| “
|
Note:
Dear patron of our humble website,
The only
hope then is secession, not from the United States, but from Maryland.
Even though a new state would not be able to avoid the mandate of
uniform apportionment, it would not matter. The ten counties (Harford
and the Eastern Shore) would be of one mind on many issues, including
respect of property. If this is not a sufficient reason to secede, then
what is?
Bye, Bye Maryland!
Before you take the time to read the following
essay, please note that
the first few paragraphs concern federal law suits and the issue of
constitutionality. While interesting to masochists like myself,
these paragraphs are not necessary to read and understand the purpose
of this essay, though, they will give you an undeniable advantage over
any liberal Democrat from the Baltimore-Washington corridor when
discussing the topic of the tyranny of Maryland’s Government.
Those wishing to skip my Constitutional soliloquy, please start reading
at paragraph number 5.
I
happened upon this treatise, and as also happens
from time to time I
found it epiphanic. While nominally discussing the plight of
Marylanders under the heavy boot of state Democrats—quite
disproportionately, and illegally as it turns out—
the whoseits and whatsits are applicable to everybody. I am told that
constitutional law is not taught in
any of the state's law schools, so I
am already one-up on Maryland's liberal
mountebanks in that regard. Here below are a few
snippets. I'll put the entire article into the Defining Articles library for easy
future reference.
|
One of the most overlooked and
misunderstood aspects of the United
States Constitution are Sections 2 and 3 of Article I;
these set out
the guidelines for selecting members to the United States Senate and
House of Representatives. Ever since the infamous court cases of
Baker
v. Carr (1962) and Reynolds v. Sims (1964), most Americans, who have
any interest in government and politics, have come to the mistaken
belief that Founding Fathers of our country intended for the
legislative leaders of this country to be apportioned with mathematical
scrutiny in adherence to the motto, “One Man, One Vote.” In
practical
terms this means that every Congressional District must contain the
same number of citizens, as well as the Legislative Districts in each
State having a uniform number of citizens.
The Chief Justice during these two
erroneous court decisions was Earl
Warren who, like so many Justices of the Supreme Court in the
past half
century, must have slept his way through law school when the professors
were teaching Constitutional Law. Either that, or they were not
taught
that historical context is vital to understanding the Founders’
intentions. Where did the Warren Court get their authority?
Apparently, the 14th Amendment. With all due respect to those it
was
trying to help, viz. blacks, this is the most poorly written and abused
Amendment in American history. The Warren Court decided in Baker
v.
Carr that the “Equal Protection Clause” demanded that states apportion
their Congressional Districts uniformly. Interesting, is it not,
that
while States are allegedly commanded by the Constitution to apportion
their Congressional Districts in said manner, the Federal Government
was allowed to maintain the policy that all States, no matter their
size, were permitted two senators. Hypocrisy? Or was it a
terrible or
deliberate misreading of a section of an Amendment whose spirit was to
protect blacks? The answer is: Yes! To Both
[...]
second, the mere thought that the
letter of the 14th Amendment implies
a revision of Article I, Sections 2 and 3 of the Constitution is a
ridiculous premise, ipso facto; likewise, the thought that the spirit
of the 14th Amendment was to promote anything other than the fair
treatment of blacks is ludicrous as well. Certainly, if it could
be
clearly proven that individual States were intentionally
disenfranchising blacks with insidious congressional districting, meant
to take away their voice in government, perhaps there would be an
argument. But if that is the case, not only would such
geographical
districting be very difficult to achieve, how would those ends be any
different from the gerrymandering for other unethical reasons that have
existed since the 1800s? Or, why was the Senate left
untouched? One
could argue that majority white States that are small in population
(e.g. Wyoming) get the same number of senators as large, multi-ethnic,
urban states (e.g. New York). At the very least, racism aside,
the
14th Amendment was never meant to be used in any apportionment case
based solely on population discrepancies between districts. [FULL]
|
|
” |
