more than 10 or 11 states have approved this and it has yet to be challenged. Sooner or later they will push the envelope and force a real crisis that will require a solution, Constitutional or otherwise.
    There’s a good reason why a republic is in place of a parliamentary system but it would seem many don’t understand why and could care less while these idiots undermine 200+ years of government.

    1. avatar Sam I Am says:

      “The fact exists Libtards are also going about nullifying the electoral system by allowing states to determine winners of national elections by popular vote.”

      The dangerous part of this is that the constitution declares states will determine how electors to the Electoral College are selected. There are no restrictions on how electors are selected, not how they will vote. The founders did not imagine states voluntarily surrendering their rights regarding the EC, and did not allow for the central committee to determine how states selected electors. The founders could simply not conceive of a group of states conspiring to overturn a constitutional provision without an amendment. But, from the beginning, states could have individually, and collectively decided to neuter the protection of the EC.

    2. avatar uncommon_sense says:

      Edward Kenway’s ghost,

      I am definitely concerned about state attempts to circumvent the Electoral College.

      My only consolation at this point: the 10 or 11 states which have said that they will give all of their votes to the candidate who wins the popular vote would have done that anyway.

      Let’s be honest: Progressive candidates are virtually guaranteed to win every popular vote from this point forward because an overwhelming majority of voters in four extremely populous states (California, Illinois, New York, and New Jersey) vote for the Progressive candidate. Add the same effect from a few more, less-populous states (Maryland, Connecticut, Massachusetts, and Rhode Island) and the fact that Conservative candidates do not generate such landslide victories in “red” states and the result is all but guaranteed.

      So, back to what I was saying, those states that I listed above are ALWAYS going to vote overwhelmingly for the Progressive candidate. Therefore, all of their Electoral College votes were going to go to the Progressive candidate anyway. And the Conservative candidates who manage to squeak by to marginal victories in red states will get all of their Electoral College votes, or so we can hope.

  3. avatar Dr. Michael S. Brown says:

    Don’t forget the efforts to cut off banking services to gun-related businesses and to de-platform them on social media.

    1. avatar StLPro2A says:

      Don’t under estimate the financial pressure angle against individual citizens. Obozo’s Operation Choke Point was merely a test run for the future financial weaponry development. Once anti-gun laws are expanded…ie. registration via background checks, etc…..and mass non-compliance among pro-gunners springs up, laws will be enacted to financially strangle the gunners. All financial venues will be shut down……checking and savings accounts, ATM access, all investment accounts, wages, etc. There is a move underway to eliminate all cash moving to electronic funds systems. What an easy way to shut political opponents down without firing a shot. Once pro-gunners’ families get hungry enough because they can’t buy food, they will hand in their guns. Could be the initiation of the Bible’s Mark of The Beast.

      1. avatar uncommon_sense says:

        Could be the initiation of the Bible’s Mark of The Beast.

        Ya think?!?!?!?

        For reference I am going on record stating that this is EXACTLY what Progressives and government are going to do. The only question is how soon. I figure it might take another 10 to 30 years before they can pull it off politically. Believe me, it will happen. There are too many people who will not be able to resist the control and wealth that will be ripe for the taking.

        Note:

        There was no simple/practical way that a government entity could have stolen vast sums of millions of people’s wealth 80 years ago. First and foremost, it would have required hiring an army of people to go to a zillion local banks to grab the money from all of the targeted account holders. Second of all, it would have been logistically impossible since any given “courier” going to any given bank would have absolutely no idea beforehand whose accounts were at whose banks. (Trying to identify which people on a list of 100,000 names had an account at any given bank would have been effectively impossible.)

        Today, a handful of people who have access to the right databases can generate a specific list of account holders and which banks have their accounts in short order. Once the list is generated, a handful of people can send electronic notices to the banks ordering them to surrender the funds of their respective account holders. And since the list identifies which person uses which bank, the demand orders will only be sent to the proper banks.

        In other words a mere handful of people today can facilitate confiscating the checking, savings, and retirement accounts of 10s of millions of people with something like 6 months of work — all thanks to electronic networks and account management. And the “beauty”: who does an affected account holder — who now has no money and is quite literally ready to exact blood revenge — even go after? If we were talking 80 years ago, such an outraged account holder could express their frustration on the “courier” who came to their local bank. Today, it would be next to impossible to identify, much less track down, the handful of people who ordered the account confiscations because they could quite literally be anywhere in the world.

        And the absolutely worst part of this: I cannot begin to imagine any way that anyone could stop this.

        1. avatar Dennis Sumner says:

          Isnt technology wonderful?

  4. avatar Michael says:

    Ultimately, “all political power comes from the barrel of a gun”, Mao. -30-

  5. avatar NORDNEG says:

    Their coming to take me away hey hey,,, their coming to take me away,,,
    But they will NOT take my guns away hey hey…!!!🔫🔫🔫

  6. avatar Pg2 says:

    The demographics for gun owners and anyone respecting the Bill of Rights is so bad that in 5-10 years, there will be a whisper of resistance to the hard line communism that is winning the millennials.

    1. avatar LarryinTX says:

      You may be right. And from there I have a clue as to where we’re headed. Just got back from a visit to Cuba, including 2 days in Havana. All the wonderful things guides wish to show you were built by Americans prior to 1960, and have not been maintained since. Concrete is collapsing, windows are broken out, place looks like it’s been being bombed for 60 years. Very sad. And possibly our future.

  7. avatar TrueBornSonofLiberty says:

    The modern democrat party are THE domestic enemies our Founders warned us about. These terrorists are irredeemable and there can be no reconciliation. There is only ONE remedy. Sometimes, in DEFENSE of your country, genocide is justifiable.

    1. avatar StLPro2A says:

      America has been over run. The enemy is no longer “in the wire.” Today, the enemy sits in the Command Post. Our Founding Fathers are churning in their grave crying why have we failed to protect what they so courageously gave us. Our Founding Fathers would already have been finished shooting a second time. Politicians are the Grand Illusionists, making David Copperfield seem like an amateur. On one hand they distract and divide us with illusionary issues and visuals while their other hand steals our rights and puts on America the shackles of Socialism and Elitism dominance.

      1. avatar Dennis Sumner says:

        Well put, sad but so true.

    2. avatar Thomas Daniels says:

      I generally don’t get involved in the comments here much, but I cant let this one slide unremarked upon. I don’t think you know what the word genocide means. At least I hope you don’t. Genocide involves intentionally killing innocent people, many innocent people. That is NEVER justifiable. Ever.

      1. avatar GunnyGene says:

        What’s “justifiable” got to do with it? The objective of Genocide is to exterminate whoever it is you’ve targeted for extermination. It’s been attempted many times in human history, with some success.

      2. avatar StLPro2A says:

        It would appear that “innocent” would be in the eyes of the beholder be it a patriot or a politician….which today seem to be on opposite ends of the spectrum.

      3. avatar John in Ohio says:

        “the deliberate and systematic destruction of a racial, political, or cultural group”
        https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/genocide

        I’ve gotta go with Thomas Daniels on this one. No group of innocent people would die at my intentional hand for simply the fact of their race, politics, or cultural affiliation. Agents and identifiable combatants, regardless of race, political or cultural group would be obvious enemies in any type of warfare. However, based merely upon their culture, race, or politics… Nope, not going to have me as an ally; you’d have another armed enemy here.

        Any group with a deliberate plan of slaughtering whole groups of people because of their race, what they thought politically, or because of their culture would be my enemy and I would fight just as hard against them. You’re looking at fractionalizing the already scarce number of patriots with that plan.

        1. avatar LarryinTX says:

          Well, don’t look now, but I and a lot of my friends have spent years of our lives sitting Emergency War Order Alert, ready to be airborne in less time than it takes an ICBM to reach us from the Soviet Union, completely prepared to kill everyone on half the planet within the next 24 hours, because of political beliefs, communist dictatorship vs capitalist democracy. We have already been there, it would obviously be a possibility, particularly eliminating all socialists/communists within our own country.

        2. avatar Sam I Am says:

          “Well, don’t look now, but I and a lot of my friends ….ready to be airborne in less time than it takes an ICBM to reach us from the Soviet Union, completely prepared to kill everyone on half the planet within the next 24 hours, because of political beliefs, communist dictatorship vs capitalist democracy.”

          Earth-o-cide?

        3. avatar John in Ohio says:

          “Well, don’t look now, but I and a lot of my friends have spent years of our lives sitting Emergency War Order Alert, ready to be airborne in less time than it takes an ICBM to reach us from the Soviet Union, completely prepared to kill everyone on half the planet within the next 24 hours, because of political beliefs, communist dictatorship vs capitalist democracy. We have already been there, it would obviously be a possibility, particularly eliminating all socialists/communists within our own country.”

          Because you were “ready” has no bearing on the morality of genocide. If your answer is that genocide is okay because we were ready and could, I’m not sure there’s any hope to convince you otherwise.

      4. avatar Bugs Nasty says:

        While living by the “Golden Rule” is best, sometimes you have to be mindful of the unwritten corollary: “Do unto others before they do unto you what you would not want done unto you.” Some persons of some religious and political persuasions would joyfully kill you and everyone dear to you because of your religious or political persuasion. Your logic only works if everyone else is as enlightened as you are, but that is not factually the case.

    3. avatar JW says:

      Um. No.

      The primary reason the second amendment was included in our bill of rights is because tyranny of any sort (and the wholesale slaughter of a people because the share ancestry is tyranny if anything is) is NEVER justifiable.

    4. avatar sparkyinWI says:

      Genocide is NEVER justifiable period.

    5. avatar strych9 says:

      “Sometimes, in DEFENSE of your country, genocide is justifiable.”

      At various times in history various nation states and other groups certainly thought so. The Germans, Turks, Russians, Jews, Muslims, Christians, various African tribes and governments, Cambodians, Irish, Pakistanis, Burmese, Chinese… hell even the Californians back in the 1800’s.

      Not sure I’d consider myself in “good company” with any of those folks.

    6. avatar John in Ohio says:

      That wouldn’t be a wise plan. You would have to fight a bunch of us as well. Want to slaughter innocents? You have to slaughter me, too. I am duty bound to protect the innocent, wherever possible. I have to answer to my Creator at the end of this life.

      1. avatar LarryinTX says:

        Your creator may prove to have a different plan for you, if genocide is being practiced against you and your family. If there is to be genocide, I wish to be on the surviving side.

        1. avatar John in Ohio says:

          George Soros made sure he was on the surviving side too; regardless of the cost.

          Your response doesn’t address the fact that such a plan will further divide the POTG fighting against tyranny. The genocidal assholes will have another front to fight and it will be all around them. Good luck with that.

    7. avatar John in Ohio says:

      “Sometimes, in DEFENSE of your country, genocide is justifiable.”

      Only when your country is your god.

      No thanks; not my religion.

  8. avatar WI Patriot says:

    PR has had several votes on statehood, and the citizens of PR don’t want to become a “state”(they just want the benefits)…

    1. avatar Sam I Am says:

      “the citizens of PR don’t want to become a “state”(they just want the benefits)…”

      According to reports, PR voted overwhelmingly in Jun 2017 to become a state (FWIW)

      Stationed in PR during an early military adventure, we were faced with three factions of politicians: independtistas, statehooders, commonwealthers. The favored faction were commonwealthers because, as you say, they enjoyed so many benefits of statehood, but without the obligations. At the time, all federal tax collected on/from the island were returned to the island government as grants or other funding. As times changed, it appears RP can become a state and retain all the benefits of commonwealth.

      1. avatar WI Patriot says:

        “The previous plebiscites provided voters with three options: statehood, free association, and independence. The Puerto Rican status referendum of 2017 originally offered only two options: Statehood and Independence/Free Association, however a “current territorial status” was added before the referendum took place. The referendum was held on June 11, 2017, with an overwhelming majority of voters supporting statehood at 97.16%, however with a voter turnout of 22.99%, a historical low.”

        I’d hardly call 22.9% voter turnout “overwhelming”…

        1. avatar Sam I Am says:

          “I’d hardly call 22.9% voter turnout “overwhelming”…”

          Always have to be careful with stats and polls. An important question, “What is the historical percent voter turnout for referenda regarding statehood?” If voter turnout for such votes has been ~25%, then a 97% preference of that voter demographic is important. Another consideration is whether and up or down vote on statehood would result in greater turnout. And if that greater turnout would replicate the preference data, or be less.

          In any event, PR becoming a state is not something to dismiss…especially as Dimwitocrats would bring considerable pressure to bear. As blue continues to dominate the political landscape, nothing previously considered unthinkable is off the table.

        2. avatar LarryinTX says:

          Sam, it seems to me the obvious answer is to grant PR independence, whether they want it or not. The island will never be a net contributor to our society.

        3. avatar Sam I Am says:

          “Sam, it seems to me the obvious answer is to grant PR independence, whether they want it or not. ”

          Living on the island was a shock to per-conceived notions. Had expected PR to be south Miami (which I did not know was so heavily influenced by Cuba). It was easy to imagine PR was east Hawaii, America in every sense.

          It took several months to grasp that PR was completely different from the mainland; a foreign country (third-world?) in every way. Especially disconcerting was the inability to shop in stores where English was the prime language (including the big mall in San Juan). The roads between the western edge of the island, and San Juan were two-lane, where even 30mph could bang-up your car (two hours from edge-to-edge).

          There were a number of interesting elements in PR, about a week’s worth of exploring. The overall tempo was more suited to tourists with no schedule than people accustomed to imperatives of business, or the military.

          One of the pleasant oddities (to mainlanders) of PR were the restaurants that sprang up in front yards of homes after 1700. The food was generally delicious, and different parings of familiar items than you would see on the mainland. Another oddity was that the “national dish” of PR was “Chicken, Rice and Beans) as a single concoction. The oddity was that none of those ingredients were native to the island.

          Another oddity was that during the daytime hours, the television channel broadcast in Spanish, with advertisements in English. After sundown, the combination inverted.

          One of the unpleasant oddities was the hostility of the locals toward “Americanos” (we were called “Continentals” to our faces). Perhaps the hostility was deserved, at least on the west side of the island, where the Air Force Base was located. Prior to WW2, the island had two thriving seaports: San Juan; Aquadilla. The legend was that the US Navy didn’t want to defend two harbors, so Aquadilla was literally bricked-up, and abandoned. The town economy was devastated. The nearby airbase was not big enough to absorb the unemployed workers, and the town became a near slum. We were advised to not spend much time in town as Americano tourists were rare, so gringos were likely US military and family.

          Glad I spent time in PR; glad it was a short time (the airbase closed).

  9. avatar rtw1951 says:

    As far as Puerto Rico…go all the way and grant them independence. Serve them right.

    1. avatar WI Patriot says:

      Kind of the way I see, they’ve had ample opportunity to become a recognized “state”, but they refuse at every turn, enough of the free benefits, cut ’em loose and let ’em fend for themselves…The same applies to other U.S. “territories”…

      1. avatar LarryinTX says:

        Completely agree, it appears clear that the time for “territories” is long past.

  10. avatar Bob Jones says:

    The US will be split up within a decade or two, peacefully, I hope. It should be done on a county by county basis, with large or populous counties subdivided further by precincts. The Nation is too divided to survive for very long in the present situation. The blue states have already begun defacto splitting off and ignoring the federal government & laws..

    Just get it over with and be done.

    1. avatar John in Ohio says:

      I don’t think it will ever split peacefully. That possibility ended with the American Civil War. At that time, it would’ve been far easier to split the nation. Now, everything is interconnected so much that I don’t think that a peaceful separation is possible. The federal government won’t allow it. The leftists won’t allow it. The hard core on the right won’t allow it. And, perhaps most influential, the bankers won’t allow it.

  11. avatar Mad says:

    The only answer for America and the world is Jesus Christ.since God’s word tells us as we get closer to the end of days.this is not going to happen as mankind becomes more depraved.in the meantime I will keep locked and loaded.molon labe

    1. avatar LarryinTX says:

      Yeah, if only any of that were factual!

  12. avatar MDH says:

    Taking its marching orders from the criminal politbureau aparatchiks at the DNC, New Mexico has just joined the list of states which hijack and subvert citizen electoral votes, by assigning all of the state’s electors to whichever candidate wins the popular vote nationally.

    The measure was signed yesterday by NM’s radical left democrat Governor.

    Make no mistake, there is now a full court press by the left to subvert, nullify, and destroy the US Constitution, and bill of rights at every level.

  13. avatar J says:

    I think “Court Stacking” of the Supreme Court is easier to perform for the Democrats. The Democrats are seriously interested in the path to restrict our 2nd Amendment rights. The Democrats are openly suggesting it since last year. “Court Stacking” is more serious than Puerto Rico and Washington D.C. becoming states. Congress could enact a new law to justify more seats on the Supreme Court easily, since it has never been done or state in law explicitly. If, California or any of the anti-2nd states where to break up it would have the same effect as the author states. But, California as suggested by many should be broken up into 3 parts that would be 2 liberal sections and 1 conservative. This would be the same effect in congress. The other anti-2nd states would be cancelling each other out broken into 2 parts (Oregon, Washington, Nevada, New Mexico, Illinois, New York, and ect). The U.S. Statehood Process could take decades going through congress. According to the Constitution, a new state cannot be created by splitting or merging existing states unless both the U.S. Congress and the legislatures of the states involved approve reference (https://www.thoughtco.com/us-statehood-process-3322311). We could have city states if Washington, DC became a state. New York city, Chicago, Los Angeles, Phoenix, Philadelphia, and ect, which would make this problem more problematic for us as pro-2nd. Statehood is not really defined well enough, so it could be a toss up of the process to statehood. Court stacking would be quicker than the Statehood process.

    1. avatar John in Ohio says:

      “Congress could enact a new law to justify more seats on the Supreme Court easily, since it has never been done”

      In 1869 there were 10 Supreme Court justices. It has been as low as six and as high as ten. FDR tried to get Congress to approve fifteen seats but it never passed.

      1. avatar J says:

        You are correct, but that was over 100 years ago, and I failed to document that in my statement. With the FDR saga, he could never get it through congress because he was stepping on too many congressional toes to implement Court Stacking to break the conservative court at that time. The Act of 1869 tied the Supreme Court seats to the number of to how many US Judicial Circuit Courts, which is 9. So, if they want to change the make up of the Supreme Court seats are they going to have more Circuit Courts to match the number of Supreme Court seats and that would really mess things up. Article III of the Constitution establishes the federal judiciary. Article III, Section I states that “The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish.” Although the Constitution establishes the Supreme Court, it permits Congress to decide how to organize it. Congress first exercised this power in the Judiciary Act of 1789. This Act created a Supreme Court with six justices.” https://www.uscourts.gov/about-federal-courts/educational-resources/about-educational-outreach/activity-resources/about
        “The Judiciary Act of 1789 established a Supreme Court with one chief justice and five associate justices……The size of the Supreme Court grew to accommodate the establishment of new circuits as the nation expanded. In 1807 a seventh justice was added to the court, and in 1837 an eighth and ninth justice joined the Supreme Court. The size of the Court reached its highest point in 1863 with the creation of a Tenth Circuit on the west coast and the appointment of a tenth justice. In 1866, Congress reduced the size of the Court to seven justices and provided that no vacant seats be filled until that number was reached. The number of sitting justices fell to eight before an act of 1869 provided for nine justices, one for each of the judicial circuits established in 1866. The size of the Court has since remained the same.” https://www.fjc.gov/history/courts/supreme-court-united-states-and-federal-judiciary

        1. avatar John in Ohio says:

          Yup. That was all on the pages that I used to verify my numbers. I’m not sure of the point of your reply but it’s good information for anyone interested.

  14. avatar Ed Schrade says:

    Have you noticed that when the socialist democrats have everything their own way, California as one example, there is not a cry and demand for redistricting.

  15. avatar DerryM says:

    I agree with Steve Cañón. Too many people across the board are focused on one or two concerns and failing to see the broader scope of the leftist orchestrated degradation of the American Constitutional Republic. While we PotG fume and stew over everything that infringes our Second Amendment Rights, the Left is using the First and Tenth Amendments deliberately and systematically to undermine and alter every institution and value that made The United States of America the greatest Republic that ever existed in human history.

    What happens in the future Elections of 2020, 2022 and 2024 will be the most crucial in the history of the Republic.

    1. avatar Sam I Am says:

      “What happens in the future Elections of 2020, 2022 and 2024 will be the most crucial in the history of the Republic.”

      It is all dependent on how fast the EC can be manipulated to produce a pure democracy, or the EC is abolished by constitutional amendment.

      1. avatar DerryM says:

        I agree that’s a possibility, but I would add it may depend on how successfully the Democrats further alter State Election Laws to allow “ballot harvesting” and undocumented persons to vote. That’s the point of “State Stacking” that Steve Cañón is talking about. Altering the EC requires a Constitutional Amendment, or further success of the National Popular Vote Organization. Right now they are getting closer and closer…see https://www.nationalpopularvote.com/ for more information. NPV’s success could favor the Democrats in 2020 or 2024 and neatly circumvents a Constitutional Amendment because of the Tenth Amendment.

        Interestingly enough, it may turn out the very Rights enumerated and protected in the Amendments will prove the undoing of the Republic. Bitter irony.

  16. avatar UpInArms says:

    In the run-up to Civil War Part I (otherwise, and more correctly, known as the War of Northern Aggression), a compromise was reached for admitting new states to the Union. That compromise was to admit them in pairs– each new slave state was offset by a new free state, thereby maintaining the balance of the Senate.

    So don’t expect any scheme to admit blue states only to fly. At the least, it would work out to one red state admitted (or created) for each blue state admitted (or created).

    The reality of it is no new states are coming in. This whole “state packing” idea is dead in the water.

    1. avatar Sam I Am says:

      “That compromise was to admit them in pairs– each new slave state was offset by a new free state, thereby maintaining the balance of the Senate.”

      The Missouri Compromise was designed to accommodate a strong southern block in congress, and a block in the north that wasn’t pure abolitionist. Essentially, it was a piece of legislation. Legislation is totally dependent on the make up of the legislative branch, specifically the House of Representatives. The US Senate has no role in admitting new states. Thus….

      Given the large majority of blue state representation in the current congress (unlike the era of the second civil war), legislation to create new states would not be much of a battle.

      1. avatar J says:

        You are wrong with just the House has a sole role on the statehood process. Both the House and Senate must vote on any that would become a state.
        “Historically, Congress has applied the following general procedure when granting territories statehood:
        -The territory holds a referendum vote to determine the people’s desire for or against statehood.
        -Should a majority vote to seek statehood, the territory petitions the U.S. Congress for statehood.
        -The territory, if it has not already done so, is required to adopt a form of government and constitution that are in compliance with the U.S. Constitution.
        ***The U.S. Congress — both House and Senate — pass, by a simple majority vote, a joint resolution accepting the territory as a state.***
        -The President of the United States signs the joint resolution and the territory is acknowledged as a U.S. state.” https://www.thoughtco.com/us-statehood-process-3322311

        1. avatar Sam I Am says:

          “***The U.S. Congress — both House and Senate — pass, by a simple majority vote, a joint resolution accepting the territory as a state.***”

          Studied the process at length, but cannot find a constitutional provision that directly requires the process stated (nor the proclamation by the president). There is much written that supposes the process constitutionally identified for passing laws such as the budget, is the same for granting statehood. Indeed, there are references available to indicate that such proclamation by the president has not been published in each case of statehood admission.

          It is natural to suppose that a familiar process is controlling, even though not set down as law. However, when the constitution reads that Congress (HoR) has the sole authority to grant statehood, should that phrase not be considered complete as written?

          As it happens, I do not have a direct constitutional instruction on the full process to be followed for admitting states. Given the current state of constitutional warping, I remain skeptical that Congress alone cannot pass a resolution admitting new states. The possibility remains a danger to the nation.

  17. avatar J says:

    The word US Congress is defined and means both chambers: House of Representatives and the Senate.
    “The U.S. Constitution gives Congress the power to grant statehood, but does not establish the process for doing so. Congress is free to determine the conditions of statehood on a case-by-case basis.” link above. The US Congress can make any requirements they agree upon to let a geographic entity into the union basically.

    1. avatar Sam I Am says:

      “The US Congress can make any requirements they agree upon to let a geographic entity into the union basically.”

      Which was my comment all along. HoR will not flip in 2020, and senate seats are up for grabs. With a majority (even one vote in the senate) in the legislature, the leftists will feel more empowered to do things. This will be even worse if Trump is re-elected (the leftist rage will be almost uncontrollable).

      Remember, leftists play the long game, “normals” want to solve a problem and be done with it. To the leftists, every aspect of life is a battle ground for control, 24/7. Leftists have always believed time is on their side (and they are not without evidence), there is always next year.

  18. avatar Chris T in KY says:

    Libertarians believe in OPEN BORDERS. It’s the same thing. They are glad to let in people who don’t like the Bill of Rights. Libertarians support rapists coming here. They support serial sex offenders immigrating here. They support murderers coming here. They support illegal aliens voting in our elections.

    Anyone show me how there is a difference between those who support state hood for Puerto Rico, and Washington D.C. two places that don’t support the Bill of Rights, and those who support open borders?

    We now have a immigrant somali congress woman who does not support the Bill of Rights.

    1. avatar John in Ohio says:

      I’m not a libertarian but what the hell, the video fits the rambling above. People can be opposed to federal government enforcement for a variety of reasons. Some, myself included, oppose it because it is a function of the states and not the federal government (except for repelling actual armies). The federal government wields far too much unconstitutional power already.

      Meanwhile, somewhere in Kentucky…
      https://youtu.be/zrzMhU_4m-g

      1. avatar Chris T in KY says:

        Thanks I do like Monty Python and the Holy Grail. I didn’t know that kentucky Gov Matt Bevin, a christian, was in the movie???? But you missed an even more important aspect of Kentucky. Here let me give you a Link. I even posted a comment. Check it out.

        https://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2019/03/john-boch/state-16-kentuckys-governor-signs-constitutional-carry-into-law/

        Since you say immigration is a state issue what was your state representative response to your questions about these imported murderers terrorist attacks. You did ask them questions correct???

        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2016_Ohio_State_University_attack

        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2016_Ohio_restaurant_machete_attack

        https://www.lifezette.com/2019/01/heres-a-heartbreaking-list-of-victims-killed-by-illegal-immigrants/

Write a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

button to share on facebook
button to tweet
button to share via email