Justice Ginsburg: one man one vote and screw one vote one dollar

[johnwk]

See: Supreme Court Rejects Challenge on ‘One Person One Vote’

”Justice Ginsburg sided with the first theory. “Nonvoters have an important stake in many policy debates — children, their parents, even their grandparents, for example, have a stake in a strong public-education system — and in receiving constituent services, such as help navigating public-benefits bureaucracies,” she wrote in her majority opinion. “By ensuring that each representative is subject to requests and suggestions from the same number of constituents, total population apportionment promotes equitable and effective representation.”

Ginsburg, as well as big government folk and socialists, support one man one vote when it comes to dolling out federal revenue as shown above, but they ignore that part of the Constitution commanding one vote one dollar which is also part of the rule of apportionment.

The very purpose of the rule of apportionment was to insure representation with a proportional financial obligation, or, one man one vote and one vote on dollar.

I wonder why Senator Cruz promotes a tax reform plan which ignores the rule of apportionment and supports Justice Ginsburg’s thinking.

JWK





To support John Kasich, Hillary Clinton or Paul Ryan, is to support ourGlobal Governance Crowdand their WTO, NAFTA, GATT, and CAFTA, all used to circumvent America First trade policies, while fattening the fortunes of international corporate giants who have no allegiance to America or any nation.

 

[johnwk]

I think the importance of what has taken place here will fly over the heads of the vast majority who believe they are politically astute.

This crap about counting illegal aliens, which in turn guarantees greater representation in Congress was address by Madison and he explains why the rule of apportioning both representatives and taxation by each state's population size is critical.


In Federalist No. 54 we are reminded that our Constitution’s rule requiring an apportionment of both Representatives and direct taxes “…will have a very salutary effect.” Madison observes in this paper . . . “Were” the various States’ “share of representation alone to be governed by this rule, they would have an interest in exaggerating their inhabitants. Were the rule to decide their share of taxation alone, a contrary temptation would prevail. By extending the rule to both objects, the States will have opposite interests, which will control and balance each other, and produce the requisite impartiality.”

Unfortunately, a state may claim a huge increase in their population size to obtain a greater representation in Congress so they can vote to increase welfare programs, without having to pay an apportioned share of taxes to fund those welfare programs.

Sad to say there are so many shallow minded people, including those who claim to be "conservatives" who are incapable of understanding the necessity of apportioning both representatives and each states share of federal taxes paid. The wisdom behind this rule is never discussed, and especially not with regard to Obama's intentional invasion of our borders.

Just for the record and regarding the importance of the rule of apportionment, let’s get down to some upsetting facts regarding California‘s 55 electoral college votes. According to recent numbers, the total share of federal taxes paid by the people of 18 states [New York, Texas, Illinois, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Minnesota, Massachusetts, Washington, Connecticut, Maryland, Colorado, Arkansas , Nebraska, Delaware, Rhode Island, New Mexico, and Wyoming] works out to be a higher per capita amount then paid by the people of California. And yet, the State of California has an overwhelming 55 Electoral College votes compared to any of these states!


For example, and according to 2007 figures, the people of Wyoming contributed $4,724,678,000 in federal taxes which works out to be a $9,036.74 tax per capita. And Wyoming, under the rule of apportionment is allotted 3 Electoral College votes. By contrast, the people of California contributed $313,998,874,000 in federal taxes this same year, and this figure works out to be a mere $8,590.18 tax per capita, which is a far less per capita than that paid by the people of Wyoming. But California gets 55 Electoral College votes, about 17 times more electoral votes than Wyoming. And why should this upset the people of Wyoming and 17 other States? It violates that part of the Great Compromise adopted when our Constitution was ratified which guarantees that representation and direct taxation is to be apportioned by each State’s population size. The two formulas considering subsequent amendments to our Constitution may be expressed as follows:



State`s Pop.
___________ X House (435) = State`s votes in House
Pop. of U.S.



State`s pop.
_________ X SUM TO BE RAISED = STATE`S SHARE
U.S. Pop


In regard to the first formula, both California and Wyoming are getting their full representation which is 55 and 3 Electoral College votes respectively. But, with regard to taxes paid, the people of Wyoming in 2007 contributed a higher per capita share of federal taxes than California in spite of the fair share formula for direct taxation mandated by our Constitution which requires an equal per capita tax.

In 2007, if the rule of apportionment were applied to taxation and representation as intended by our Founders, and the people of California each had to pay one dollar to meet its apportioned share of a total sum being raised by Congress, the people of Wyoming would likewise only have to pay one dollar each if the tax were shared evenly among the people living in Wyoming. Although California’s total share of the tax under the rule of apportionment would be far greater than that of Wyoming because of California’s larger population, California was compensated with its larger Electoral College vote in the last election which is also part of the rule of apportionment and gives them a greater say when spending federal revenue, but did not contribute a apportioned share of the tax burden!

As things are California got to exercise 55 Electoral College votes in our last presidential election, but did not contributed a share into the federal treasury proportionately equal to its massive Electoral College vote as our Constitution requires. And this is a direct assault upon the very purposes for which the rule of apportionment was adopted.


I wonder why Ted Cruz does not talk about the wisdom and brilliance of the rule of apportionment.



JWK

Are we really ok with 45 percent of our nation’s population who pay no taxes on incomes being allowed to vote for representatives who spend federal revenue which the remaining 55 percent of our nation’s hard working and productive population has contributed into our federal treasury via taxes on incomes when our Constitution requires “Representatives and direct taxes Shall be apportioned among the Several States”?

 

[johnwk]

Just for the record, I agree with the opinion of the Court, and do so because it is in harmony with the intentions and beliefs under which our Constitution was adopted. My point was how Socialist Ginsburg in her written opinion emphasized how apportionment and voting is tied to each state's free government cheese, while ignoring the Founder's rule of apportionment also commanded the people of each state would be obligated to pay an apportioned share of the tab for "free" government cheese, if Congress ever decided to enter the States and tax the people directly!

The wisdom of our founder’s rule of apportioning both representatives and taxation by a state's population size is, that although a particular state with a large population has an overwhelming representation [voting strength] in Congress when spending federal revenue such as California, New York, Pennsylvania, etc., they would be held in check by the rule of apportionment which also commands they pay a larger share of the tab whenever a direct tax is laid among the states to pay for free government cheese. And this provides protection against mob rule “democracy” in which 51 percent of those voting in Congress may use their vote to tax away the property of the constituents of the remaining Representatives in Congress since by voting to increase their taxes to pay for free government cheese, they likewise increase their own State's apportioned share of the tab.

And just what did our Founding Fathers think of “democracy”? Madison, in Federalist No. 10 says in reference to “democracy” they

…have ever been found incompatible with personal security or the rights of property; and have in general been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths. Theoretic politicians, who have patronized this species of government, have erroneously supposed that by reducing mankind to a perfect equality in their political rights, they would, at the same time, be perfectly equalized and assimilated in their possessions, their opinions, and their passions.


Democracy, or majority rule vote, as the Founding Fathers well knew, whether that majority rule is practiced by the people or by elected representatives, if not restrained by specific limitations and particular guarantees, such as the rule of apportionment, they have proven throughout history to eventually result in nothing less than an unbridled mob rule system susceptible to the wants and passions of a political majority imposing its will upon those who may be outvoted, and would result in the subjugation of unalienable rights, and especially rights associated with property ownership.


And so, our Founding Fathers gave us a constitutionally limited Republican Form of Government, guaranteed by Article 4, Section 4 of the Constitution of the United States and also provided whenever Congress entered the States to tax the people directly, each States total share of the amount being raised would be proportionately equal to its representation in Congress, or, to put it another way ___ representation with a proportional financial obligation, or one man one vote and one vote one dollar.

Finally, and with regard to Justice Thomas, who happens to be my favorite member of the Court, the above article continues:

Only Justice Thomas said he would have allowed states to draw districts based on eligible voters if they wished to.

“The Constitution does not prescribe any one basis for apportionment within states,” Justice Thomas wrote. “It instead leaves states significant leeway in apportioning their own districts to equalize total population, to equalize eligible voters or to promote any other principle consistent with a republican form of government.”

“The Constitution leaves the choice to the people alone — not to this court,” Justice Thomas added.


JWK




To support John Kasich, Hillary Clinton or Paul Ryan, is to support our Global Governance Crowd and their WTO, NAFTA, GATT, and CAFTA, all used to circumvent America First trade policies, while fattening the fortunes of international corporate giants who have no allegiance to America or any nation.