As opposed to what the Left believes, the purpose of government is not to impose social justice.
As often happens, that was forgotten in Scotus’ 1964 Reynolds v. Sims ruling.
Citing a non-existent “one man one vote” principle, eight Warren Court black-robes ruled that state legislative districts must be of approximately equal populations. Through a rogue interpretation of the 14th Amendment’s equal protection clause, these masterminds imposed a democratic republic form of government on all fifty states! Never mind the constitution simply guarantees a republican form of government, scotus illegally overruled centuries of wisdom and imposed social justice democracy instead.
Free government demands the consent of the people. Without our consent, no law is legitimate. But, when law making is entirely in the hands of the people or their representatives, the result is a democratic republic, which history has shown to be hostile to minority rights and eventually end in tyranny.
Instead of representation by county, state senates were transformed into mini-assemblies. By this, Scotus gave large metropolitan areas control of both houses of state legislatures. No longer did rural areas have a counterbalancing voice. No longer was the damage done by urban demagogues limited to high density cities. Reynolds guaranteed the states would eventually succumb to the same leveling social justice forces that have always typified big city government.
From Wiki, Senator Dirksen of Illinois warned that Chicago would come to dominate Springfield. He was right, and due to Reynolds, Illinois is near bankruptcy and losing population as people flee high taxes, higher unemployment, and societal destruction.
By what power did scotus so easily, and by a large majority, impose breathtaking change on the fundamental structure of state governments?
Because of the 17th Amendment, the states were defenseless. Without representation in the senate, scotus black-robes had nothing to fear. Why would popularly elected senators oppose the decision? Some, like Dirksen did. But in the aggregate, popularly elected senators were not going to risk reelection for opposing the lofty ideal of “one man one vote.” The media would ask, “How could anyone be against equal representation?
So, when you look around your state and cringe at rising taxation and read of rural county secessionist movements, take the time to consider the long chain of events that brought these situations about.
It all began with the 17th Amendment, and cannot end until the 17th is repealed.