My last Deep Stater was from the NeoCon faction. This one is from the TDS faction. Dear Lord, TRUMP DERANGEMENT SYNDROME! Hillary Clinton must have been the True Antichrist, there’s no other explanation for all the enemies of Christ and America losing their minds over Donald Trump so completely that they’ve forgotten the importance of maintaining plausible deniability where the normies can see them.
The Path to Give California 12 Senators, and Vermont Just One
Maybe the two-senators-per-state rule isn’t as permanent as it seems.
By Eric W. Orts, 2 January 2019
Whoa, we got unpacking to do just from the title of this one. Why would Vermont losing representation be a good thing to a Democrat? Vermont is a Democrat stronghold.
When the Constitution was being drafted, there was debate over how the colonies would be represented in Congress. Powerful ones such as Virginia wanted representation proportionate to their headcount because they really liked the status quo of them being the big guys. Weak ones such as Rhode Island complained that that would leave them with the very “taxation without representation” that they’d just fought a war over.
The compromise was allowing both solutions and dividing legislative power between them. The representational House let the Big Boys have their populist pulpit while the Senate was “two per State” with longer terms of service, to ensure the smaller states wouldn’t be looted by the unwashed masses.
Which is why House members are called “Representatives”, not “House members”. They’re the ones who actually represent the American population while the Senators represent (at the time) the state governments not the people.
A law school would have charged you a year’s pay for that history lesson and then blamed it for Trump being President. Specifically, Wharton Law School at U. Pennsylvania. Orts’ bio from them:
This is the only pic I have. It’s not enough for physiognomy.
Eric Orts is the Guardsmark Professor at the Wharton School of the University of Pennsylvania. He is a professor of legal studies and business ethics with a joint appointment in management. He serves as an academic co-director of the NASD Institute at Wharton Certificate Program for compliance and regulatory professionals and directs Wharton’s Environmental Management Program. His primary research and teaching interests are corporate governance, professional ethics, and environmental management. His scholarly work is widely published in academic journals (mostly law reviews) and books.
Emphasis mine. A entire life spent in academia… academia that he doesn’t even value if it gets in his way, as this article proves. How ethical of him.
In 1995, Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan declared, “Sometime in the next century the United States is going to have to address the question of apportionment in the Senate.” Perhaps that time has come. Today the voting power of a citizen in Wyoming, the smallest state in terms of population, is about 67 times that of a citizen in the largest state of California, and the disparities among the states are only increasing. The situation is untenable.
House representation isn’t nearly that bad. He must be talking specifically about Senate representation but Senators were originally not elected by popular vote at all, but by their State legislature. They represented their State government directly. This changed with the 17th Amendment, championed by globalists such as William Jennings Bryan, SecState under Woodrow Wilson.
Pundits, professors, and policy makers have advanced various solutions. Burt Neuborne of NYU has argued in The Wall Street Journal that the best way forward is to break up large states into smaller ones. Akhil Amar of Yale Law School has suggested a national referendum to reform the Senate. The retired congressman John Dingell asserted here in The Atlantic that the Senate should simply be abolished.
One call to erase Statehood (and by extension, Federalism) entirely. Another call for a Constitutional Convention, which is the only national referendum permitted to override the U.S. Constitution. And a former Congressman who thinks he’s funny.
Nice friends you’ve got there, Eric. Did anybody you know vote for Trump?
There’s a better, more elegant, constitutional way out. Let’s allocate one seat to each state automatically to preserve federalism, but apportion the rest based on population. Here’s how.
The Constitutional way out is Senators representing none of their constituents. True equality!
Start with the total U.S. population, then divide by 100, since that’s the size of the current, more deliberative upper chamber. Next, allocate senators to each state according to their share of the total; 2/100 equals two senators, 3/100 equals three, etc. Update the apportionment every decade according to the official census.
Using 2017 census estimates as a proxy for the official one coming in 2020, the Rule of One Hundred yields the following outcome: 26 states get only one senator (having about 1/100 of the population or less), 12 states stay at two, eight states gain one or two, and the four biggest states gain more than two: California gets 12 total, Texas gets nine, and Florida and New York get six each. This apportionment shows how out of whack the current Senate has become.
In the new allocation, the total number of senators would be 110. The total is more than 100 because 10 of the smallest states have much less than 0.5/100 of the U.S. population but are still entitled to one senator each.
Why would they be entitled to Senate over-representation? If you’re going to argue thus then at least be consistent.
The obvious reply is, “This is impossible! The Constitution plainly says that each state gets two senators. There’s even a provision in the Constitution that says this rule cannot be amended.” Indeed, Article V, in describing the amendment process, stipulates that “no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate.”
This seems like a showstopper, and some scholars say it’s “unthinkable” that the one-state, two-senators rule can ever be changed. But, look, when conservative lawyers first argued that the Affordable Care Act violated the Commerce Clause, that seemed unthinkable, too. Our Constitution is more malleable than many imagine.
The Supreme Court’s ruling was that mandating ACA did violate the Clause but taxing people for nonparticipation didn’t. When Trump ended that tax, a federal judge then declared it unconstitutional under the SCOTUS ruling, which is why Commiefornia is trying to set up an independent version of ACA.
First, consider that Article V applies only to amendments. Congress would adopt the Rule of One Hundred scheme as a statute; let’s call it the Senate Reform Act. Because it’s legislation rather than an amendment, Article V would—arguably—not apply.
Eric is a lying sack of shit. The reason the 17th Amendment was passed in the first place is because this exact reasoning is illegal. Illegal as in, lawbreaking.
Second, the states, through the various voting-rights amendments—the Fourteenth, Fifteenth, Nineteenth, Twenty-Fourth, and Twenty-Sixth—have already given their “consent” by directing Congress to adopt legislation to protect equal voting rights, and this delegated power explicitly applies to “the United States” as well as the states. The Senate Reform Act would simply shift seats according to population. No state or its citizens would lose the franchise.
True equality is when nobody gets a vote in Senator election… everybody is equally zero… which is what the Founders wanted. I demand equality!
Note that even states that did not ratify the voting-rights amendments have, functionally, consented to them, and thus also to the constitutional logic supporting a Senate Reform Act. As Justice Clarence Thomas explained in 1995, “The people of each State obviously did trust their fate to the people of the several States when they consented to the Constitution; not only did they empower the governmental institutions of the United States, but they also agreed to be bound by constitutional amendments that they themselves refused to ratify.”
Remember, too, that the Constitution is a complex framework document that has evolved over the course of more than two centuries. The Civil War inaugurated a century of ever-increasing recognition of voting rights through the aforementioned amendments, which created a new constitutional principle that “the right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State” on specific grounds of race, color, sex, or age. All of these amendments include exactly the same enforcement provision as well: “Congress shall have the power to enforce this [amendment] by appropriate legislation.”
The War of Northern Aggression put to death the idea that D.C. rules with the consent of the governed. Ironically, that made an actual Civil War in America possible. Remember that war started when the South withdrew its consent to be governed? “Consent of the governed” meant a Civil War wasn’t needed to sort out national issues; the dissenter could just leave. Although Stinkin’ Lincoln didn’t allow that to happen.
Now that we don’t have the option to peacefully leave, we’re buying lots of guns as if Civil War is inevitable. Telling us that we today approved the Democrats’ current agenda 200 years before they wrote it because they titled it c-o-n-s-t-i-t-u-t-i-o-n is a great way to force this particular issue.
Race and what W. E. B. Du Bois called “the color line” are crucially at issue here because the current Senate allocation is heavily biased in favor of small states with predominantly white populations, and against large states where whites are in the minority or close to it. For example, in California, 38 percent of citizens are white. In Texas, that figure is 43 percent. Compare the two smallest states: Vermont is 94 percent white…
I’d wondered why he singled out Vermont in the post title. It was a Bernie state in the 2018 election. (Yes, in 2018 Vermont elected Bernie to… the U.S. Senate?! Is Bernie Derangement Syndrome a thing, too?) The whites there are very liberal but, per Eric, still need to be demographically decimated because they’re too white. Hmm, this puts a recent post in a darker light:
But continuing with today’s article:
…and Wyoming is 86 percent white. A comprehensive empirical review comparing the national population of whites, blacks, Latinos, and Asians with the median representation in each state found that “whites are the only group that Senate apportionment advantages.” Other, statistically smaller inequalities are present with respect to sex, age, and other constitutionally protected categories, such as sexual orientation.
Why is majority whiteness a problem? We’re tired of your “white man bad” game. You Leftoids had us fooled because surely a fellow white wouldn’t betray us so coldly and completely… well, now we know better.
Constitutional originalists will surely argue that the Founders meant “equal suffrage” in Article V to mean one state, two senators, now and forever. But the Founders could never have imagined the immense expansion of the United States in terms of territory, population, and diversity of its citizens.
Eric Orts needs his citizenship revoked. He doesn’t consider himself an American. His residency status should reflect that.
Remember also that even if one takes original intent as definitive…
Anybody who doesn’t has no business practicing law, let alone teaching it.
…the intentions informing Article V at the founding must be balanced against those behind the voting-rights amendments adopted a century or more later. These amendments clearly and repeatedly authorize Congress to protect “the right of citizens of the United States to vote” against any abridgement “by the United States.” The plain dictionary meaning of abridge is to “reduce the scope” of a right or to “shorten the extent” of it. Unequal Senate apportionment abridges the voting rights of citizens in large states, including nonwhite citizens in those states. This kind of inequality is within the delegated power of Congress to address.
Laurence Tribe of Harvard Law School has recommended that when an earlier constitutional text conflicts with later textual amendments, we should follow “time’s arrow.” We should keep in mind that the original one-state, two-senators rule was written and ratified by property-owning white men, almost half of whom owned slaves, and that the voting-rights amendments were adopted after a war to end slavery.
Damn, this white guy HATES whites! What did we ever do to you, Eric, to justify your genocidal wish list? Some of our ancestors using slave labor instead of prison labor, when slavery was legal and criminals were hanged? Since I couldn’t read Eric, I’ll read his friend Laurence.
Grandma? Whoa, Doppleganger alert. Anyway, very lined forehead for intelligence. (Had the lines been broken, it would indicate many intellectual interests, but this guy is focused.) Conformist ears except the tops poke out, which these days means vision problems. (It’s wearing glasses that turns the ear tops out.) At his age, the lines around his eyes don’t mean much; marital/sexual problems would have left deep furrows by now and some of those lines can indicate organ dysfunction. Problem glasses. Chameleon (thin, hard to see) eyebrows. Thin lips means poor emotional expression yet his eyes are rounded, giving mixed signals. A weak chin but with jowls: in youth he had a less forceful personality than later in life. Low nasal septum means he identifies closely with his preferred work. Slight bulb on the end denoting interest in wealth/prestige. Uniformly pale face. Triangle face shape, which I find correlates well with Gamma tendencies.
Conclusion, he’s a born rebel. Smart and steady enough to pursue a goal but lacking much in the way of emotional ties, so he can make and abandon allies easily. He reached celebrity status at a relatively late age but spent his entire career, as much as he could, in pursuit of what was truly important to him. (Marxism, apparently.)
*checks Wikipedia* Straight shot through law school, clerked around a couple years, went back to Harvard Law and got tenured almost immediately, where he played Spider In the Web ever after.
Frederick Douglass said the Civil War was fought to “unify and reorganize the institutions of this country,” and otherwise would have been “little better than a gigantic enterprise for shedding human blood.” He was right. Equality of voting rights is an essential constitutional principle that emerged from this struggle—and it’s been expanded since then in women’s suffrage, the civil-rights movement of the 1960s, and beyond.
Every civil war in history was fought to “unify and reorganize the institutions of this country.” Maybe that’s why Leftoids are now pushing hard for civil war against whites.
There are therefore two strong constitutional arguments in favor of a Senate Reform Act. It protects the equal right of every American citizen to a rough mathematical equality of voting weight and power in their national government—with a constraint, recognizing the virtue in federalism, of allocating one senator to every state at a minimum. And it corrects a heavy, unjustified bias favoring white citizens in the Senate. It doesn’t go too far to describe the current Senate apportionment as a vehicle entrenching white supremacy.
As I said in the introduction, Trump Derangement has the Left pushing their agenda so hard that they’ve forgone plausible deniability. What does Eric expect all those “muh Constitution and civil rights” useful idiots to think about him describing a Constitutional Senate as “a vehicle entrenching white supremacy”?
We don’t have to warn the middle anymore. We only have to quote the Left.
An additional argument supporting the plausibility of a Senate Reform Act is that the Supreme Court might see fit to stay out of the mix. The unelected, nonrepresentative justices might revive an old but good doctrine against overturning a federal statute unless Congress makes a “clear mistake” about its constitutionality. Or the Court might defer to Congress on this issue by invoking the “political question” doctrine, which requires treading lightly in areas where a democratically elected branch has been explicitly granted constitutional power.
Somebody is butthurt about Kavanaugh’s confirmation.
Several other structural benefits would follow from a Senate Reform Act. It would automatically mitigate the unrepresentativeness of the Electoral College, which allocates presidential electors to each state equal to the number of its congressional delegation—that is, the total number of representatives and senators. (I should point out also that if this reapportionment had, hypothetically, occurred prior to the most recent presidential election, the result would not have changed. Red gains in Texas and Florida would have offset a blue gain in California, and blue losses in New England would have balanced red losses in lightly populated western states.)
In large states, the election of multiple senators could allow a broader spectrum of political representation—e.g., both Ted Cruz and Beto O’Rourke—which might help reduce the poisonous polarization that characterizes our politics.
Way too little, way too late, Mister “the Constitution is whatever gets rid of white people the fastest.” You whine about “poisonous polarization” IMMEDIATELY AFTER SEETHING AT STILL-WHITE AMERICA’S EXISTENCE! EVEN LIBERAL WHITE AMERICA!
Last but not least, a new minimum of one senator for small states could ease the path toward statehood for the District of Columbia and Puerto Rico, which are currently unrepresented in Congress. Adding one senator for each of these new states to a Senate of 110 would prove less difficult politically than adding four to 100.
The immediate political likelihood for passage of the Senate Reform Act is not great, in large part because it’s not only more democratic than the status quo, but more Democratic, too.
That capital “D” is his, not mine.
Taking the Trump electoral victory map of 2016 as a template, and applying it to the 110 senators created under the reform, yields a gain of plus-eight senators for Democrats and plus-two for Republicans. From a political point of view, then, Democrats should favor the reform—and one can imagine it passing in some alternative future, even if some Democratic senators from small states would have to vote in favor of fairness and principle rather than parochial and racial privilege. Republicans in large states might also be hard-pressed to vote against their own citizens’ prospects for fairer and broader representation.
If a Democratic wave continues into 2020, then who knows, a Senate Reform Act could make America a democracy again.
Their hate for us is in the open now. Feels good. No more lies.