We're catching up, give us time.
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.
LMAO!!!
This rabid “Gay” stuff intimidates everyone who gets in its way.
Now the counterbalance would be a faith in God, but as that does not exist in the strength required, the intimidators get their way.
You could leap to your feet and speak in the language and tone of Patrick Henry!
One of the first things that the GOP needs to address when they come to power, or by a convention of states, is to have a constitutional amendment that specifies that all states will provide a bi-cameral legislature with the state senate being composed of one senator representing each county who resides within that county. A like amount of representatives will be divided across the population as a whole.
This will restore the power of the rural communities back to the state legislation.
Nebraska ain’t gonna do it.
Wow, great history lesson. Thanks.
They’re not a gang, more of a club.
We're catching up, give us time.
How did things work prior to this decision? I read a bit about it and, on its face, it appears to be a movement toward more fairness. Some districts purportedly had 14 to 1 differences with others. Do you know the prior history?
I mean things are rigged now with gerrymandering so I cannot see how it would have been much worse in terms of outcomes.
What Reynolds did was not simply dictate equally populated State Assembly voting districts. IMO that was bad enough court overreach into state matters. I cringe a bit when fairness is even brought up as a reason for court intervention. It strikes me as related to despicable social justice.
The states previously had varied methods of electing/appointing members to their senates, some of which went back to the earliest days of our republic and were independent of population.
For instance, Maryland came up with a filtered election of its state senators that was the model our framers used for both the US Senate and the electoral college.
Reynolds threw that all out, and like the 17th Amendment, resulted in popularly derived state legislatures, a bad idea that has lead to loss of freedom.
Wow, that’s an entire history I know nothing about. Do you have a resource that I could check? I’d like to learn more.
In that vein I took a look at my home state, FL constitution. The pre-Reynolds constitution wasn't concerned with one man one vote. The basic political unit of the state was the county and each had at least one, but no more than three representatives. More populous counties had one senator and in rural areas, two contiguous counties got a single senator.
The constitutional emphasis was on limiting both taxes and legislative power to oppress.
Democracy be damned.
That’s a totally unrecounted story of our nation’s founding principles. I’ve never heard about that ever. That would make a great research project for some grad student.
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.