February 17, 2015

SCOTUS Electoral Darwinism.

“The Redeemers who overthrew Reconstruction and established `Home Rule’ in the Southern States conducted their campaign in the name of white supremacy.”, The Strange Career of Jim Crow,C. Vann Woodward, 1974.


On February 26, 2010, the LEGAL BISNOW Washington newsletter reported on the American Constitution Society (ACS) meeting of preeminent election law practitioners under the headline, "THE GUILTIEST OF PLEASURES", declaring, "One guilty pleasure we can’t resist: sweating the implications of SCOTUS’s controversial 5-4 ruling in Citizens United v. FEC." The newsletter hi-lights and saves for the last word a "provocative point" of "legal Darwinism" raised by "THE CONTRARIAN." 
http://www.bisnow.com/dc-legal/the-guiltiest-of-pleasures/

"For the final word, we circle back to Asa Gordon, exec. dir. of the Douglass Institute for Government, who we thought raised a provocative point in ACS panel Q&A. What led today’s conservative-leaning Supreme Court to make such an activist decision in Citizens United? If you understand the Court’s philosophical embrace of legal Darwinism, which Asa describes as valuing the voice of the corporate individual as the most highly-evolved expression of citizenly virtue, then it’s easier to grasp why the Court overturned 100 years of legal precedent to protect the corporate individual/entity’s voice from being eclipsed by that of the uneducated masses.”


Actually, the expression I used as The Contrarian was "inferior masses." QUESTIONS FOR A NEO-CONFEDERATE JUSTICE? An Exposé of Legal Darwinism and Neo-Redemptionist Federalism _http://greenpapers.net/32/

The SCOTUS conservative majority is a throwback to the 19th century Legal Darwinists who believed that the judiciary should limit itself to the role of arbiters (referees) to insure that the nation’s superior beings, especially its newly exalted “corporate persons,” should not be unduly constrained by the collective will of the inferior masses. The government must therefore be constrained from providing unnatural support to inferior social classes that undermine the evolutionary progress of American society.

The Legal Darwinists seek to codify the “Social Darwinism” of the Victorian biologist Herbert Spencer, who declared, “I am simply carrying out the views of Mr. Darwin in their application to the human race.” Alito's appointment to the Supreme Court established a neo-Legal Darwinist and Redemptionist Federalist conservative majority that would “meet the needs of a changing society” by addressing the nation's changing racial demographics and effecting the Social Darwinism of the conservative intellectual icon William F. Buckley. Buckley‘s National Review editorial, "Why the South Must Prevail,"_(Aug. 24, 1957) provides the Darwinian context for SCOTUS' neo-redemptionist ruling in Shelby County v. Holder. Buckley wrote:

"The central question that emerges . . . is whether the White community in the South is entitled to take such measures as are necessary to prevail, politically and culturally, in areas in which it does not prevail numerically? The sobering answer is Yes-the White community is so entitled because, for the time being, it is the advanced race. It is not easy, and it is unpleasant, to adduce statistics evidencing the cultural superiority of White over Negro: but it is a fact that obtrudes, one that cannot be hidden by ever-so-busy egalitarians and anthropologists. National Review believes that the South's premises are correct. . . . It is more important for the community, anywhere in the world, to affirm and live by civilized standards, than to bow to the demands of the numerical majority."

In Shelby County v. Holder, SCOTUS inaugurated a eugenics based voting rights jurisprudence. SCOTUS neo-eugenic jurisprudence allows states to adopt voter ID sterilization laws to mitigate the polluting of American democracy by the participation of non-white populations in the electoral process. Surreptitiously adopting Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes reasoning in Buck v. Bell, upholding the 1924 eugenics law by declaring "Society can prevent those who are manifestly unfit from continuing their kind ... Three generations of imbeciles are enough.", the conservative majority has decided that nearly two generations of imbecilic voting by blacks is enough.
.
The SCOTUS conservative majority's Legal Darwinist rulings in Shelby County v. Holder, Citizens United v. FEC , and McCutcheon v. FEC provide the supreme judicial trifecta for Electoral Darwinism.

February 17, 2015

POTUS by a national popular vote

We already in effect have the election of POTUS by popular vote, if we adhere to the Electoral College reform embodied in the Reconstruction Amend. XIV§2. The Electoral College was fixed in 1868. Amend. XIV§2 imposes a de jure mandate that states must allocate their presidential electors in proportion to the popular vote split or suffer a proportional "reduction of representation" in the state's number of electors and representatives to Congress pursuant to 2 U.S.C.§6. Any abridgment of the franchise by a disproportionate biased allocation of electors by "winner take all" or "Congressional Districts" invokes the malapportionment penalty of Amend. XIV§2. Mathematical logic dictates that the only way to avoid a proportional penalty is to have proportional representation. The plain text of Amend. XIV§2 dictates that only a strictly proportional apportionment for all presidential electors is constitutionally acceptable. The excruciating fact is, there is a long-standing political, academic and judicial embarrassment that stifles public and professional discourse on the Electoral College. For over a century now, and still counting, the nation is ashamed to admit that section 2 of the Fourteenth Amendment is a provision of the constitution willfully ignored and ritually violated.

Neo-Redemption Gerrymandering of the Electoral College,
Suffer Loss of Representatives to Congress
http://gp.org/greenpages-blog/?p=3368

February 17, 2015

Yes, GOP voter suppression efforts violate The Mal-apportionment penalty clause

Neo-Redemption Gerrymandering of the Electoral College,
Suffer Loss of Representatives to Congress
http://gp.org/greenpages-blog/?p=3368

The "Democratize the Electoral College" civil actions (Mal-Apportionment Penalty-MAP initiative - www.electors.us) demonstrates how "voter suppression" tactics, "Winner-take-all", and "Gerrymandered Districts" in national presidential elections violates the proportional electoral mandate of the second section of the Fourteenth Amendment to the constitution adopted during Reconstruction.

February 16, 2015

A Decade+ of Advocacy for the "Long-Lost Constitutional Clause" ignored

This "discovered" Long-Lost Constitutional Clause to restore voting rights has long been championed over the last decade and a half by Asa of the Green Party and has been, long-ignored, by "abridged" self absorbed "progressive" media reporting.
MALAPPORTIONMENT PENALTY INITIATIVE (MAP)
http://asagordon.byethost10.com/MAP_DCSGP_INITIATIVE.html
"This is the most amazing proposition that has ever been brought forward by a non-lawyer , and if it is accurate, it could change the whole outcome of the voting process in the United States." _Rep. John Conyers (D-MI).

Greens’ Civil Actions to Democratize the Electoral College Revives a Lost Motive behind the March on Washington
http://www.greenpapers.net/?p=698
Neo-Redemption Gerrymandering of the Electoral College
(Suffer Loss of Representatives to Congress)
http://gp.org/greenpages-blog/?p=3368
July 18, 2013_GREEN PAGES Vol.17,No. 1-Summer 2013
Taxpayer Voter ID Act would allow more citizens to vote
http://gp.org/greenpages-blog/?p=3497
July 22, 2014_GREEN PAGES Vol.18,No. 1-Summer 2014

Google: "abridges the right to vote"
Google: "Section 2 of the Fourteenth Amendment"
Google: Green Party Section 2 Fourteenth Amendment