The Crescendo of Scandalous Crises Mode: Part 4

I admit I have been delaying long enough about continuing this series. I really find it distasteful. Since it has been awhile, let's recap. The NSA thing bothered me because it came at the tale end of one scandal after another thrown at President Obama from the right wing. Then suddenly, I could not believe my eyes that liberals were climbing on the Anti-Obama "kill his second term" bandwagon. As I said, I am a pragmatic person. The Presidency controls a great deal of power and I don't want it in the hands of a party that has by observation been at their looniest moment since I have been alive. And yes I realize the Dems voted for the Iraq War, in a momentary hysteria of magnificent proportion. But again, that looney tune party were right there as the party that had all the fear factor to whip the dems in line. And honestly, all of them were doing what the American public wanted, in general.

So I have shown how totally messed up the Senate is. And as I said before, when confronted with a government that is trying to protect me from terrorists by whatever methods of surveillance, I really want a vote (and have it proportionate to the number one) to work with. I want my voice heard.  I hesitated a long time on the issue of the gerrymandering of the House, because, honestly, I just did not want to do the research.

I have come to terms with the fact that the American public (or at least the ones I frequently read, am in touch with, or am most familiar with) have decided that privacy concerns trump protection from terrorists for the time. They felt the opposite after 9/11. And terrorist attacks are massive movers of public opinion. Attacks can and will happen especially if we do not protect ourselves and the pendulum could and would swing back to the post 9/11 fear side of the equation if something catastrophic were to happen. Further, if it were to happen on Obama's watch, then all the things Cheney said about not voting for Obama because Obama would be weak on terrorism, all this crap would be perceived as true and well... you can see the ramifications.

Also, Snowden is a twit. Have I said that? :)

Anyway, for your reading pleasure, here is an article (in the format of Elroy's Homework, one other blog of mine) that shows how my representation in the House is obscenely lacking:

Fix Congress: Overturn Vieth v. Jubelirer!

Posted July 25, 2013

OK House Republicans—I give up. Since you've been the majority the only thing you've accomplished is naming things after Reagan and voting to repeal Obamacare an unprecedented—let alone unreasonable—38 times. Seriously, you've done nothing. Even Congresses that set out to do nothing and were dubbed “Do-Nothing,” look like overachievers by comparison.

Last Sunday on “Face the Nation,” Speaker Boehner said, “We should not be judged by how many new laws we create, we ought to be judged on how many laws we repeal.”

Well, you haven’t repealed any laws either. So even when you throw out the measurements by which we usually judge the merits of Congress and just make up your own—you’re still a national disgrace.
Why is Congress so horrible? Why is the Ebola virus held in higher esteem in most polls than the Legislative Branch? One word: Gerrymandering.

Basically, through a solidly and proudly partisan process our representatives have carved out districts to protect incumbency. So your congressperson doesn't have to work, be effective or listen to constituents—they just have to be a congressperson.

In 2011, when the dysfunction of Congress was noted as the primary reason Standard & Poors downgraded the United States' credit rating for the first time in history, gerrymandering was the reason nobody got voted out. The fix is in and Congress gets to cash their government paychecks.

“The concept of equal justice under law requires the State to govern impartially,” wrote Justice John Paul Stevens in his dissenting opinion in the 2004 landmark 5-4 decision, Vieth v. Jubelirer.

Norma Jean, Richard Vieth and Susan Furey were plaintiff-appellants in the case. These Pennsylvania Democrats claimed that the Pennsylvania General Assembly (specifically Robert C. Jubelirer, President of the Pennsylvania Senate) had unconstitutionally gerrymandered their districts, violated Article I of the U.S. Constitution (one-person, one-vote) and denied them protection under the Eighteenth Amendment.
The case hinged on whether gerrymandering was justiciable (able to be decided by the courts). Five justices said it was not. No one penned a majority opinion.

In the minority, Justice Stevens wrote, “Today’s plurality opinion would exempt governing officials from that duty in the context of legislative redistricting and would give license, for the first time, to partisan gerrymanders that are devoid of any rational justification.”

Justice Stevens wins for the most prescient statement about our current, self-quagmired Congress.
Stevens also cited the 1964 decision Reynolds v. Sims, which forced state legislative districts to have equal populations: “Legislatures...should be bodies which are collectively responsive to the popular will.”
After Reynolds there was a Republicans-led fight to pass a constitutional amendment allowing unequal legislative districts. Their amendment failed. But their goal has been realized: Voter disenfranchisement through manipulated districts.

Since Congress doesn't have to adhere to popular will—it’s no shock they don’t. A majority of Americans want them to work together. A majority of Americans want health insurance regardless of preexisting conditions (as in Obamacare). A majority of Americans want infrastructure spending. A majority of Americans want the government to not nationalize women’s bodies. A majority of Americans want a higher minimum wage. A majority of Americans want comprehensive immigration reform. And clean air. And affordable higher education. And regulated banks.

A majority of Americans (1.4 million more) voted for Democrats and yet we still have an anarcho-Republican majority whose sole pastime is to play chicken with the general welfare of the country.
Congress is disincentivized from compromising, working together, or really working period. Congress can cynically put party before country to the detriment of us all as much as they please. And they clearly, under the “leadership” of John Andrew Boehner, have done just that.

Americans are the ones without jobs, pensions and savings. Congress is safe. See? They really don’t represent Americans.

Overturn Vieth v. Jubelirer. Kill the Gerrymander. Fix Congress.

-
 See more at: http://thecontributor.com/editors-contribution/fix-congress-overturn-vieth-v-jubelirer#sthash.jcs9a0et.dpuf