Posted on 07/23/2018 2:00:43 AM PDT by Jacquerie
If equal protection of the law commands electoral districts of equal populations, then most ratifying states violated the 14th Amendment the moment it went into effect in 1868. In 1962, scotus overturned 120 years of stare decisis and traditions going back to our early colonial days when it determined apportionment of legislative districts was not a strictly political matter, but also justiciable.1
Scotus’ abuse went further in 1964 when it determined that equal protection not only meant “one man one vote” among state assemblies and the US House of Representatives, but also applied to state senate districts.2 The court claimed the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment requires substantially equal legislative representation for all citizens in a state regardless of where they reside.
In this breathtaking assault on separation of powers, a panel of lawyers not only ordered revisions to nearly every state constitution, it granted political power to the unrepublican branch of government. It wasn’t supposed to be this way.
To rejoin the Union, the reconstructed rebel states submitted their new constitutions to congress for approval. Among the requirements was state incorporation of the 14th Amendment, and a structure of government that met the US Constitution’s Article IV § 4 guarantee of republican government.
From Associate Justice John Marshall Harlan’s dissent to Reynolds v. Sims (1964):3
Of the twenty-three loyal states which ratified the Amendment before 1870, five had constitutional provisions for apportionment of at least one house of their respective legislatures which wholly disregarded the spread of population. Ten more had constitutional provisions which gave primary emphasis to population, but which applied also other principles, such as partial ratios and recognition of political subdivisions, which were intended to favor sparsely settled areas.
(Excerpt) Read more at articlevblog.com ...
The activist and despot Warren Court essentially declared the U.S. Constitution unconditional, as to the states. States we’re forbidden from having a georgraphical representation as is U.S. Senate. State senates became just like the House. Small “blue” areas with large population rule the state. “Red” areas have little say in their governing. Most “blue” states are this way, a few large “blue” areas in a sea of “red”, turn the whole state “blue”. Another argument against allowing “case law” to stand without legislative action voted on by elected reps.
The activist and despot Warren Court essentially declared the U.S. Constitution unconditional, as to the states. States we’re forbidden from having a georgraphical representation as is U.S. Senate. State senates became just like the House. Small “blue” areas with large population rule the state. “Red” areas have little say in their governing. Most “blue” states are this way, a few large “blue” areas in a sea of “red”, turn the whole state “blue”. Another argument against allowing “case law” to stand without legislative action voted on by elected reps.
Education BUMP!
Thanks PG!
Yes, and as opposed to statutes which can be repealed with another statute, social justice scotus decisions are written in stone.
Its why I’m so supportive of Mark Levin’s Liberty Amendments.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.