Here is an example of what Aristotle could definitely call a form of metabole

(regime change)--and one must recall there are two types of metabole in Politics
5--one between different regime types--and change within a type (where the defining
character of the regime is increased or decreased).

1.
Baker v. Carr, 369 U.S. 186 (1962) and Reynolds v. Sims, 377 U.S. 533 (1964), these
two acts by the Supreme court led to a fundamental alteration of the electoral
landscape of state legislatures forced to represent 1 man 1 vote model and thus
abandon traditional political communities and counties models for representation
districts. This radically shift political power in the state towards the large
Urban areas, contra the rural areas. Prior to Bakker v Carr and other similar
reapportionment decisions by the Federal Courts--rural counties and areas tended to
have significant more political influence due to redistricting.

Thus to repeat, Baker v Carr (1962) and Reynolds v Sims (1964) was perhaps the most
important regime change America faced and the victory of the urban demos was as
fundamental to the regime formation of our Current American Democracy as was the
naval victory over the Persians was for for Athen's democratic regime!

By this and other USSC court decision using the 14th amendment as its tool, there
was radical undoing of the decentralized and classical form most American states
enjoyed.. allowing them to recognize the importance of towns and communities (and
Counties as well) within the framework of the structure of shaping a legislature
and allowing them equal voice to one another (as the US Constitution did for the
states in the Senate). But Baker v Carr and the other cases sweep all of that aside
for the "one man one vote" ideology of the progressive reading of the 14th
Amendment!

We are finally seeing the full impact of what happened in Baker vs Carr and other
state reapportionment cases of the 60s and the radical impact of the 14th amd one
man one vote logic that tosses under the bus the founder's republican support of
rural democracy over urban democracy. The mistakes that such Court rulings
inflicted on the American regime has created the political environment where
localities are more and move governed by urban controlled state legislatures who
have little love or interest in supporting the needs and wants of rural
populations.

Look what Aristotle says about the danger to the nature of a democracy when the
character of the multitude is changed from being dominated by rural poor vs urban
poor.. once the Urban poor dominate the regime increasingly becomes tyrannical.

2. The Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965 (H.R. 2580; Pub.L. 89�236, 79 Stat.
911, enacted June 30, 1968) (It is also known as the Hart�Celler Act)

This new act was the triump of the Democratic progressives to impose a liberal
egalitarian norm on to US immigration law. The Hart-Celler Act abolished the
national-origins quota system. This act fundamentally rejected the older tradition
of American immigration policy, in that it removed ethnic and racial barries that
previous existed in US immigration law. This is to say--that it no longer allowed
it eliminated national origin, race, and ancestry as basis for immigration. It
undid the old quota system of immigration from the 1920s that sought to limit the
number and variety of peoples to be allowed to immigrate into the US, allowing for
these groups to intergrate into rather than form seperate communities that could
form new groups that could challange the dominate majority population and its
culture.
Now instead of the system that looked at the character and backgroud of the people
who came. Hart-Celler instead created a seven-category preference system. This new
system would now give "priority to relatives of U.S. citizens and legal permanent
residents", as well as too "professionals and other individuals with specialized
skills." This on the face of it appeared both rational and neutral because it
looked at either bringing in the kin of already US citizens or residents or people
with needed skill types. Here big industry came on board as this gave them the
tools to bring in cheeper yet more knowledgable immigrant labor than investing in
training domestic labor pools. Yet industry need and the political advantage that
these new immigrants groups gave to the Democratic party that controled the large
urban areas where these population would enter into America was too powerful of a
drug that led it to see the long term dangers that such a policy could bring to the
nation.

The problem is that since the 1960s our immigration law as become a form of
unintended suicide pack because the 60s left sought to reject the old liberal-
progressive melting pot ideology. Without the forcing of immigrants to adopt to the
civic ideology of the American regime and do so so any aspect of their own culture
that contradicts it is erased and replaced with our principles, shows the folly of
the multicultural relativism of that period. One only has to look at the folly of
what such policies have wrought for Europe and England is more evidence than we
need. The whole thing was an attempt of socio-political cultural engineering and
must be clearly seen as such.

The combination of immigration law and how the court had shaped it, the
reapportionment of state legislatures by the Court, and the growing power of the
administrative state was the working of what Willmoore Kendall called the Liberal
Revolution! And the job of this revolution was to destroy the old American order of
the Founding--which the Progressives like Wilson so despised--with a centralized
administrative state ala Hegel and most of Europe. And again to bring about all the
things that Alexis de Tocqueville's warned about regarding the dangers of
centralization of administration and the soft despotism is the goal of that
"Revolution". And Trump is the CounterRevolution... to sweep it and all that are
part of it aside.

And the current styles of political science (either post-

behaviorialism/behaviorialism and rational-choice) is simply death to this...
especially any political analysis that rests on economic rationalism or
irrationalism model.. misses the fact that small things at the lowest levels lead
to what will become higher regime change. Here students of Montesquieu,
Tocqueville, and Aristotle (especially Politics book 4, 5, and 6) should be our
teacher as it shows that such things that will shape the social mores will alter
the political culture that will then reshape the politics of the state.

3. Plyler v. Doe, 457 U.S. 202 (1982).

Here in this decision the US Supreme Court issued a ruling that overturned both a
state statute denying funding for education to undocumented immigrant children and
a municipal school district's attempt to charge undocumented immigrants an annual
$1,000 tuition fee for each undocumented student to compensate for the lost state
funding. Here the fact that public education and many other municipal services are
paid for by various tax levies that illegals often do not pay. Using the logic of
the 14th Amendment The Court found that any state restriction imposed on the rights
afforded to children based on their status as immigrants must be examined under an
intermediate scrutiny standard to determine whether it furthers a "substantial"
government interest. Thus the Supreme Court imposed legislation on all the
communities thoughtout America that imposed a defacto tax on those communities
But the logic here is that US Supreme Court's doctrine of equal protection now
requires that illegal aliens not be denied access to municipal services--even if
they don't contribute by being legal tax paying residents. This creates a huge
free rider problem on the municipalities and the states. Also this only increases
the attractiveness of these large urban communities with their extensive social
services and welfare policies as magnets for illegals.

The dissenter objected that this was more correctly a matter of the legislature not
the courts. The dissenting Justices argued that the "Constitution does not provide
a cure for every social ill, nor does it vest judges with a mandate to try to
remedy every social problem". The dissenting justices argued "that the majority
was overstepping its bounds by seeking "to do Congress' job for it, compensating
for congressional inaction".

4. The Immigration Reform and Control Act (IRCA), Pub.L. 99�603, 100 Stat. 3445
(November 6, 1986) or the Simpson�Mazzoli Act.

The Simpson�Mazzoli Act. was an attempt to reform the immigration law and the flow
of illegal immigration coming from Mexico and Latin America due to the attractive
economic opportunities and access to social benefits that were absent in their home
counties. This act used the concept of amesty for illegals as a means to stem the
dramatic increase of illegal migration into the US via the Southwestern boarder.
Yet the unintended consequece of this reform was a massive surge of illegal into
the country.

What this act did was while it make certain aspects of hiring illegal works
illegal, it nevertheless legalized certain seasonal agricultural illegal immigrants
and by doing so gave cover to the flow of illegals into the Country. The law did
not attempt to document and regulate these seasonal agricultural workers so they
could return to their home once the season was over. Thus without this ability to
come and go, these workers instead were stuck inside the US and the difficulty of
reentering the increasely enforced border ensured that they would very likely to
set up household and families within the territory of the USA.

Here there was the appearance of doing something about illegal immigration, but in
reality only making the situation far far worse.

5. NAFTA-the North American Free Trade Agreement 1994.

This is not a treaty--as it would not have passed the needed vote in Senate to be a
treaty--rather it was executive-legislative agreement. This

The problem with the neoliberal free trade argument... it fails to take into
account of the cost to the individuals excluded from participating and benefiting
from this system.

After listening the take of all too many libertarians on the Ukraine issue and
American power in the world I find them more and more wholly agreeing with the Pat
Buchanan crowd (ok I admit in 91-96 I too sympathized with that crowd, but that was
cured in 99 when I came to Central Europe and saw that Europe can't wipe its
backside without US assistance when it comes to defense and the ability to use
force to protect its interests or its people). And the naive idea that their system
of free trade would survive the complete breakdown of US leadership in terms of
security on the world scene. When has a mulipolar system ever do anything but lead
to restrictive trade policies to protect local interests?

All of the comments I have seen coming from most of the hard core libertarians re:
Ukraine and the question of defense spending and US Power in the world made me
remember an essay from Russell Kirk about them.. that I used to think was way to
harsh (I was and am very sympathetic to a Fusionist position) but now, I find
myself more open to it.