One Person, One Vote: Baker v. Carr and Reynolds v. Sims
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 3 окт 2024
- In this documentary, Justices Sandra Day O’Connor and Stephen G. Breyer and other experts discuss how the principle of one person, one vote emerged from a series of landmark decisions in the 1960s, including Baker v. Carr and Reynolds v. Sims. They examine the political environment that led to the decisions and the Court's application of the 14th Amendment’s equal protection clause in deciding reapportionment cases.
Assumptions that are wrong in this video:
"[Congrssional] Apportionment is supposed to be on population" ... no it's based on STATE populations. Not the population of any given place in these United States. It was the liberty of each State to determine how they wished to send their representatives. Congress was always free to change "the manner" but they had chosen not to. But it was reasonable for States to be required to follow their own Constitutions by their Court for their own legislatures. Apportionment for their own legislatures was the prerogative of the framers of the State's legislative design. It could be on any principle, not just population as asserted.
"Rural areas had more than their fair share" ... it depends on what the objectives of the framers of each legislature had in mind. It is a perfectly reasonable objective for the legislature to have voices from every corner of the State. Think of Massachusetts or New Hampshire where they wanted a voice for every town in the State, is it reasonable to deny them that right simply because their populations do not achieve your idea of fairness (fairness being defined by your demand for simply perfect population deviations).
""we had become a nation of minority rule" ... well DUH, the United States' Senate was designed for "minority rule". Unless we are contesting the point of the Senate as well we must see that there are interests, besides reducing population deviations, in the crafting of laws.
"Many people thought that if 'one person one vote' [actaully coined as 'one man, one vote'] wasn't in the constitution, it should be" ... well then use the Amendment process. There is a mechanism to actually add things to the Constitution. And if you see it as difficult, that is because it's supposed to be. Article 5 provides 2 (technically 3) different mechanisms to attempt to add amendments. Don't use nine unelected black robbed men in order to get done what you think is a good political objective.
"[the Alabama Senate] was based on acreage or size" ... NO it was based on the political rights of county governments to be represented in the legislature because political subdivisions have vested interest in the crafting of legislation that affects their people or jurisdiction. There is also an interest in the agility of the Sente so there was an attempt to keep it from becoming an unruly size, so combinations of counties would be necessary.
Find me the "acreage clause" in their constitution and then maybe there would be a decent reason to claim that.
"[No state was a federation], they made no such promise" ... NJ was specifically a State where the balance of East and West Jersey was to balance interests of the regions. This was carried over to the Counties when organized into important political bodies in 1776. It's simply untrue that ALL states lacked such a promise.
"all states complied" ... that's just revisionary history. There were numerous cases on the level of deviation and what reasons could be used to justify them. Hawaii and the islands, County lines, total deviations ratios of 1.5, etc. Thankfully the COurt didn't go as far as to say they had to be nearly perfectly equal.
The equal protection clause in 14th amendment in the constitution is the law of the land and it applies to every state in the union.
Lmao, a RUclips troll trying to assert his pseudo legal philosophy over the brightest minds in our legal system today.
@@AliMohamed-yq4wn
If we accept your argument that it can be used in this entirely unspecified way.
By broadening the definition of terms to encompass other things. Then you must also accept that it can & will similarly broaden it to push whatever agenda we want.
To the net effect of the total subjugation and abolition of local government and all meaningful limits on power not really Congress under section 5 but the court on a case-by-case basis.
After all everything technically is a natural right. Therefore anything can be imposed and by implication of oversight restricted in the interests of that imposition to allegedly protect a "right".
If you're going to behave that way with regard to the language of a constitution you don't really have a constitution you just have 5 plus men in robes deciding what policy they want to impose on a case-by-case basis
@@AliMohamed-yq4wn What applies?
The OPINION of 5 black robe judges. The 14th amendment says NOTHING about basing the apportionment on population alone.
The Great Compromise already tackled this issue. The judges in these cases MADE SHIT UP. Regardless, the scotus has NO POWER to legislate. Their rulings ARE NOT law. They are LITERALLY titles opinions.
LAW comes from ELECTED representatives APPOERRTIONED according first to Boundaries of LAW and LAND and then to Population no appointed dress wearing tyrants.
BAR lawyers are hardly honorable nor competent in the ways of Liberty.
The point of the Senate both federal and state was to protect the self-governable parts of both.
In other words this issue should be handled In a way respective of said divergent interest or left to those parts to be handled separately in a way most suitable to each.
It is in fact that latter part the ability to handle things separately that defines whether or not a region is entitled to a senator.
Because it likewise defines the regions capability to say no and do things independently.
This is what really distinguishes a large rural county from a dense urban city.
In that the county if it has a minimum number of people and a diversity of resources has no need of the city. But the city cut off from set resources of the county and trade would collapse completely within weeks.
It is for this reason that even the city-states of ancient Greece were technically full states including the countryside around them.
Even if they were generally United by a single urban core.
As such what the court did with these edicts was not only violate the Constitution but completely break our federal structure.
This is utterly destroyed large areas of many states like Illinois and New York and increasing the California.
All because you confused the ability to refuse to work together in areas of no common interest with the power to demand others work against their interest.
Don’t go in your car tonight
Good video 👍
Who here from Bioscience?
Did Mr. Heisel give it to the previous years too?
And the notion "one person one vote" is not seen in the constitution , but is a court created 'right'.
The Constitution directly implies the notion of "one person, one vote" when viewed in the context of apportionment.
@@nearn8517 not in the context of these rulings.
One person One voted NEVER meant apportionment based on population alone.
The Great Compromise is evidence of that.
The scotus has always been an affront to the true intentions of the Constitution.
If it were the courts would limit their power today.
Gore v. Bush ?????
This film seems at odds with the concept and practice of a Republic form of government.
Most (if not all states) have a House of Delegates/Representatives AND a Senate.
The Delegates/Representatives represent the people. The Senate represents the county. That means the two branches have to work together. THAT was the check and balance.
The federal government was set up this way as well, until 1913. This video is horribly biased, against the mechanism that kept things in balance.
The people who complain about this issue never seem to mind that 1/4 of California’s house seats are representing foreigners illegally in the country
They are near sighted dolts who hardly bother with the intricacies of governance or a truly fair system.