“The Dumbest Thing I Ever did”
Reynolds vs Sims
In 1953, President Dwight David Eisenhower appointed Earl Warren as Chief Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court. He would late remark, that it was "the biggest damned-fool mistake I ever made”
“In an 8-1 decision written by Chief Justice Warren, the Court ruled that the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, under the principle of “one man, one vote,” requires substantially equal legislative representation for all citizens in a given state. The Court held that “the Equal Protection Clause requires that the seats in both houses of a bicameral state legislature must be apportioned on a population basis[,]” thereby prohibiting the apportionment of state legislatures based upon geographic or political subdivisions—in this case, counties.” (Heritage.org)
As noted in the Heritage. Org discussion, “The Court abuses precedent, building upon its error in Baker v. Carr, in which the Court arrogates unto itself the authority to rule upon questions properly reserved to the politically responsible branches, establishing the broad rule that Equal Protection prohibits apportioning representatives by geographic or political subdivisions—a rule that finds no quarter in the Constitution’s text or history.”
In fact, the meddling of the court into matters reserved for the legislative branch, the court aggravated the very condition it claimed to cure. The “one man, one vote” logic guaranteed that significant numbers of voters would be disenfranchised by large populated counties and regions.
The State of Nevada offers a perfect example. The 2013 estimated population of the state is 2,700,000, while the population of Clark County (Las Vegas) is 2,028,000, or about 75% of the state total. Prior to Reynolds, each of Nevada’s 17 counties was represented by one state senator. Thus, Nye County, with a population of 42,000, would have the same representation as Clark County. The state assembly, with popular vote representation, would heavily favor Clark County, but the state Senate, with geographic representation, would balance the interests of voters throughout the state. In the post-Reynolds (present) scenario, Clark County controls 75% of votes in both house of the legislature, as well as the executive branch and the state courts! The rest of the state is effectively denied ANY influence in the state government. THIS is the result of the Warren Court’s activist meddling in the long established process composing the state legislature.
The Great Compromise of the U.S. Constitution was to provide for popular representation in the House of Representatives and geographic representation in the Senate, with two senators per state. Thus, Rhode Island would have the same legislative authority in the Senate as, say, Texas. This was and is a central tenet of the republican nature of our government, as opposed to a democratic one, in which simple majorities rule. It was the brilliance of this compromise that made the union possible, balancing the interests of large, northern industrial states with those of small, rural, southern ones. It was the essence of a republic.
The Warren court defied not only logic in its terribly wrong-headed decision; it violated the Constitution itself!
Article IV, Section 4, The Constitution of the United States
“The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government…”
The balanced representation of all the people, by geographic means in one house and popular means in the other is at the heart of the republican form of government, and the primary purpose for the bicameral (two chambers) legislative design. If this were not the case, why bother to have two legislative bodies? Why not one, elected proportionately by all the people.
While Nevada was cited as an example, most states suffer from this disproportionate – and non-republican – burden resulting from population concentrations in limited areas. In California, six of the state’s 58 counties contain over 55% of the population – and the votes! Fifty-two counties are effectively shut out of the legislative debate, and it shows in the radical left agenda of the California legislature, despite 40% the registered voters voicing more conservative sentiments (30% Republican and 44% Democrats).
Many have argued for the repeal of the 17th Amendment to the Constitution. Prior to its passage, U.S. Senators were elected by the legislatures of the individual states. The intention was that the power intended for the states was to be preserved, in part, by their role in the composition of the upper house of the legislature. A return to that method of electing senators would be a partial solution to the problem of an ever more powerful federal government, with little duty paid to the states. Repeal of the 17th Amendment, however, could only be effective in that regard with the repeal of Reynolds v. Sims. Without the full participation of a states population, included less populous areas, repeal of the 17th Amendment would simply transfer more power still to the densely populated (and politically liberal) areas of the states.
Without repeal of Reynolds v. Sims, the 25-30 largest population centers would control the states, and those states would control the federal government. The last impediment to a totally lopsided control of government would occur if the Electoral College were abolished, as many big city Liberals have championed. Like the intrastate problem of control by big cities (thanks to Reynolds), this would transfer more power to the big states. At that point, a few major cities would control each of the states, and a minority of perhaps 15 states would control the country. If that happens, say goodbye to the constitutional republican form of government under which this country has survived for 230 years. And THAT is a central objective of the agenda for those supporting a "new world order." Make no mistake about it.
A great many problems in both government and society have been created by this disastrous decision of the Warren Court, and they will be mitigated ONLY when it is overturned. The answer is for the Congress to pass legislation restoring the right (or better, the obligation) of states to re-define the composition of their legislatures to reflect the bicameral, republican nature prior to Reynolds v. Sims. If this solution is challenged and a new Supreme Court rejects it, then it will be necessary for a constitutional amendment to restore it. But it must be done.
FROM THE FRONT
By Len Semas Main Feature (10/28/2014)
President Dwight D. Eisenhower was once asked if he had made any mistakes as president. His widely quoted answer was, “Yes. I made two mistakes, and they’re both on the Supreme Court.”