Click on banner above to read some of his articles.

Dateline Pennsylvania:

January 23rd, 2018

"Constitutional Emergency"

February 9th, 2018, is the deadline for the Pennsylvania Legislature to submit redistricting plans to ?(the Attorneys General)? or some body politic, for "them" to decide on what they think is "fair" and "constitutional" during the special elections slated for March 13th, 2018.

I am not sure of ANY of the details of this action, but it includes "emergency" elections to replace Tim Murphy, who has "retired" in disgrace from the 18th Congressional District and plans to redraw district lines without the exaggerated shapes and political bent. The current "gerrymandered" lines have been described as "goofy".

However,

For "them" to act within the "Constitutional" limits they claim to be holding to, they will not only have to address the shape of the boundaries, but the SIZE. Every state in the Union of the several States is bound by Article I, Section 2, Clause 3, Sentence 3, of the United States Constitution which says;

"The number of Representatives shall not exceed one for every thirty thousand,.."

This means that Pennsylvania is, with this "emergency" election, now REQUIRED to fill 427 seats, NOT a paltry 18. The people of Pennsylvania have every RIGHT to adequate representation in Congress if we hold to the rules of apportionment and equal suffrage.

With THAT in mind, I believe I must bring this information to the immediate attention of the Pennsylvania Attorney General's Office of Emergency affairs and to my Sheriff for his review of the County implications as per enforcement within county limits.

Comments? Questions?

Views: 89

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Uuhhh?  Might that imbalance the House of Representatives a bit?  427 from Pennsylvania and 417 from the rest of the U.S.

Regards,

Charles 

Yup. Unsurprisingly, the Constitution was ignored. By acts of Congress alone--NOT by constitutional amendment--the no. of  House reps was capped at 435 by the Reapportionment Act of 1929. {Public Law 62-15 (1911) also capped the no.} While capping made sense, it should have been done in a constitutional manner. Today, the ratio is roughly 1:800,000. The better solution is to break up the union into administrative districts, each in control of that no. of states such that a more reasonable apportionment is possible. Of course, that too would require a constitutional amendment. These district legislatures, in turn, would elect or select "x" no. of reps to represent the district in DC on issues of national interest/importance. District interests would be handled by the district representatives. I alluded to this before on this site. And so it goes...

None of that is necessary.

Just follow Article I, Section 2, Clause 3, wherein Taxes and representation shall be apportioned and that apportionment for representatives will be based on a mathematical ratio that increases by One Representative for every time the population adds another thirty thousand people. And that ratio "shall not be exceed One for every thirty thousand,.."

Exceed - "To go beyond the boundaries of a set limit."

Like stepping outside of a circle drawn on the ground if you were inside of it. There is no condition there that fits the "No more than" scenario, so you can see how the phrase, "no more than" cannot be substituted for "exceed". "Exceed" is NEVER defined so as to be construed in ANY way as strictly "no more than". So, although "no more than", does fit within the parameters of the definition of "exceed", it cannot define the word. Likewise, it cannot replace it either as meaning the exact same thing. IT DOES NOT!

One 'hidden emergency ' never spoken of is, "We have over 600,000. illegals detained and fewer than 500 justices to hear their cases. Administrative Law Judges can be appointed to fill thousands of needed vacancies, as our Supreme Court has already ruled that entering our Republic illegally is both criminal and civil. No matter how deeply the emotional pain, without absolute, strict adherence to our Constitutional Law, we have no Nation.

RSS

© 2019   Created by Online Professor.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service