California Senators Slam Representation Movement
California Senators Slam Representation MovementBY RED SMITH JUNE 23, 2015SJR-13, a direct attack by the California Senate on the Supreme Courts decision to take up the Evenwel v. Abbott case, out of Texas, regarding one man one vote passed the California Senate by unanimous vote today. The Evenwel v. Abbott case has asked the Supreme Court to once again take up the Constitutionality of the Reynolds. v. Sims, One Man/One Vote, decision of 1964. Specifically the case looks to address the practice of including ineligible voters, especially illegal aliens, in population counts when considering boundaries of State and Federal congressional districts. By including illegal aliens in district populations mostly urban areas are able to greatly increase their proportionate share of representation in State and Federal Legislatures. SJR-13 slams the High Courts decision to take up this debate claiming Overturning the long held precedent of one person, one vote would be tantamount to enshrining discrimination and prejudice in the law.The One Man/One Vote premise has been a hot button of debate lately, especially here in the North State with the rise of the State of Jefferson movement. The increasingly popular movement is pushing to restore California to a pre-1964 model of Government, that once mirrored the Federal model, where each County sent a State Senator to Sacramento regardless of population or size. The supporters of Jefferson make the case that the current model of California Government where both houses of the legislature is based only on population is unconstitutional under Article 4 Section 4 of the Constitution which states; The United States shall guarantee to every state in this union a republican form of government In this instance Republican form is defined to mean a Legislature split into two houses, one based on population the other house to be apportioned equally. Under Californias argument supporting the current direct Democracy system our own Federal Government would be unconstitutional.SJR-13 falsley declares that One person, one vote has been an enshrined principle of the United States Constitution and Political districts across the nation were arbitrarily drawn and severely imbalanced before the Supreme Court of the United States affirmed the principle of one person, one vote in Reynolds v. Sims. Considering that it is this logic that has led to the complete disfranchisement of many California citizens it is dumbfounding to many that this Resolution would find unanimous support, especially from conservative Senators most effected by the Reynolds v. Sims opinion. Considering further language in the Resolution Not counting immigrants, whether with legal status or undocumented, as full persons for purposes of apportionment is reminiscent of the United States Constitutions infamous three-fifths clause that did not view enslaved Black people the same as White people for purposes of apportionment it would seem that any Senator voting to affirm must also believe that illegal aliens are entitled to equal if not superior rights of citizens.Calls were made to both Senator Nielsen and Gaines offices seeking comment on their vote. Neither of those requests have been honored at this time. Specifically what was asked was;Why did the Senator vote to support this resolution? Does the Senator believe that illegal aliens should be accounted for in voting districts? Does the Senator believe that districts that have a higher population due to illegal aliens deserve more representation than districts with lower population but are comprised of a majority of citizens? Does the Senator believe Reynolds vs Sims, One man/One vote, is a Constitutional Republican form of Government? Considering the State of Jefferson movement, heavily active in the Senators District, is demanding a restoral of representation of one State Senator per County, what is the Senators comment to those constituents considering his current vote to maintain the status quo? If and when any of those questions are answered we will faithfully report them to you here. https://shastalantern.net/2015/06/california-senators-slam-representation-movement/
Tags
[]
Senior Guide
seeder
XXJefferson51
10 years ago
Regardless of reasons the decision of local Senators to support SJR-13 is certain to raise the fervent ire of the State of Jefferson, supporters of legal immigration and those opposed to One Man/One Vote, a cross section of voters that make up a considerable majority of Senator Nielsen and Gaines constituents. The Resolution now moves to the California Assembly for passage.Senator Jim NielsenCapitol OfficeState Capitol, Room 2068Sacramento, CA 95814Phone: (916) 651-4004Fax: (916) 651-4904Senator Ted GainesCapitol OfficeState Capitol, Room 3070Sacramento, CA 95814Phone: (916) 651-4001Fax: (916) 651-4901. I am not sure of the purpose of this resolution is since the Supreme Court already agreed to review the matter. Regardless, we the people of the proposed 51st state of Jefferson loudly and proudly stand with the state of Texas and against the rest of California in this matter. Way to go Texas! Blank California! The irony is that if Texas prevails in the Supreme Court, the whole Jefferson movement goes away! We drop the whole thing. On the other hand the rest of the state would then be glad to be rid of twenty to 24 of its 56 counties with less than 2 m of Ca's population. They will want us gone if we return to a federalism representation method. California will remain one state if Texas prevails.
Who is online
92 visitors