Gerrymander against the Democratic System.

If you have ever looked at Congressional or even perhaps State Districts, you may have noticed that some seem to form peculiar shapes. Why would who ever draws these do that and not make them more like, well a box? The answer is simple, it is called a Gerrymander, drawing these political districts in such a manner that gives an advantage of one group of people over another to ensure the highest probability that a candidate of this specific group is elected to that office.

While I watched the results of the 2010 National Elections on TV, one commentator’s statement struck me more than any other one made that night. “Now that they have the power during redistricting”, in other words, to Gerrymander Congressional Districts to their favor.

Gerrymandering can undermine the entire electorate, have results that do not represent the people as a whole, can be used to consolidate power to one group or small number of groups or one party. Perhaps the most troubling aspect of it is, instead of the people voting and choosing who their politician will be, it is politicians choosing who will vote for them or their group or party.

House of Representatives Reapportionment

With the 2010 Election winding down, and still several races still undecided. 2010 also marks the the once a decade census. How does one have to to deal with the other? Reapportionment of US Representatives to States happens in 2011 with redistricting in states happening and being finished in time for the 2012 election cycle.

If you have watched the new, perhaps you have heard about the consequences of state legislature and governorships importance in the past election, because they will deal with how districts are drawn. Typically the party in power gets to draw the districts, and it is almost a given, they will draw them to their parties advantage, that is they will choose who gets to vote for the ones they like, otherwise called a Gerrymander.

The Gerrymander [who James Madison was almost casualty of in Virginia for the 1st Congress, when his district was drawn to PREVENT him from being elected, which he still was] is an absurd idea. Politicians should not be able to select who gets to vote for them, the voters should choose who they get to vote for. Their should be no such thing as a "safe" district, the more competitive the district, the better it is for the district and the people as a whole.

The results of this election should not matter in redistricting. Districts should simply be drawn to ensure equal numbers of voters in all districts of the state, and then let the people of the district choose who they want. They should not be drawn to ensure the higher probability of a particular party being elected, by choosing who gets to vote for them. Let the Republic live up to its name, and be representative of the people, not a politicians desire.

General Welfare (Part 4) Final Drafts and Debates of the Convention

After the Committee of Detail presented its final draft of a Constitution to the Convention on August 6th (as discussed in Part 3), debates began on the various aspects, provisions and clauses. The Constitution presented contained 23 Articles, with Article VII representing what would become Article I Sections 8, the Section that contains “general welfare”. Article VII of the proposed Constitution contains the enumerated powers as well as prohibitive powers similar to what would end up being Article I Section 9, among others.

Article VII Section Clause 1 reads:

• The legislature of the United States shall have the power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts, and excises.

Just as with the following 17 clauses after this clause, general welfare or any similar variant does not appear anywhere within these 18 clauses.

It would not be until the next day a reference to General welfare in some would appear, but it would be tied to Article III of the proposed Constitution. Article III concerned establishing the Legislature to consist of two bodies, each having a negative on the other [not giving assent to the others bills], and when it should meet.

General Welfare (Part 3) Debates in Convention, Committee of Detail

As already discussed [in Part 2]on July 26th, the Convention broke into Committee of Detail [selected July 24th] until August 6th. The Committee consisted of five members Oliver Ellsworth (Connecticut) Nathaniel Gorham (Massachusetts) Edmund Randolph (Virginia) John Rutledge (South Carolina) James Wilson (Pennsylvania). The purpose of this committee was to make a draft constitution for the Convention as agreed to through this point of debating. Max Farrands records on the Convention contain James Wilson’s [Pennsylvania] notes from the committee, the only records of the committee that may in fact be available from the committee. James Madison’s Notes [Virginia] do not contain the committee with July 26th-Aug 6th having no entries, similarly Rufus King [Massachusetts] from July 15-Aug 7th. James McHenry [Maryland] did not return to the Convention until Aug 6th, after departing for personnel reason in Jun. Robert Yates [New York] last entry in from July 5th, before departing the convention, William Pierce [Georgia] does not address the Committee, nor does William Patterson [New York], or Alexander Hamilton [New york], though several do mention the committee did take place during this time, these are among the most common records of the convention itself.

Political Venom strikes again

Christie O'Donnell of DE is currently being lighted up by media for asking "Where in the Constitution does it say separation of Church and State". The true fact is, it does not. The common reference of this term is associated with the First Amendment:

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
But however the term does not reside in it. It actually has its genesis from Thomas Jefferson in 1802 in a letter to the Danbury Baptist in Danbury CT.

But that point aside, one is being lambasted by media for stating a fact, IT IS IN FACT NOT IN THE CONSTITUTION, rather than it is not in agreement with their perception of meaning. Instead of stating it to be a "true" statement and take issue with her interpretation and contending it implies a "separation" though does not state it, a factual statement has been twisted into being presented as false due to a political disagreement.

This is Political Venom. We can disagree, we can agree to disagree, but we can not change the facts, and the attempt has been made here to do just that, change a factual statement from one, and present it to be false.