Discuss how we can hasten progress towards enlarging representation. There are two primary components to this: 1) educating others in order to gain the necessary public support; and, 2) ensuring implementation via a constitutional amendment or other legal means.
Forum rules
This forum is only for discussion related to achieving the vision of a much larger House. All other discussion will be moved or deleted. No incivility or partisan advocacy allowed.
Post Reply
User avatar
JEQuidam
Posts: 209
Joined: Sun Apr 26, 2009 8:45 pm
First Name: Jeff
Stance: Pro-Enlargement
Location: Dunwoody, Georgia
Contact:

Clemons v. Department of Commerce dismissed by Supreme Court

Post by JEQuidam »

The Supreme Court reviewed Clemons v. Department of Commerce and announced (on December 13, 2010) that “The judgment of the United States District Court for the Northern District of Mississippi is vacated, and the case is remanded with instructions to dismiss the complaint for lack of jurisdiction.” (Supreme Court website.)

By dismissing Clemons v. Department of Commerce, the Supreme Court has effectively sanctioned voter inequality nationwide. Though the constitutional principle of “one person one vote” is required intrastate, the citizens of some states will continue to enjoy more political clout than the citizens of other states. It can now be said that implementing political equality among citizens is only an obligation of the states, not the federal government. The court’s decision ensures that the House of Representatives – the cozy federal country club of 435 – will continue to operate for the benefit of the Special Interests. This decision marks a great victory for the Status Quo, the lobbyists, and the professional political class!

It was irresponsible, if not cowardly, for the Supreme Court to sidestep such a critical question by claiming a “lack of jurisdiction” by the federal courts. In 1857, the Supreme Court also declared that the federal courts lacked jurisdiction in Dred Scott v. Sandford. That proved to be yet another tragically timorous moment in the court’s history. Allowing the federal House to be exempt from compliance with the constitutional requirement of “one person, one vote” further elevates Congress above the law. Though John Adams envisioned “a government of laws, and not of men”, we have long been on the path of becoming merely a government of men. The Supreme Court missed a critical opportunity to reverse this perilous trend.

Relative to Clemons v. Department of Commerce, the Supreme Court also vacated (nullified) all of the work and research done by the diligent U.S. District Court (Three-Judge Panel) and the U.S. Attorney’s office. In other words, it is as if this case never happened. This is a legal mystery that is well beyond my expertise to evaluate. The good news, as I understand it, is that their ruling allows this legal challenge to be pursued again in the future.

The cause of representational enlargement is correct and just, initiated by our nation’s Founders, and fully supported by logic and facts. It will now be necessary to win this battle in the court of public opinion. This is a major challenge as many of our fellow citizens do not yet understand that increasing the number of representatives will yield many benefits including improving the quality of our representation, reducing government spending, and subduing political corruption. Gaining broad popular support will require a long-term educational effort: We must convince people one by one. A breakthrough will come when prominent and influential leaders join our non-partisan struggle to restore representative democracy in the United States. Towards these goals, please encourage others to read "Taking Back Our Republic" (which can be downloaded from: http://www.thirty-thousand.org/pages/TBOR.htm).

Finally, everyone should know that the legal effort launched by Scott Scharpen (at Apportionment.us) and their attorney, Michael Farris, was extraordinary and heroic. Those of us who have witnessed their efforts and read their work can attest to their commitment and intelligence. I regret that so few people will know how much they have contributed to this historic cause. We should all be grateful for their efforts.
HouseSizeWonk
Posts: 38
Joined: Mon Sep 21, 2009 11:25 am
First Name: Adam

Re: Clemons v. Department of Commerce dismissed by Supreme C

Post by HouseSizeWonk »

JEQuidam wrote:The cause of representational enlargement is correct and just, initiated by our nation’s Founders, and fully supported by logic and facts. It will now be necessary to win this battle in the court of public opinion.
This will be a sounder basis upon which to rest the victory anyway. Most court-ordered social engineering has provoked populist anti-judicial backlash (e.g., school desegregation/busing, abortion rights). By fighting and winning in the court of public opinion, you have a much better chance of an enduring victory.
Post Reply