Bipartisan Obloquy
Folks on the left love to ridicule the idiots on the right. The "tea-partiers" who worry the U.S. is headed towards Socialism but at the same time want more jobs programs. The Bible-thumpers who deny Darwin and who believe that 5,000 years ago man walked with dinosaurs (there's probably a significant overlap here with the 20% of American adults who think that the sun orbits the earth). The true believers in Ayn Rand... Yet anybody who's associated with the left for any length of time knows that there's also something of a mirror-image group of loony leftists. My favorite example would be the near lock-step belief on the left that virtually unrestricted immigration is a "good thing," when it should be obvious on the face of it that having an unlimited supply of low-wage, illegal immigrants makes it impossible to establish a living minimum wage for American citizens and also makes it much more difficult to organize for better wages all the way up the labor ladder. This is, however, a rational argument, and as such can easily be discredited for being an invidious supposition.
Perhaps more to the point, the census raises a similar question which, though it may be similarly rejected, cannot be similarly ignored. To review: The U.S. Constitution mandates a census every ten years; the census forms the basis for apportioning the districts of Members of the U.S. House of Representatives. Since we no longer add new districts/Members to the House (we should, but that's another story), with each census in the modern era we reshuffle the existing 435 districts among states. If you think about it, then, those states with the greatest population of illegal immigrants gain a disproportionate advantage in representation in Congress. States with large numbers of illegal immigrants have more representatives per American citizen than states with few or no illegal immigrants. This is fundamentally unfair. It's un-American (literally), and it should be against the law.
My guess is that this issue could be successfully litigated through the Supreme Court. It's an issue on which the conservative Roberts Court should be able to agree with liberal legal theorists. Why it hasn't been litigated I don't know (please correct me if I'm mistaken and it has been litigated — all I'm relying upon is my own memory and a Google search, not a law library). Assuming, however, that my observation is correct, I would chalk up the lapse to general degeneracy and the rife stupidity of our culture. Or, perhaps the same thing, it could be that Texas and California between them have agreed to ignore the problem.
[Update: The question has been litigated, with the Supreme Court, at least twice, declining to hear the case on the grounds of lack of standing. In the second instance, in 1988, that decision seems odd to me as plaintiffs included forty members of Congress as well as the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania.]
Posted by George Kenney on March 29, 2010 2:52 PM 
« Buggery in the Vatican | Main | The Stupidest Argument about Health Care Reform Ever »
Comments
Hi George,
Your comment about unfairness on the part to America's supposed leadership clique in the legislative branch of government may make sense from an historical perspective. However, those very leaders are supposed to possess a level of intelligence and historical knowledge to permit them to recognize their breach of the duties to which they agreed when they were sworn in. One might conclude that our esteemed leaders view things from an entirely different perspective. It may be possible that, if the price were right, some of them might come to understand the meanings of words in the constitution at least to the extent with which they all too obviously understand that the funds provided by various wealthy interests strongly influence the nature of the prevailing rules in the game of re-election and retention of monopoly power. How about changing the rules regarding campaigns so that the pols do not elevate acquisition of funds above their supposed duties.
[Thanks, William, for your comment. I think, however, that most of those elected to Congress are idiots, quite incapable of the devious calculations you suggest. Yes, they're after the loot, but, no, they have no historical perspective or understanding. g.]
Posted by: William Wilson | March 30, 2010 8:22 PM
Hi George,
As an amendment to my last comment, I would like to recommend a new video composed by Lawrence Lessig. The Harvard professor narrates the disappointing developments in Washington DC over the past 14+ months in a video called "Ctrl+Alt+Del" explaining how and why citizen-funded elections are critical if there is ever going to be a Constitutional government in the USA. He suggests a subsequent Constitutional Convention inside of Washington, D.C.
http://blip.tv/file/3413048
Posted by: William Wilson | April 6, 2010 10:16 PM
Lawrence Lessig, Harvard lawyer and political activist, has recently set up the website fixcongressfirst.org, in order to attempt to get some ideas going with respect to the Congress of the US. Today, I received notice of a new petition site named callaconvention.org, which is designed to promote an effort to get at least 34 of the fifty state legislatures to call for a Constitutional Convention.
http://callaconvention.org/DailyBeast
At the callaconvention.org site, are proposals for several matters which need urgent attention, including the following:
'National Convention Proposal lll
I. Public funding of Federal Elections.
II. Enforcement of Constitutional Amendment by the National Convention and States Conventions Committees.
III. Free public airwaves during primary and general elections.
IV. Abolishment of Corporate Personhood precedents (1886), and all subsequent rulings that gave corporations
constitutional rights. .........'
As all American citizens should have an opportunity to influence who runs the government, I suspect that your readership will want to take a look at the currently proposed items at the following link:
http://convention.ideascale.com/a/panel.do
You may also wish to Google the Wiki-biographical site which presents some information on L. Lessig.
Posted by: William Wilson | April 8, 2010 7:29 PM