Representative Onder, You’re Asking the Wrong Question

"Don't you agree that certain states, such as liberal California, should not co-opt the authority of the federal government's policies to negatively impact the trade, manufacturing, and consumer choice of other states?"
— Rep. Bob Onder

Here we go again, Bob. That’s a loaded question if I’ve ever heard one. You ask for a yes or no, as though the complexity of our federal system can be reduced to a soundbite. Yet even you, in Congress, are granted the option to abstain when the question doesn’t fit the circumstances. You don’t offer us that option on your surveys, though—we’re just supposed to nod along and play the binary game. Not today.

Let’s get to the meat of this.

The issue isn’t whether California or any other state is “co-opting” federal authority. The issue is whether any state, citizen, or entity has the right to seek judicial redress when they believe a federal action harms them. And under the U.S. Constitution, the answer is unequivocally yes. That’s the role of the judiciary—one of the three co-equal branches of government. You seem to forget that.

Article III of the Constitution guarantees the federal judiciary the authority to hear “all cases… arising under this Constitution, the laws of the United States, and treaties made.”

The courts are not an afterthought. They are a constitutional equal to the Executive and the Legislature. Dismissing a state’s right to challenge federal policy through the courts shows either a fundamental misunderstanding of constitutional balance—or an intentional effort to mislead your constituents into believing that judicial recourse is somehow illegitimate.

Economic Clout Is Not a Crime

Now let’s talk about California. You called it out by name, so let’s deal in facts:

• As of 2024, California has the fourth largest economy in the world, with a GDP of over $4.3 trillion—greater than Japan. ([IMF, BEA])

• Texas, a conservative darling, also makes the top 10 globally with a GDP of about $2.4 trillion.

• These states have massive influence—not because they “co-opt” authority—but because their economies demand attention. Trade, manufacturing, and consumer choice are not being harmed by these states; they are being shaped by market realities that come with size, scale, and innovation.

So let’s not pretend this is about “liberal” California bullying others. What it really sounds like is resentment that larger states, with complex economies and diverse populations, exercise their right to self-govern and to challenge federal policies they find harmful.

The Real Imbalance? Representation.

You, Bob, serve in the House of Representatives. That’s supposed to be the body that represents the people equally. But we’ve got a problem: The House no longer does that.

Why? Because it’s been capped at 435 seats since 1929, when the U.S. had 122 million people. Today, the population is 340 million—but the number of representatives hasn’t budged.

• In 1929, each House member represented about 280,000 people.

• In 2025, that number is 780,000 on average.

• But it’s not evenly distributed:

  • Wyoming has ~580,000 residents and 1 rep → 1 rep per 580k.

  • California has ~39 million and 52 reps → 1 rep per 750k.
    That’s a 170,000-person gap in representation power.

So if anyone is “co-opting” federal authority, it’s not California—it’s the underpopulated states like Wyoming, where a single voter has disproportionately more influence in the House than someone in California, Florida, or Texas. That’s not representation, it’s institutionalized imbalance.

Let’s Call It What It Is

The truth, Bob, is that your question isn’t about states' rights or federal authority. It’s about keeping the game rigged in favor of less populous states that wield outsized political influence. It’s about denying the judiciary its constitutional role. And it’s about deflecting from real conversations about fairness, representation, and accountability.

Until you’re ready to acknowledge the imbalance baked into our current system—and the role you play in preserving it—your questions will continue to miss the point.