With Connecticut, it's a done deal, isn't it?

Discussions related to litigating for increased federal representation.
Forum rules
This forum is only for discussions related to litigating for increased representation. Unrelated discussion threads will be moved or deleted.

With Connecticut, it's a done deal, isn't it?

Postby Epicurus » Sun Jul 20, 2014 11:20 am

"Both Connecticut AND Kentucky were found. . . . With Ct. and Ky, that's 12 of the then 15 States, or 80%. Once the 75% threshold for ratification is crossed, it may not be un-crossed."

If Connecticut and/or Kentucky ratified the original 12 amendments, Article the First is a valid amendment. Right now.

Do we live in a nation of laws or not? Or is that just another lie we tell ourselves?
Epicurus    
 
Posts: 21
Joined: Wed Jul 16, 2014 12:48 pm
Stance: Pro-Enlargement

Re: With Connecticut, it's a done deal, isn't it?

Postby StriderV » Tue Aug 05, 2014 1:19 pm

You would think so. I don't know why it hasn't gone forward yet.

Those in power don't want the change, and we the mere citizens, are too lazy to care.
StriderV    
 
Posts: 13
Joined: Thu Aug 04, 2011 2:03 pm
Stance: Pro-Enlargement

Re: With Connecticut, it's a done deal, isn't it?

Postby Epicurus » Tue Aug 05, 2014 2:18 pm

I have done some reading since I made that post.

Eugene LaVergne filed an excellent brief in the U.S. 3d Circuit Court of Appeals which you can read here:

http://www.scribd.com/doc/94139261/Final-Reply-Brief-and-Addendum

Having lost in the District Court and the Court of Appeals, he filed a petition for certiorari in the U.S. Supreme Court. It was denied.

Using one of their standard tricks, the Federal courts are dodging the substantive issues in the case claiming that whether or not an amendment to the Constitution has been properly ratified by at least 75% of the states is a "political question."

In other words, the Supreme Court is going to give Congress the power to decide whether or not a properly ratified amendment is part of the Constitution.

Wow! The House can overrule the states on constitutional amendments. Where does the Constitution say that?

And of course House members will vote to drastically reduce their own power by expanding their number, right?

Let's face reality. We really don't live in the country we were taught about. The country described by our teachers is a fiction.
Epicurus    
 
Posts: 21
Joined: Wed Jul 16, 2014 12:48 pm
Stance: Pro-Enlargement

Re: With Connecticut, it's a done deal, isn't it?

Postby Epicurus » Wed Aug 06, 2014 10:28 am

StriderV wrote:we the mere citizens are too lazy to care.


What really shocks me is that almost no one seems to care about being truly represented in the House. They don't care if their congressperson represents their views or not, or if their congressperson has the time to read their letters or meet with them or not!

One would think that the Tea Party groups would take this issue up. Nope. They think increasing the number of representatives is the same as increasing "big government." By that standard, a dictator would be the smallest government of all.

The number of people who care about this issue right now could be taken out with one hellfire missile.
Epicurus    
 
Posts: 21
Joined: Wed Jul 16, 2014 12:48 pm
Stance: Pro-Enlargement


Return to Litigating for More Representation

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests

cron