Posted on 12/12/2005 5:46:23 PM PST by Chairman_December_19th_Society
We will not tire, we will not falter, and we will not fail!
Good evening!!
Do not let the victims of the attacks on New York and Washington, nor the brave members of our Nation's military who have given their lives to protect our freedom, die in vain!!
This is the 1787th day that ATRW has run an edition, and that was the year of our Lord in which the United States Constitution was presented to the several states for ratification. So it seems fitting that a pivotal Constitutional case has been brought before the Supreme Court.
The case, actually it is the merger of four cases into one, surrounds the interpretation of the Apportionment Clause in Article I Section 2 of the Constitution.
The language in question reads:
The actual Enumeration shall be made within three Years after the first Meeting of the Congress of the United States, and within every subsequent Term of ten Years, in such Manner as they shall by Law direct. The Number of Representatives shall not exceed one for every thirty Thousand, but each State shall have at Least one Representative...
The Supreme Court took the case after lower courts had heard various suits brought about because of a certain set of activities in the state of Texas over the last few years.
Basically, the events unfolded in the following way. In 2000, the United States conducted its decinial census, and passed the relevent results along to the state of Texas, so it could undertake the requirements of redistricting to meet its new representative apportionment, as required by the Constitution. The state did so, and used the boundaries drawn for the 2002 election. Fifteen Republicans, out of 32 seats, were elected to Congress.
Republicans had attempted to change the districting map as being unfair, since their numbers had swelled in the state. If you recall, this sparked the infamous and cowardice flight of the other party to the great state of Oklahoma, who refused to extradite the miscreants. In any event, the GOP took control of the state's legislature, and passed a new districting map. As a result, the GOP gained six seats in the 2004 elections, and the losing party filed a number of lawsuits, four of which had sufficient merit in their writs of citiori to find favor, at least for a hearing, with the Supreme Court.
What is at issue is the fact that Texas did, legally, undertake two redistrictings during a single census cycle. Now whether that is an historic first is hard to say, but it is safe to say it is not a regular occurrence, and it is fair to understand why the other side is up in a wad over this.
But, is it against the rules? Refer back to the pertinent clause from the Constitution, the alleged guiding document of the Republic--alleged, because there have been some rights, such as abortion, that have been created from whole cloth (as an aside, this writer does believe there is an implied right to privacy in the Constitution, and it is in the Fourth Amendment, but that it was wrongly used to decide Roe, but that's another rant).
The Constitution clearly spells out the requirement to conduct a census. It also very clearly states that, after the first one, there shall be a regular occurrence of the census at ten year intervals. There is also the requirements levied upon all member states of the Union that it abide by the results of the census (implied) as the basis for conducting their apportionments (explicit) to determine the number of representatives that it will send to Congress.
It is also very clear the states must draw only a certain number of districts, and that such is determined by law by the Congress--currently set at 435 nationally. Amendment XIV amplifies upon this process with the one-man one-vote notion, and the Census Bureau, by Act of Congress, is responsible for determining the minimum and average district sizes to comply with that mandate, while sticking to the Congressional maximum of 435 seats. This is the apportionment of representatives, or apportionment, for short.
It is equally clear and distinct that it is only the census that may be used to determine the correct apportionment, and that states must use this information to create only a specific number of districts.
It is also abundently clear from the text of the Constitution that there is no limit as to the number of times that a given state, within the confines of the decenial period of the census, may undertake an redistricting process to determine how the state will be divided up in its representation.
Let's state that again--states may, within the context of Article I Section 2 of the United States Constitution, undertake as many redistrictings during a decenial census period as they like.
Now it has been custom, and indeed the custom has been written into many a state law, that the redistricting takes place only once every 10 years, after the census, and is binding for the balance of the census period. But laws within a state cannot, as a matter of juridictional principle, bind the state's legislature, either the current one or any in the future. It need only pass another law.
Indeed, it is from this precept that several states have redistricting clauses in their state constitutions, but they are of somewhat dubious jurisdictinoal value due to the supremecy of the United States Constitution, and the fact that it does speak to the subject.
Nevertheless, the left may have a point (yes, it's a stretch, but every once in a while the incongruent ramblings of the incoherent leftist rabble will, just out of shear random luck, actually put together two pieces of thought and form a point--so mark it on a calendar as it will not likely happen again for a long time to come). With a literal reading of the Constitution, then chaos could reign among the states regarding redistricting; every time the power structure changed in a state, regardless of the position in the decenial census cycle, redistricting could occur. It is equally true that the GOP should be careful of what it asks for as it might just get it.
But the argument is facetious on two counts.
First off, the Constitution is the organic law of the Nation. Organic law is that law which is most fundamental, that from which all other law must derive, thus its words are fundamental. And those words DO NOT include anything about a time requirement for redistricting.
Second, again with a literal reading of Article I Section 2, it is entirely possible that Congress could, and should, settle the matter with its own legislation. It can be argued, one could say persuasively, that Congress, because of the "in such manner as by law they shall direct" language, could tie the apportionment and redistricting processes together. Nevertheless, it is not, even in that manner, Constitutionally constrained, because it is not there.
Henry Hyde has been quoted as saying "facts are stubborn things," and the fact is the Constitution is silent on the question of the frequency of redistricting, and no manner of ranting and raving by anyone, from the right or from the left, will make it appear. Only a Constitutional Amendment can put it there, and none is is the works. The Supreme Court should find likewise, but in this era of finding unknown and heretofore unprinted language in the Constitution, it is hard to say.
Here's hoping the Roberts Court takes a stride back to the words that actually appear in the Constitution.
For AMERICA - The Right Way, I remain yours in the Cause, the Chairman.
Sounds right to me! Would it so happen over here, no ID required to vote except an address--verbally confirmed at the poll table. Feh!
Got to get to bed...I've had a long day. See you tomorrow!
Litkenschtien?
Good night, me too--in about an hour or so... ;) It's gonna be a long ugly day tomorrow. Will report if survival is possible. Stupid-ass work! [Sorry!]
This sounds like an excellent plan to me - if only MN would do the same! I strongly believe that one should only be able to vote with a photo ID. This just signing your name doesn't do it for me. Let us know if this makes it in Indiana.
Georgia has recently attempted a voter ID law ~ I don't recall if it passed or not ~ with the same generous means of getting an ID. They would even drive the photo van out to you if you could not get in to get an ID made! But, the libs fussed and fumed and created a major calamity. Well duh! Half the RAT voters would then be deemed inelegible for having voted before and they would lose (more) power. HA! Their days are numbered.
Hmmm-----where was I?
Great Freep page. I like the weapon's assesment, and the information on what our guys are doing in Iraq.
Never been big on the M-16. Jamming has always been a problem.
A .45 is still one of the best sidearms out there.
Peace! ; )
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.