File in Federal Court for more seats

Discuss how we can hasten progress towards enlarging representation. There are two primary components to this: 1) educating others in order to gain the public support necessary; and, 2) ensuring implementation via a constitutional amendment.
Forum rules
This forum is only for discussion related to hastening progress towards enlarging representation. Unrelated discussion threads will be moved or deleted.

File in Federal Court for more seats

Postby usa1wat » Tue Aug 23, 2011 9:44 pm

File in Federal Court in your district. File a Civil Case, request an injunction, Use 28 USC 2284 (a) That statute is a constituional challenge to redistricting.
File for the injunction to require the State, the state legislature, and the State Board of Elections to redistrict the US House seats * 1 for every 30,001
citizens of your State. Article 1 Section 2 states "no more then 1 US House seat for every 30,000 people.
The current law stating 435 is repealed...Look at United States Code Title 2 Section 2...Library of Congress site
Enter 2 USC sec 2

SPREAD THE WORD
usa1wat    
 
Posts: 1
Joined: Tue Aug 23, 2011 9:26 pm
Stance: Pro-Enlargement

Re: File in Federal Court for more seats

Postby CurtisNeeley » Fri Nov 11, 2011 11:55 am

Please read carefully before you "spread the word" or you will negatively impact your wallet.
Article 1 Section 2 Clause 3 from Wikipedia follows.:
Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons. 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; and until such enumeration shall be made, the State of New Hampshire shall be entitled to chuse [sic] three, Massachusetts eight, Rhode-Island and Providence Plantations one, Connecticut five, New-York six, New Jersey four, Pennsylvania eight, Delaware one, Maryland six, Virginia ten, North Carolina five, South Carolina five, and Georgia three.


The Injunction recommended above would be summarily denied properly due to the simple meaning of the text in the statute. Please do not waste your time/money attempting. The thirty-thousand per one ratio was listed as a MAXIMUM amount of representation permitted for thirty-thousand. 1/30,000 is HUGE compared to 1/650,000 as now exists.

The text does not in any way require one per 30,000.
[size=150]Article 1 Section 2 Clause 3 allows a MAX of one per 30,000.
We are now misrepresented by around 0.087 per 30,000 or MUCH less than the max of one allowed for thirty-thousand.

I am NOT an attorney but am currently teaching law professors and judges that law is either logical or WRONG.
User avatar
CurtisNeeley    
 
Posts: 3
Joined: Thu Nov 10, 2011 3:57 pm
Location: Fayetteville, AR; USA
Stance: Pro-Enlargement

Re: File in Federal Court for more seats

Postby JEQuidam » Sat Nov 12, 2011 11:19 pm

CurtisNeeley wrote:The text does not in any way require one per 30,000.
That is correct. The Constitution requires only that the minimum population size of a congressional district be 30,000. The need for smaller congressional districts rests upon many other arguments which are outlined in "Taking Back Our Republic" which can be downloaded from this page. Please read that, especially section 3.
User avatar
JEQuidam    
 
Posts: 193
Joined: Sun Apr 26, 2009 8:45 pm
Location: Dunwoody, Georgia
Stance: Pro-Enlargement

Re: File in Federal Court for more seats

Postby CurtisNeeley » Sun Nov 13, 2011 11:28 am

JEQuidam wrote:
CurtisNeeley wrote:The text does not in any way require one per 30,000.
That is correct. The Constitution requires only that the minimum population size of a congressional district be 30,000. The need for smaller congressional districts rests upon many other arguments which are outlined in "Taking Back Our Republic" which can be downloaded from this page. Please read that, especially section 3.

Well; Yes the text says max of one per 30,000 and yes it was an error by a transcription-er or other demon.

There is no "legal" course that can right the wrong that was done 200+ years ago.

There is no "process" either legal or political that I see to redefine what the United States is since it claims to be "responsive to the people" instead of the "oligarchy of 435 corporate leaders". The United States IS the best country on earth in my opinion. Even that belief does not make two + two = five. It is a NOT funny joke that the USA is by the people.
User avatar
CurtisNeeley    
 
Posts: 3
Joined: Thu Nov 10, 2011 3:57 pm
Location: Fayetteville, AR; USA
Stance: Pro-Enlargement

Re: File in Federal Court for more seats

Postby revolution to win » Sun Nov 13, 2011 2:08 pm

Gentlemen,

The very point, 1 for every 30,000 is the maximum established in the Constitution. a fixed number of 435 is not the maximum
number in the Constitution. Marbury v Madison a Supreme court ruling states the Constitution is the Supreme Law.

435 10,000 1:30,000 308 million people

The rule in article 5, is to amend the Constitution, specifically when there is a numerical, or substantive change.
ie. voting for any race, also voting for both genders.

The rule of the wallet, the Congress, House and Senate, votes the funds for the operation annually. Funding both institutions
is a Constitutional obligation.
revolution to win    
 
Posts: 5
Joined: Fri Oct 21, 2011 8:42 am
Stance: Pro-Enlargement


Return to Strategy: how do we induce change?

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests

cron