Article 1 – The Legislature: Apportioned Representation
I discussed on my radio show not too long ago and in these pages the fact that there is at least one proposed Constitutional Amendment floating around out there without a time limit for ratification. Just as the original 2nd Amendment became, 200 years later, our 27th Amendment, so could the original 1st Amendment become our 28th. David Zuniga, of America Again.net is proposing we ratify that old amendment and begin restoring truly representative government to America. Communications technology has advanced to the point where it is feasible to have telepresence meetings of thousands of participants. Imaging only having to drive a few minutes to sit down with your Congressman in a district office, instead of communicating with them in a distant Washington, D.C. office.
Well, I was investigating a Quora question recently when I chanced upon this article from a few years ago which argues that the original First Amendment was indeed ratified by the requisite number of the states back in 1789. Evidence came to light recently that both Connecticut and Kentucky may have ratified the Amendment but failed to send their ratification instrument to Congress and thus their ratification was never recorded.
What would this Amendment do if put into effect? It would permit the ratio of representation in America to change from the average of 1 to 750,000 residents to 1 to 50,000 residents. The House of Representatives could grow to around 6400 members.
Congress would have to revoke the Congressional Reapportionment Act of 1929 that set the current limit at 435 Representatives, but that is a simple (?) legislative process.
The discoverer of the lost documents, Frederick John LaVergne, has taken his case to court and lost, so it is likely the original ratifications will never be judged sufficient, but that does not prevent the Amendment from being ratified today by the additional states needed to bring the total to 38, as college student Gregory Watson discovered with the original 2nd Amendment in the late 1980s.
One complaint I have with the linked article is that the version they cite of what is commonly called the Congressional Apportionment Amendment (originally titled Article the First) is not the final version passed by the joint houses of Congress but rather the version passed in the House alone, as this Wikipedia article makes clear. The substitution in the final version of the word “more” for the word “less” changes the effect substantially, but not fatally.
According to the linked article, an opinion piece published in 2010 in the New York Times complained that “Americans today are numerically the worst-represented group of citizens in the country’s history.”
You can’t argue with the math, but what do you think of the proposed solution? How about chatting with your representative and see what he or she thinks?
Article 2 – The Executive: The Candidates and the Constitution
On Friday, we had a great discussion of character as it relates to Presidential candidates. The show gets rebroadcast on Sunday, 24 July at 2pm and I expect the podcast to be posted sometime Monday on the station’s podcast page.
Article 3 – The Judiciary
Sometimes the decisions of courts seem to defy logic. Usually this is due to the abject politicization of judges. It would appear that a federal judge in Michigan succumbed to this common ailment. Michigan had been one of only ten states that offered citizens the opportunity to vote for a straight partisan ticket, i.e. mark their ballet with a single stroke to record a vote for all Democrat or Republican candidates in a particular election. In my view, this panders to those too ignorant or lazy to walk into a polling station informed of the candidates, their respective parties, and the issues at stake.
The Michigan legislature passed and Governor Synder signed into law a measure striking down this feature of Michigan balloting, but U.S. District Court Judge Gershwin A. Drain ruled instead this would place a “disproportionate burden on African Americans’ right to vote.” Right. That says more about African American voters in Michigan than it does the legislature’s actions.
1st Amendment – Right of Conscience
You may recall I’ve followed the plight of a Colorado baker, Jack Phillips, who was convicted of violating Colorado’s anti-discrimination laws by the Colorado Civil Rights Commission and sentenced (and his staff) to “re-education” classes.
On Friday, Phillips, with the help of Alliance Defending Freedom, petitioned the Supreme Court to hear an appeal of his case: Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission. ADF’s website contains a nice synopsis of the case.
4th Amendment – Illegal Search
The government of Highland, California has decided they can inspect the apartments and rental homes of the city’s landlords at will to determine their compliance with city ordinances. Hmmm. A long time ago, in a galaxy far, far away, there used to be a country where your “persons, houses, papers, and effects” were secure against warrantless search and seizure. Perhaps no more, at least for the residents of Highland, CA. One more reason to “Come East, young man!”
Recommendations and Events:
Christian Financial Concepts Presentation – The Constitution as Solution
Monday night, 25 July from 8-9pm EDT, I’ll be presenting a webinar on the topic of “The Constitution as a Solution to Problems.”
Few Americans take time to reflect on the fact that the Constitution was not created ab initio, it was created within a historical context. That we have a Constitution at all illustrates that the Articles of Confederation had proven inadequate. Although the Articles had been designed to make amendment difficult (unanimous consent was needed), in the end needed improvements proved impossible to enact. Conditions in the thirteen states deteriorated to the point where talk of splitting the federation into three began to be heard. Something had to be done, and the result was the Constitution of 1787.
But what exactly had been deficient about the Articles and what problems did this create? By studying and understanding the problems created by the Articles we will better understand the solutions proposed by the Constitutional Convention to fix those problems.
What was Shay’s Rebellion and what role did it play? Who sat down and analyzed the deficiencies in the Articles to prepare himself for the “Grand Convention?” Did American troops really mutiny and march on Congress? What did America’s Founding Fathers have to say during this period? These questions and more will be answered in this exciting presentation.
Go to https://attendee.gotowebinar.com/register/7811182755684673537 to register for this free event.
We The People – The Constitution Matters Radio Show.
On Friday, 29 July, we will discuss the next paragraph we encounter in the Declaration of Independence; here Jefferson recounts the attempts of the colonists to enlist the aid of their “Brittish Brethren,” to no avail. If you have complaints or petitions for the government, to what extent should you make those known and should you try to enlist the help of fellow citizens? Please join the discussion by browsing to www.1180wfyl.com (Friday, 7-8am EDT). If you miss the recorded show, aim for the re-broadcast Saturday at 11am and Sunday at 2pm or download the podcast at leisure.
Lessons in Liberty – Preserving America’s Religious Liberty.
On August 18th, the Foundation for American Christian Education’s Lessons in Liberty series will play host to Mrs. Victoria Cobb, President of the family Foundation of Virginia, located in Richmond, Virginia. Victoria will speak on “How We Can Preserve America’s Religious Liberty. How do Christians navigate a world trying to redefine marriage and even gender? Victoria will discuss how we got to where we are with these issues and how Christians should respond. The event, as all Lessons in Liberty presentations, will be livestreamed to those who register. Registration and cost information can be found on the FACE website at www.face.net.
The “Constitution’s Week in Review” is a project of the Constitution Leadership Initiative, Inc. To unsubscribe from future mailings by Constitution Leadership Initiative, click here.