The supreme court, of the corporate United states, invents the extra-constitutional “Doctrine of One-Man, One-Vote” by handing down Baker v. Carr, overturning Colegrove v. Green. The confederate state of tennessee—via the fraudulent 14th amendment—is ordered to apportion both of its legislative houses on the basis of population, rather than require that it obey the equal protection provisions of its own constitution (which by the court’s own admission had stronger language): “[W]e do not consider, let alone enforce rights under a [s]tate [c]onstitution which go further than the protections of the [f]ourteenth [a]mendment. .. [I]t is a responsibility of this [c]ourt to act as the ultimate interpreter of the Constitution” (above and beyond the authority of WE THE PEOPLE). This reverses a century of legal precedent: The guarantee of a republican form of government (Article IV, Section 4) is no longer a political question for CONgress and the president, but now a judicial question for the courts.
NOTE: This decision usurps the states prerogative to reapportion seats in their own legislatures; and gives that power to the Federal courts. The best way to eliminate gerrymandering in states electoral districts would be to have one legislative house represent the county governments, and have the other one represent the people through at-large, proportional representation.
[restored 3/20/2021] Thanks to Bill Holmes for this entry.
Subsequent Events:
Authority:
“Law of the Jungle”
ccc-2point0.com/preface
References:
Baker v. Carr, 369 U.S. 186, 194(n15), 211 (1962).
Gerald Gunther, Constitutional Law, twelfth edition, (1937; Westbury, New York: Foundation, 1991), 1658-59.
William M. Weicek, The Guarantee Clause of the U.S. Constitution, (Ithaca, New York and London: Cornell University Press, 1972), 285-87.
“Today in History,” Orange County (California) Register, 26 March 2004, News:15.
Baker v. Carr – Wikipedia
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baker_v._Carr