Did SCOTUS blow it on one person one vote?

The Constitution for the United States of America (CUSA) FAMOUSLY disenfranchised many people by leaving it up to the Supreme Court, the legislature, and the states to define the meaning of “people.” Obviously, “we the people” cannot possibly mean everyone in the United States. The framers contended with the sticky issues of state’s retaining their sovereignty, so that they did not meticulously clarify the reach of the bill of rights. The Supreme Court denied Barron, a Baltimore citizen, the protection of the 5th amendment’s provision against uncompensated taking of property, for example, saying it was up to the states to create their own equivalent in their constitutions if they wanted their people to enjoy such protection.

And everybody knows the framers could not possible have intended that every human being in the US could enjoy the CUSA’s express right of “the people” to keep and bear arms – states infringed that right from the get-go. Federal law prohibits illegal aliens, felons, mental incompetents, and children under 16 from bearing arms, and the states, territories, and municipalities impose their own restrictions on the right. What the heck, to most of us that seems like plain common sense.

The CUSA cannot possibly mean what it plainly, unequivocally says.

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW: The equal protection principle of “one person, one vote” permits States to apportion legislative districts using total population, and does not mandate that districts be apportioned based upon registered or eligible voter population. [Read
Summary Online

Now the SCOTUS had opined that one person cannot have the one vote that the framers probably intended, even within the constraints of the common sense application of voting rights. State partisan politicians use gerrymandering to destroy the voting rights of citizen groups by drawing congressional district maps so the votes of the district majority will always swamp the votes of its minority, and that way government will never hear the minority vote. Caucasian politicians have tried to use this to prevent the election of minority (Negro and Mestizo) candidates.

While many consider gerrymandering terribly unfair, the majority-Negro population of Washington DC elected convicted drug user Marion Barry as Mayor. To most thinking people, that made gerrymandering seem essential, lest Negroes around the nation accomplish a similar result with their candidate choices.

Congress and the courts have worked assiduously, though, to give minorities a better opportunity for a voice in government, by allowing official, court-approved gerrymandering by forcing the re-draw of district maps so that at least some districts can include scattered patches of minority communities. And with the rush of Caucasians to the suburbs from of inner cities like Los Angeles, Chicago, Detroit, and Cleveland to escape the danger of living around crime-infested areas, the remaining largely Negro and Mestizo populations provided the necessary ethnic density to get minority candidates elected. That’s how the abhorrent and crooked Sheila Jackson Lee got elected and has managed to stay in Congress for two decades. And her own gerrymandering efforts have resulted in the denial of voting power to large swaths of Caucasians in suburban areas wrongly stuck in her district.

Now that Caucasian births number fewer than non-Caucasian votes, the SCOTUS has seen fit to deny voting power to more and more Caucasians by including total body count, instead of eligible voter count, citizen count, or adult count, in satisfying the numeric requirements for representation in Congress. This means more representatives for mostly-minority residents of population-dense inner cities of the nation. One needn’t be a mathematician to realize that this plan helps to ensure the doom of Caucasian voting power in America, for Caucasian parents procreate fewer children than needed to replenish the Caucasians who die, and Negroes and Mestizos procreate more children than required to replenish their numbers.

Bottom line, the framers and anybody else with common sense have no intention of protecting dangerous civil rights for irresponsible people who will naturally abuse those rights. Of all the CUSA’s rights, none exceed the danger of allowing irresponsible people to vote. That constitutes the fundamental problem with the language of the 15th, 17th, 19th, and 26th Amendments – they impose no burden of responsibility upon the voters or upon Congress and the states to ensure people do not abuse voting rights through demagoguery, ignorance, and dereliction.

Any Caucasians who disagree with this SCOTUS ruling can do their part by following this plan:

1. Find a smart, willing Caucasian and procreate;
2. Move back to the inner cities and prepare to defend your territory.

Bob Hurt
2460 Persian Drie #70
Clearwater, FL 33763
727 669 5511

Author: Bob Hurt

See http://bobhurt.com Consumer advocate helping borrowers in foreclosure save their homes and obtain compensation for their injuries.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s