The Trucker's view - and replies thereto

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.

The Trucker's view - and replies thereto

Postby TheTrucker » Thu Apr 30, 2009 1:18 pm

I would make some suggestions based on my experience with attempting to spur interest in the topic of discussion. Most people seem to have the attention span of a lab rat. And they will seldom join in any discussion or offer any response or opinion because they do not want to appear ignorant and they will not take the time to cure the ignorance. Michelle Obama's wardrobe is much more important to the left wing than any silly discussion about representation. Now that the messiah is ensconced in the White House executive overreach is just fine and the left now lusts for another unitary executive in the mold of Roosevelt. The emperor messiah is in charge and the congress is expendable. What do we do to actually get such people to THINK? How do we have a conversation with a lab rat? And do we really want to raise the awareness of lab rats who will then seize more power through an expansion of the House? I received a comment that simply said that I had not convinced anyone that smaller electoral districts were better than large ones. That is the real challenge. How do we convince people that water is wet? I am of the opinion that this is the primary use of this board. I don't think that the people currently signed up are divergent in their opinion that smaller constituencies are better than large but perhaps I am wrong. How do you prove that water is wet?
TheTrucker    
 
Posts: 32
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2009 9:30 pm
Location: Port Orchard, Wa.
Stance: Pro-Enlargement

Re: Let's build a forum!

Postby JEQuidam » Thu Apr 30, 2009 11:41 pm

TheTrucker wrote:I would make some suggestions based on my experience with attempting to spur interest in the topic of discussion. Most people seem to have the attention span of a lab rat.
Hey Trucker! It's been a awhile since we've chatted (via e-mail).

I understand your point as I'm often one of those attention-span challenged people! The reality (IMO) is *not* that there are so many dimwits as one would think; instead, most people are too busy dealing with day-to-day survival to realize that we, as a nation, are being gradually transformed towards tyranny. It's like the proverbial lab experiment where the water temperature is increased so gradually that we don't realize we're being boiled. And this is not coincidental: the more time we spend working for the government (taxes and paperwork) the less time we, the people, have to fix the government. This is truly an insidious problem.

OK ... back to your underlying point as it relates to this forum. It is my expectation that this forum will be primarily for those who already comprehend (or want to comprehend) the solution of enlarged representation. This isn't a venue for preaching to passerby.

In his follow-up posting, Paul had a good suggestion, we should move this discussion to a future forum that focuses on the strategy of communicating this abstract concept to our fellow citizens. We'll do that sometime in May (remind me if I forget). I'm still taking this slow.
User avatar
JEQuidam    
 
Posts: 193
Joined: Sun Apr 26, 2009 8:45 pm
Location: Dunwoody, Georgia
Stance: Pro-Enlargement

Re: Let's build a forum!

Postby TheTrucker » Sat May 02, 2009 5:16 pm

I see little of nothing to discuss other than how to force the Democratic party to enlarge the House. I think I have seen more than enough to know that the size of electoral districts is the basis of our bipolar government. There is little mystery concerning who or what subsists upon that base. Reality is unpleasant, but maintaining/enhancing the power of incumbency is the primary interest of incumbents. Further understanding of the issue on our part is unproductive.

I spend lots of time shouting toward the left wing moonbats trying to make them understand that most of the issues they claim to care about will be left unresolved or resolved in ways that they (the moonbats) do not want. Because no matter how much the moonbats whine and cry and wring their hands, the incumbent Democrats know that the left will never vote them out of office because to do so would result in Satan incarnate in the form of a fascist monolithic Republican taking one more seat in the House. The right wing (the rightards) have the same exact disease in that they know if they did not protect every seat and vote as a monolith then they would be unable to have effect on matters. In spite of rhetoric to the contrary, both the parties work to exacerbate this divide. The use of large gerrymandered districts is fundamental to this game of power sharing through fear.

While lack of understanding may be the problem in inciting the populous to demand change on this fundamental issue, no discussions on this board will be helpful. It seems to me that this group should concentrate of strategy. How do we incite the LEFT to DEMAND democracy. To try to incite the RIGHT ( the believers in patriarchical government) to enhance democracy would seem to be futilile. The Democrats can, right now, fix this pig with a decent reapportionment law. The Republican party can't stop them. Any codling or appeal to the political "right" is wasted effort. But it may be possible to enlist to the left; to convince the left that they must FORCE the Democrats to raise the level of democracy before they lose the power to do so. When will the 10 year cycle again coincide with Democratic power? And if "Democrats" are actually democratic that what do they have to lose by enhancing democracy?

I'm _NOT_ bipartisan or non-partisan because I see no benefit to it. The Republicans will loath doing what needs done. More, they lack power to do that which needs done even if they wanted to. Reapportionment happens every 10 year cycle. Now is the time for action if this is going to be done politically.
TheTrucker    
 
Posts: 32
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2009 9:30 pm
Location: Port Orchard, Wa.
Stance: Pro-Enlargement

Re: Let's build a forum!

Postby commonwealth » Sun May 03, 2009 2:22 am

I disagree with "TheTrucker" not only do we need to discuss the act or rather actions needed to increase representation, but we also need to explain to people why we need better representation. This is an issue I am working on avidly in my State which includes a lawsuit I filed still pending before the Trial Court:

http://www.californiacommonwealth.com/

I consider this to be the most important issue since our legislatures deal with all problems in a State. The Supreme Court has even found this as well.

"The people of a State are similarly affected by the action of the State Legislature. Its functions are comprehensive and pervasive. They are not specially concentrated upon the needs of particular parts of the State or any separate group of citizens. As the Court in Reynolds said, each citizen stands in "the same relation" to the State Legislature. Accordingly, variations from substantial population equality in elections for the State Legislature take away from the individual voter the equality which the Constitution mandates. They amount to a debasement of the citizen's vote and of his citizenship." Avery v. Midland County, Page 390 U. S. 474 at 499

The same is no less true for the Federal legislatures however, it is probably not so easily attacked. In fact, it is likely that it might only be attacked by one of the States and through the Federal Courts.

I do agree with the Trucker that something needs to be done. Educating people on top of taking this issue on is essential. Part of the Educating needs to be developing strategies on how to take on the leviathan.

Michael
Last edited by commonwealth on Sun May 03, 2009 2:29 am, edited 1 time in total.
commonwealth    
 
Posts: 1
Joined: Sun May 03, 2009 12:46 am
Stance: Pro-Enlargement

Re: Let's build a forum!

Postby JEQuidam » Sun May 03, 2009 6:50 am

TheTrucker wrote:Reality is unpleasant, but maintaining/enhancing the power of incumbency is the primary interest of incumbents.
On that we can all agree.

TheTrucker wrote:... I spend lots of time shouting toward the left wing moonbats trying to make them understand that most of the issues they claim to care about...

...The right wing (the rightards) have the same exact disease in that they know if they did not protect every seat and vote as a monolith then they would be unable to have effect on matters.
Well, the next best thing to being non-partisan, relative to this forum, is to be anti-partisan.

TheTrucker wrote:It seems to me that this group should concentrate on strategy.
Exactly so.

TheTrucker wrote:It seems to me that this group should concentrate of strategy. How do we incite the LEFT to DEMAND democracy. To try to incite the RIGHT ( the believers in patriarchical government) to enhance democracy would seem to be futile.
I would like to caution everyone that the use of the term "democracy" can confuse the debate. As you know, as a republic we are a representative democracy, not a democracy in the strict sense. There is only a "democracy", so to speak, within each congressional district, as we democratically elect our Representative. Although, how democratic is that process when the candidates are pre-selected by one or two parties (and the special interests)? Speaking of "democracy" vs. republic, etc., here's a video that I like (I don't know its origin).

TheTrucker wrote:The Democrats can, right now, fix this pig with a decent reapportionment law. The Republican party can't stop them.
Because of their devotion to statism, neither political party will support a meaningful increase in representation. Forget the political parties. IMO, no more than 20% of the public is truly committed to a political party. The parties only serve the parties.
User avatar
JEQuidam    
 
Posts: 193
Joined: Sun Apr 26, 2009 8:45 pm
Location: Dunwoody, Georgia
Stance: Pro-Enlargement

Re: Let's build a forum!

Postby JEQuidam » Sun May 03, 2009 6:56 am

commonwealth wrote: Educating people on top of taking this issue on is essential. Part of the Educating needs to be developing strategies on how to take on the leviathan.
Michael, it is a two-headed leviathan, isn't it? One head is the Republican Party, the other head is the Democrat Party.

Speaking of California, there is a forum open now for discussions specific to your efforts there:
viewforum.php?f=12

...Jeff
User avatar
JEQuidam    
 
Posts: 193
Joined: Sun Apr 26, 2009 8:45 pm
Location: Dunwoody, Georgia
Stance: Pro-Enlargement

Re: The Trucker's view - and replies thereto

Postby TheTrucker » Sun May 03, 2009 11:51 pm

I would like to caution everyone that the use of the term "democracy" can confuse the debate. As you know, as a republic we are a representative democracy, not a democracy in the strict sense. There is only a "democracy", so to speak, within each congressional district, as we democratically elect our Representative. Although, how democratic is that process when the candidates are pre-selected by one or two parties (and the special interests)?


In the strategy I have chosen I will be directing my words to the Democrats and the Left. Such individuals are deeply committed to the use of the word "democracy" to describe a "constitutional representative democracy" form of government.

(This republicanism of the 1780's was not in principle different from what in Britain and America by mid-nineteenth century was generally called representative democracy. The founders would not have been opposed to modern connotations of the word "democracy", nor would they have used the word "republic" to mark out a distinction from those connotations. In scorning "democracy", eighteenth-century theorists had in mind Aristotle's picture of a heedless, emotional, manipulated populace that would still be denigrated by most modern democratic theorists).


This issue is divisive in that Liberals view the latter day Republican use of the word "republic" as an attempt to mark out a difference between a constitutional representative democracy and a constitutional republic in order to impugn the virtues of democracy in any form. If there is a difference between a constitutional representative democracy and a constitutional republic it is that the latter can be extended to include state based fascist oligarchy while the former cannot. More importantly, the right employs the suggestion that modern democracy is BOTH anarchist (mod rule democracy) and statist (collectivist) at the same time. The right never seem to be bothered by this internal contradiction. But none of what the right may or may not do is actually relevant to the chosen strategy. IN THIS venue I am not interested in a right left war except as suits the advancement of our mutual goals.

In the chosen strategy I will demonize the 1920 Republicans and then show that the Democrats are, in fact, being authoritarian statist by continuing to employ the incumbency protection system engineered by the 1920 Republicans. I will throw down the gauntlet and insist that they hold true to their purported moral superiority and grant the people free and open choices as regards representatives; that they hold true to their constant call for constitutional democracy. I will impugn the current party members for their "party before country" and "party before democracy" activities and for their self serving devices to protect their lofty positions of incumbency. And I will most certainly mark out the difference between a fascist republic (as in George Bush _OR_ Barak Obama) and the CONSTITUTIONAL representative democracy that we should be able to regain in the here and now.

It is my intent to keep on beeach slapping these people until they admit their hypocrisy and issue a call for REAL CHANGE. Democracy is not a binary condition. It exists in degrees and one form of measurement is to measure the number of democratic mob rule votes compressed into one representative. The smaller the number so compressed then the more democratic will be the resulting society. I am not actually an advocate of 30k to 1 compression and feel that we can get by with more compression in today's world. But the 700k to 1 we currently have is NOT in any way representative of anything other than the oligarchy already in power; totally non democratic.
TheTrucker    
 
Posts: 32
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2009 9:30 pm
Location: Port Orchard, Wa.
Stance: Pro-Enlargement

Re: The Trucker's view - and replies thereto

Postby JEQuidam » Mon May 04, 2009 12:18 am

Trucker, well, when it comes to explaining the concept of expanding representation, the bottom line is that you go with what works for you (and be willing to change the explanation if it's not working).

I'm certainly not the arbiter of what works and what doesn't. That's why we need this forum, to share these ideas.

BTW, the maximum district size I'm recommending is 50,000 (not 30,000). This number comes from "Article the first" and allows us to nearly achieve "one person, one vote" (the constitutional law of the land). But, as you say "the 700k to 1 we currently have is NOT in any way representative of anything other than the oligarchy already in power". On that we can all agree.
User avatar
JEQuidam    
 
Posts: 193
Joined: Sun Apr 26, 2009 8:45 pm
Location: Dunwoody, Georgia
Stance: Pro-Enlargement

Re: The Trucker's view - and replies thereto

Postby TheTrucker » Thu May 21, 2009 2:57 am

I am still slaving away on my show. I have 2 more "slides" to do. One is the debunking of the 3 favorite "rhetorical" defenses against greater representation, and the other is the proposed NEW "Permanent Reapportionment Act of 2009" (which is of course just a law like any other that can be changed in harmony with the next decennial census). Of course a reapportionment act is a 10 year law. That is 8 years more permanent than a normal legislative act. One of the more important aspects that MUST be communicated is that any attempt to create a Constitutional Amendment will backfire in that the red states who gain power from the Senate are not going to support ANY alteration that would diminish their power. As such it is not possible to get 3/4ths of the states to ratify an amendment that would decrease the power of the voters of Wyoming or the power the less populous states gain by keeping representation at a minimum. Constitutional Amendments are the very soul of left wing moonbatedness. Such vehicles are the heartthrob of those who wish to appear intelligent while whining and hand wringing and hating the Conservatives/Republicans. As the amendment will never happen the underlying thesis cannot be falsified. Such platitudes are religious propositions with no fear of contradiction. It is somewhat like "Campaign Finance Reform" that cannot ever work. Obama went outside the current public financing propositions and so will future candidates for all levels of government and free speech constitutional provisions will not tolerate CFR in any effective manifestation. The enlargement of the House using a new reapportionment act is the ONLY politically viable mechanism for increasing the representation of the common people and the time is RIGHT NOW. A Constitutional Amendment or Campaign Finance Reform are the left wing lollipops of the day and as such a clever diversion that will be embraced by the supporters of the status quo.
TheTrucker    
 
Posts: 32
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2009 9:30 pm
Location: Port Orchard, Wa.
Stance: Pro-Enlargement

Re: The Trucker's view - and replies thereto

Postby JEQuidam » Thu May 21, 2009 7:21 am

TheTrucker wrote:...the proposed NEW "Permanent Reapportionment Act of 2009"
They have not completed the census yet. I don't know anything about a "Permanent Reapportionment Act of 2009" -- is that something that exists or something you're advocating?

TheTrucker wrote: As such it is not possible to get 3/4ths of the states to ratify an amendment that would decrease the power of the voters of Wyoming or the power the less populous states gain by keeping representation at a minimum.
Reality is more complicated than this. Many small states know they are screwed by the small number of Representatives, especially Montana which currently has 71% of the representatives that their total population would entitle them, so they are shortchanged by 30%! BTW, to your other point, many of the small states are "blue" (check the wiki map from the last election).

TheTrucker wrote:As the amendment will never happen...
You may be right that an amendment will never happen, but that is the solution that I most favor. And the amendment we need was already proposed by the House of Representative on August 24, 1789 (to become the defective "Article the first"), but if you want to promote an alternative solution then that's great. As unlikely as an amendment may be,I believe that necessary legislation is even less likely, because the oligarchic Congress will ever oppose increasing the number of fiefdoms by more than a token few. In contrast, an amendment need not originate from Congress, but could be proposed by amendment conventions in three-fourths of the state. However, it makes sense for supporters of enlarged representation to pursue all possible remedies.
User avatar
JEQuidam    
 
Posts: 193
Joined: Sun Apr 26, 2009 8:45 pm
Location: Dunwoody, Georgia
Stance: Pro-Enlargement

Re: The Trucker's view - and replies thereto

Postby TheTrucker » Fri May 22, 2009 12:48 am

JEQuidam wrote:
TheTrucker wrote:...the proposed NEW "Permanent Reapportionment Act of 2009"
They have not completed the census yet. I don't know anything about a "Permanent Reapportionment Act of 2009" -- is that something that exists or something you're advocating?

The number of representatives may or may not be tied to the population as can be seen by the fact that we have had 90 years in which such membership has NOT been tied to the census. The "Reapportionment Act of 1929" preceded the 1930 census and set forth the law that would reapportion the house in 1931 and subsequent 10 year cycles. Why not actually read the stuff at Show that explains this? A "Reapportionment Act" obviously does not need to follow the census as absolutely illustrated by the CURRENT crap created in 1929. The total number of House Members can be legislated at ANY TIME by any Congress that has the power and the balls to do it.. It is Constitutionally appropriate that such adjustment actually occur following the census because that is when such adjustment has been traditionally instantiated. It is quite obvious that the new seats must be filled by duly elected representatives and that this cannot occur until the states redistrict themselves to be in conformance with the Redistricting Act. But the rules governing such an adjustment can be defined RIGHT NOW just as the rules governing the 1931 reapportionment were set in 1929 redistricting act.
TheTrucker wrote: As such it is not possible to get 3/4ths of the states to ratify an amendment that would decrease the power of the voters of Wyoming or the power the less populous states gain by keeping representation at a minimum.


JEQuidam wrote:Reality is more complicated than this. Many small states know they are screwed by the small number of Representatives, especially Montana which currently has 71% of the representatives that their total population would entitle them, so they are shortchanged by 30%! BTW, to your other point, many of the small states are "blue" (check the wiki map from the last election).


Yes! It is more complicated than that. It has more to do with BOTH population and population density with Montana and a couple of others being outliers. Senatorial districts (the entire state) show a very clear correlation between population and population density taken together correlating with being BLUEness.

TheTrucker wrote:As the amendment will never happen...

JEQuidam wrote:You may be right that an amendment will never happen, but that is the solution that I most favor. And the amendment we need was already proposed by the House of Representative on August 24, 1789 (to become the defective "Article the first"), but if you want to promote an alternative solution then that's great. As unlikely as an amendment may be,I believe that necessary legislation is even less likely, because the oligarchic Congress will ever oppose increasing the number of fiefdoms by more than a token few. In contrast, an amendment need not originate from Congress, but could be proposed by amendment conventions in three-fourths of the state. However, it makes sense for supporters of enlarged representation to pursue all possible remedies.


Your preference is irrelevant to the realities. This picture illustrates the fallacy of a Convention of the States as the same fallacy in expecting the states to ratify such an amendment. You will never get the required 2/3rds or 3/4ths majority in a Constitutional Convention of all the states that would be required to report such an amendment out of the convention any more than you can get such an amendment past the red states even if the Congress reported it out. The Red states will block any such action no matter how you do it. It is highly unlikely that you would be able to get more than half.

The only realistic avenues are a constitutional challenge from the citizens of Montana, or a strong public outcry for the Democrats to be true to their namesake.
The latter option can be done only if there is a well organized PRIMARY challenge to a very large number of Democrats on this _ONE_ all important issue.
TheTrucker    
 
Posts: 32
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2009 9:30 pm
Location: Port Orchard, Wa.
Stance: Pro-Enlargement

Re: The Trucker's view - and replies thereto

Postby JEQuidam » Fri May 22, 2009 8:22 am

TheTrucker wrote:The "Reapportionment Act of 1929" preceded the 1930 census and set forth the law that would reapportion the house in 1931 and subsequent 10 year cycles.
We know about the 1929 act. In your original post you referenced "Permanent Reapportionment Act of 2009" -- I assume you meant to reference the 1929 act.

I need to publish a chart to illustrate this, but as many small states are screwed in the apportionment as are benefited by it. That is, for every Wyoming there is a Montana. And, depending on the vagaries of the mathematics, a state which is benefited in one apportionment could be shortchanged in the next. These discrepancies obviously disappear as the number of representatives increases.

Regarding passing legislation to resolve the problem, I think that's a great idea if it can be done. The disadvantage of legislation is that they can un-legislate as easily as they can legislate (whereas amendments are far more difficult to reverse). Moreover, the original 1929 act is not constitutional (IMO). But I do not believe there is only one possible solution for getting our representation enlarged, and all possible solutions should be investigated and pursued.
User avatar
JEQuidam    
 
Posts: 193
Joined: Sun Apr 26, 2009 8:45 pm
Location: Dunwoody, Georgia
Stance: Pro-Enlargement

Re: The Trucker's view - and replies thereto

Postby TheTrucker » Fri May 22, 2009 2:28 pm

JEQuidam wrote:
TheTrucker wrote:The "Reapportionment Act of 1929" preceded the 1930 census and set forth the law that would reapportion the house in 1931 and subsequent 10 year cycles.
We know about the 1929 act. In your original post you referenced "Permanent Reapportionment Act of 2009" -- I assume you meant to reference the 1929 act.

No. I meant the currently non existent "Reapportionment Act of 2009" that increases the membership of the House based on one or more proper rationales and at the same time insists on equally populous contiguous and compact single member districts. That will not create a House of more than 1700 or so (probably more like 800 - 1200) but that would be a huge improvement over what we have.

If you wish to pursue a Constitutional solution you would be much better off using the current unamended document and citing "equal protection under the law" to the extend it is allowed by "thirty thousand" as a Constitutional challenge in the courts. If you were to gain prominent headlines and notoriety with it then the chances for "Article the First" or a new "Article the First" would be greatly enhanced. I have commented on this "judicial" approach in the "Mental Blocks" thread. It may me possible to scare the * out of everyone with the possibility of a Supreme Court mandated House size of 10k.

I wonder why the ACLU hasn't found a Montana cowboy to use to enhance the ACLU image with such a case.
TheTrucker    
 
Posts: 32
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2009 9:30 pm
Location: Port Orchard, Wa.
Stance: Pro-Enlargement

Re: The Trucker's view - and replies thereto

Postby JEQuidam » Fri May 22, 2009 2:59 pm

TheTrucker wrote:If you wish to pursue a Constitutional solution you would be much better off using the current unamended document and citing "equal protection under the law" to the extend it is allowed by "thirty thousand" as a Constitutional challenge in the courts. If you were to gain prominent headlines and notoriety with it then the chances for "Article the First" or a new "Article the First" would be greatly enhanced. ... It may me possible to scare the **** out of everyone with the possibility of a Supreme Court mandated House size of 10k.
That's a very interesting point. Michael Warnken (http://californiacommonwealth.com/) has made this same argument previously, namely: we should continue the ratification of Article the first (in its defective state) and then go to the courts to have its obviously intended meaning reinstated. Its intended meaning being that shown on the left hand side (below) before being made defective by changing the word "less" to "more.

http://www.thirty-thousand.org/graphics ... -After.png
Click on the link above. (I don't know why I wasn't able to embed the image in the post.)

Many people do not realize that our 27th Amendment is actually "Article the second" from the Bill of Rights which was not finally ratified until 200 years after it was proposed.

Here is the text of Article the first and Article the second:
http://www.thirty-thousand.org/pages/BoR_text.htm
User avatar
JEQuidam    
 
Posts: 193
Joined: Sun Apr 26, 2009 8:45 pm
Location: Dunwoody, Georgia
Stance: Pro-Enlargement

Re: The Trucker's view - and replies thereto

Postby TheTrucker » Sat May 23, 2009 12:50 am

JEQuidam wrote:
TheTrucker wrote:If you wish to pursue a Constitutional solution you would be much better off using the current unamended document and citing "equal protection under the law" to the extend it is allowed by "thirty thousand" as a Constitutional challenge in the courts. If you were to gain prominent headlines and notoriety with it then the chances for "Article the First" or a new "Article the First" would be greatly enhanced. ... It may me possible to scare the **** out of everyone with the possibility of a Supreme Court mandated House size of 10k.
That's a very interesting point. Michael Warnken (http://californiacommonwealth.com/) has made this same argument previously, namely: we should continue the ratification of Article the first (in its defective state) and then go to the courts to have its obviously intended meaning reinstated. Its intended meaning being that shown on the left hand side (below) before being made defective by changing the word "less" to "more.

You have missed the point I was trying to make. My own position is that in any "constitutional approach" the best means to the desired end is a Court challenge to the current situation without any attempt to ratify Article the First. In such a judicial move Article the First is only evidential regarding the fact that the people were concerned about the House of Representatives morphing into a "distant and aristocratic body" as it has. Attempting to get Article the First ratified is a waste of time and effort in that as it is currently worded it would change nothing at all. A more serious problem manifests itself when attempting to use Article the First as an actual constitutional wedge because of the actual events of the time: By 1793 the House was 105 members and the people were convinced that the House would be expanded as promised. IN 1820 the House was 213 and the district sizes were 39800 -- right on schedule. The amendment as it exists was not needed and still isn't.

But Back to the strategy:

In Baker v. Carr the Supremes ruled that whereas the federal government has the constitutional mandate to provide a "republican form of government" within all states of the union, and whereas the federal government also has the constitutional mandate to provide "equal protection under the laws" then therefore one man's vote should have equal weight with all others and the LEGISLATIVE districts must therefore be equally populous. The point I have raised is that Baker v. Carr was a complaint against the state of Tennessee and not a case against the federal government. The federal government HAS NEVER BEEN a defendant in a case such as this and the Supremes have never had to address this issue. The Montana case normally employed to ward off any persons attempting to bring suit on this issue is seems to be simply a diversion in that the complaint in that case was nothing other than a claim that a different algorithm to allocate the membership of the House among the states would have given Montana another seat. The case should have actually been won (according to some math people of pretty high notoriety) because the current method is mathematically flawed or there was an error in arithmetic (can't remember which). But that is beside the point in this strategy. The point is that no case has ever been put before the supremes on the basis of "equal protection under the laws" and such a case SHOULD be winnable because of the precedent of Baker v. Carr.

If I am right, the TwoParty WILL move toward a constitutional amendment to raise the minimum number of people per representative because that will be the only way they could hope to survive. So IMHO my own strategy has the horse in front of the cart. I would force a proper "Article the First" by threatening to enlarge the membership of the House to 10k members. This number is almost certain when we look at ALL THREE conditions concerning representation and then add "equal protection under the laws". The Congress is mandated to provide equal protection to the full extent that such equality is possible. And that extent is bounded ONLY by the limitation of "nor more than one representative for every 30 thousand".

Unless, of course, we were to amend the Constitution to specify some higher number than 30k :D And that's my real point.
TheTrucker    
 
Posts: 32
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2009 9:30 pm
Location: Port Orchard, Wa.
Stance: Pro-Enlargement

Re: The Trucker's view - and replies thereto

Postby HouseSizeWonk » Wed Oct 07, 2009 5:27 pm

The Trucker is incorrect when he says that this has never been challenged in federal court. In U.S. Dep't of Commerce v. Montana, 503 U.S. 442 (1992), the State of Montana challenged the apportionment rules on a variety of grounds, one of which was that the use of the Huntington-Hill Method deprived them of equal protection under the law. Although the challenge in that case was to the formula (taking the 435 number for granted), the Court did say that "The constitutional guarantee of a minimum of one Representative for each State inexorably compels a significant departure from the ideal. . . . [T]he need to allocate a fixed number of indivisible Representatives among 50 States of varying populations makes it virtually impossible to have the same size district in any pair of States, let alone in all 50. . . . [T]he constraints imposed by Article I, § 2, itself make that goal illusory for the Nation as a whole." That is to say, although the case was a challenge to the algorithm, the Court's decision appears (to me) to answer the broader question.

Of course, a lawyer would try to distinguish Montana by saying that what was litigated in that matter was the formula, not the size, of the House. However, the issue of judicial supervision of the size of the House was flatly rejected in Whelan, which I posted the text of in another thread.

It's also worth noting that, at least as a textual matter, the federal government is not obligated to offer the citizens the equal protection of the laws. The Equal Protection Clause actually says that "No State shall . . . deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." U.S. CONST. amend. XIV, § 1 (emphasis added). Although the Supreme Court has tended to ignore that in a variety of cases, they were more liberal courts and more sympathetic subjects. See, e.g., Bolling v. Sharpe, 347 U.S. 497 (1954) (racial segregation in DC schools is unconstitutional).
HouseSizeWonk    
 
Posts: 38
Joined: Mon Sep 21, 2009 11:25 am

Re: The Trucker's view - and replies thereto

Postby 803sccdantes » Mon Oct 26, 2009 6:31 pm

HouseSizeWonk wrote:The Trucker is incorrect when he says that this has never been challenged in federal court. In U.S. Dep't of Commerce v. Montana, 503 U.S. 442 (1992), the State of Montana challenged the apportionment rules on a variety of grounds, one of which was that the use of the Huntington-Hill Method deprived them of equal protection under the law. Although the challenge in that case was to the formula (taking the 435 number for granted), the Court did say that "The constitutional guarantee of a minimum of one Representative for each State inexorably compels a significant departure from the ideal. . . . [T]he need to allocate a fixed number of indivisible Representatives among 50 States of varying populations makes it virtually impossible to have the same size district in any pair of States, let alone in all 50. . . . [T]he constraints imposed by Article I, § 2, itself make that goal illusory for the Nation as a whole." That is to say, although the case was a challenge to the algorithm, the Court's decision appears (to me) to answer the broader question.

Of course, a lawyer would try to distinguish Montana by saying that what was litigated in that matter was the formula, not the size, of the House. However, the issue of judicial supervision of the size of the House was flatly rejected in Whelan, which I posted the text of in another thread.

It's also worth noting that, at least as a textual matter, the federal government is not obligated to offer the citizens the equal protection of the laws. The Equal Protection Clause actually says that "No State shall . . . deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." U.S. CONST. amend. XIV, § 1 (emphasis added). Although the Supreme Court has tended to ignore that in a variety of cases, they were more liberal courts and more sympathetic subjects. See, e.g., Bolling v. Sharpe, 347 U.S. 497 (1954) (racial segregation in DC schools is unconstitutional).


Best way to get around this is Due Process Clause in the 5th Amendment. The analysis is basically the same as Equal Protection and it applies to the Federal government.
803sccdantes    
 
Posts: 17
Joined: Wed Aug 19, 2009 12:40 am


Return to Strategy: how do we induce change?

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

cron