The supreme court, of the corporate United states, hands down Alexander v. United states: civil asset forfeiture of a chain of adult bookstores and movie theatres based on the presence of a few obscene materials does not constitute cruel and unusual punishment as prohibited by Article VIII of Amendment.

       [restored 3/12/2023]

       The supreme court, of the corporate United states, decides Shaw v. Reno, declaring as unlawful–via the fraudulent 14th amendment–gerrymandered CONgressional districts designed to “protect” the representation of north carolina residents of African heritage.  However, the court does not rule against the more common use of gerrymandering, which is to draw districts to either protect incumbents, expand the power of the majority status quo party at the expense of the minority status quo party, or both.

       NOTE: The fairest way to ensure adequate representation for ethnic minorities, and ensure against incumbents being re-elected without serious opposition is to have all member of a State’s Congressional delegation elected at-large, in the general election, and have a slate of at-large candidates nominated at each party’s state convention.  In the case of north carolina, with 12 CONgressional representatives, each party would be allowed to seat one representative for each 8.33% of the vote it received in the Statewide election for the House of Representatives.  This is called “proportional representation” and would go a long way toward electing members to the house of representatives from alternative parties, as opposed to the current system in which members of the status quo parties (Democratic and Republican) have a duopoly that is preserved through winner-take-all districts.  besides there is no requirement in the Constitution that says member of the House of Representatives must be elected by districts.

       [restored 3/12/2023] Thanks to Jim Lorenz for this entry.