Suppose that a political party ("X") controls a simple majority of both the House and Senate in addition the the presidency. At this point in time, the Supreme Court is not relevant.
- All states that are supportive of X are divided into many smaller states, a vast majority of which are supportive of X. As this gives X more influence, the relevant state legislatures consent as required.
- As step 1 primarily affects the composition of the Senate but not the House, the size of the House is altered to be as small as possible: one representative per state.
- If, at any point, X feels that their majority is threatened, step 1 is repeated.
At this point, X has firmly cemented one-party rule. However, I believe we can go farther.
- The constitution has no qualifications to be Speaker of the House. While there is a prohibition on a member of the Congress from serving in the executive branch, the Speaker is not a member of Congress. The president is elected Speaker of the House. The president can now bring any bill they desire to the House floor for a vote. The vice president, as President of the Senate, presides and bring any bill they desire to their Senate floor for a vote. The legislative calendar of both chambers is subject to the whims of the president and vice president.
- The constitution does not specify the size of the Supreme Court. Congress passes a bill changing the size of the Supreme Court to one.
- X plays the long game by waiting for all existing Justices to die. Alternatively, they impeach and convict all Justices on bogus charges using their overwhelming majority established in steps 1–3. In either situation, the sole Supreme Court seat is now vacant.
- The constitution has no qualifications to be a Supreme Court Justice. Unlike the legislative branch, the constitution seems to permit a member of the executive branch to serve in the judicial branch simultaneously. There is even precedent to this fact: John Marshall was simultaneously Secretary of State and Chief Justice from February 4, 1801 to March 4, 1801. The president nominates themself to the vacant Supreme Court seat and is confirmed by Congress.
Now, we have a president who is elected by a minority of people due to extraordinarily gerrymandered state boundaries. This president is simultaneously the Speaker of the House, and thus able to bring any bill they desire to the House floor for a vote. Further, they are the sole Supreme Court Justice, meaning that they can unilaterally uphold any bill. The only legal mechanism by which a president can be removed from office is impeachment, which is firmly out of reach given the gerrymandered states.
For the sake of everyone, I hope this scenario never materializes. However, I do not see any step that is unconstitutional. No constitutional amendments would be necessary to accomplish this, and "all" that's required is that the elected members of Congress do not go against their party en masse (a single member could merely be expelled).
It would seem that this plan could be executed in mere days, assuming Congress takes the route of impeaching the existing Justices rather than waiting for them to die.
Is this a constitutional path towards single-party rule in the United States with an extraordinarily strong president having near-zero checks on their power, or am I missing something?