Skip to comments.If Your State is a Mess . . .
Posted on 10/12/2013 4:18:05 AM PDT by Jacquerie
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 equal protection clause, these masterminds imposed a democratic republic form of government on all fifty states! Never mind the constitution simply guaranteed a republican form of government, Scotus illegally overruled centuries of wisdom and imposed democracy.
Republics demand 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 proved to be hostile to minority rights and eventually end in strongman 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 government?
Because of the 17th Amendment, the states were defenseless. Without representation in the US Senate, Scotus black-robes had nothing to fear. Why would popularly elected US Senators oppose the decision? Some, like Dirksen did. But in the aggregate, popularly elected US Senators were not going to risk criticism for opposing the lofty ideal of one man one vote. The media would ask, How could anyone be against democracy? How can anyone oppose the right of the people to elect state Senators?
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 a convention of the states votes to repeal it.
So where do you go when the Supreme Court is unconstitutional?
I live in Maryland.. it’s a given the state’s a mess.
Among Mark Levin's solutions is to grant three fifths of the state legislatures the power to overturn Scotus decisions.
It took a hundred years to stand where we are, on the cusp of despotism. It may be too late, but it is worth the effort.
I think you have to start interpreting the Constitution as written yourself. One example of that is that the Supreme Court has a nice name, but it's only "supreme" over other Federal courts. In our government, it's just another co-equal branch, along with the Congress and Presidencywhich are interpreters of the Constitution with the same standing as SCOTUS.
That's why Congress has the power to impeach and convict justices of that Court. And in practice, they've set themselves the bar way too high for that. Failing to uphold your oath of office by over-reaching your powers or acting against the plain meaning of the USC is plenty.
And by the way, it says nowhere in the USC who is the ultimate interpreter of the documentand that's because the People, using plain language, are the ultimate interpreters. It begins "We, the People . . ." rather than "We the Supreme Court . . ." or "We the President . . ." or even "We the angry nerds who were unpopular in high school, and therefore went to law school. . ." (No offense to patriotic lawyers.)
I never understood my father fulminating against the absurdity of "one-man, one-vote" back when that decision came out. Thanks to this excellent vanity post, I get it. If we need to up-end Reynolds, the 17th Amendment, and also the 16th, to take back the last, best hope of mankind, then let's get 'er done.
I live in Alabama. Beautiful beaches and great football, but we have more people on welfare than those of us employed, an archaic state constitution, dramatically bad public education, overcrowded prisons, significant population with drug/alcohol problems, human trafficking, gangs, illegal aliens, racial prejudice (by all groups—white, black, etc), poor economic base, poor tax structure, etc. Things will only get worse...
All states have similar problems.
Last June, I wrote my state representative about a convention of the states.
He responded and asked when it would be convenient for me to have a chat.
We got together for about an hour. He was aware of a growing grass roots movement to reassert state sovereignty and thanked me.
Now, I didn’t fall off the turnip truck yesterday. I don’t imagine anything will happen soon. But, great things begin with great ideas.
As for reform, the people clearly oppose Obamacare.
What could be politically safer than to vote to defund it?
When I consider how the pubbies are likely to fold under rat and media pressure and give way to the forces of evil, it is silly to think reform can possibly emerge from Washington DC.
It is up to us, through our states, to save what little remains of our republic.
The same place you go when the Dept. OF justice is Corrupt and Their boss as well,no where
Sounds like the governor of my state... We usually meet for a few hours, throw back a couple of beers, maybe play a game of billiards or two, and enjoy an intimate chat about politics. Sometimes the U.N. Secretary-General, the Prime Minister of a medium-sized European country, or a member of the Joint Chiefs of Staff will stop by at the same time, and we'll switch to pitching horseshoes.
Glad to hear that your state representative is equally accessible. If only all of our elected representatives were so accommodating...
The decision needs to be overturned.
Amazing. When the court made that decision and I saw the results (I lived in AZ then), I knew something was wrong but was too ignorant to know why. Years later, I called into a local (here if FL) talk show run by two supposedly cinservative history professors and stated that I thought that court decision was wrong. They replied as if I were some kind of moron.
If I lived anywhere near a university it would be fun to take a poly-sci class or two, just to sit back and wait to shred liberal jackass professors.
What is necessary is to recognize (and encourage others to do so) that neither the Supreme Court, nor any other, has any legitimate authority over anyone other than the particular parties to the cases before them; while determination of which party should win will often require that the Court determine what the existing laws means, and while it is often useful for the Court to explain what the existing laws mean, the fact that the Court claims that the laws mean something does not make it so.
A major problem arises in cases where the government acts illegitimately, but no workable remedy can be formulated. A Court decision which holds that no remedy is justified will often interpreted as holding that the action in question was legitimate, whether or not the Court actually made such a determination (if the Court finds that no remedy would be possible in the case at hand, it will often not even consider whether the actions which led to the case were legitimate).
It should also be noted that in some cases it is right and proper for a court to make decisions which are not particularly justified by statutory law, if any other decision they could make would be even worse. For example, in Lawrence v. Texas, the Supreme Court should have remanded the case to a lower court with instruction that defendants should be entitled to argue that law enforcement was aware of and routinely ignored activities equivalent to those of the defendants, to such an extent that an ordinary person would perceive such actions as being de facto legal. For the Court to evaluate arguments not given, and order a remedy which had not been sought, would in general be improper, but the question of whether particular conduct would be generally perceived as de facto legal is a matter of contestable fact, and as such should be examined by a jury rather than the Court. Such a remedy would be more favorable to the defendants than any other to which they were actually constitutionally entitled; while the prosecutors would normally be entitled to argue against any proposed remedy, this remedy would allow it the chance to present its case before the jury. Nothing in statute would particularly justify such a remedy, but it would allow both prosecution and defense all the protections to which both sides are entitled.
I think the Founding Fathers set the example of what to do when the Government got out of control and no longer represented the will of the people: Tar, Rope, Feathers.
HEADS ON PIKES!
Will Reynolds v. Sims - one man one vote need to be addressed
when sending delegates to the convention of the states?
I don’t think so, but state means (three fourths) to reverse horrible Scotus decisions should be. That is one of Levin’s amendments.
>> Sounds like the governor of my state... We usually meet for a few hours, throw back a couple of beers, maybe play a game of billiards or two, and enjoy an intimate chat about politics. Sometimes the U.N. Secretary-General, the Prime Minister of a medium-sized European country, or a member of the Joint Chiefs of Staff will stop by at the same time, and we'll switch to pitching horseshoes. Glad to hear that your state representative is equally accessible. If only all of our elected representatives were so accommodating. <<
I drove to Springfield for three hours to sit down with my state legislator back in Feb. to discuss the "gay marriage" bill the radical left was pushing. Most of the state legislators were "in committee" hearings, but I managed to catch her in her office. She shook my hand, thanked me for coming all the way to Springfield, claimed to be "undecided" on the bill, and listened politely as I explained my objections and pointed out she represented a socially conservative district that made up a large part of Congressman Lipinski's turf. She nodded and claimed she would take my opinions into account and write back when she had reached a decision.
Then she turned around and voted the way Madigan told her to ("AYE", of course), and never wrote back. She knows no matter what I do, she'll be re-elected by about 70% in her safe gerrymandered district.
It doesn't matter if state legislators are more "accessible" than federal ones, if you're NOT the one they're working for.