LINKED FROM Redistricting OVERVIEW

Who was Raoul Berger? He was a brilliant, Honest Man, who cared deeply about the Founding of our Nation, the Framing of our Constitution, and accuracy of historical events and intentions. His Government by Judiciary: The Transformation of the Fourteenth Amendment, is an Invaluable Treasure for anyone interested in understanding the Roots of Judicial Tyranny in the Transforming of America from the Greatness of Our American Republic under God, to the Brink of Democratic Evil under Oligarchic Tyrants! From The Coming Resurrection of Raoul Berger? A Remembrance of Government by Judiciary:

"Raoul Berger (1901-2000) was the most important and daring voice in favor of an originalist approach to the Interpretation of the Constitution in the last third of the twentieth century. . . . Berger’s scholarship was non-partisan. When he embarked on the research that resulted in Government by Judiciary, and that consumed him for the last three decades of his life (he lived to be just shy of 100, and wrote almost until the end), the progressives were dismayed and the conservatives jubilant, because Berger, as an originalist, provided a remarkable historical pedigree for the notion that progressive jurists had, for many years, wrongly construed the Constitution."

The following Representation-related quotes from Raoul Berger's masterpiece, Government by Judiciary: The Transformation of the Fourteenth Amendment, are precious droplets in the ocean of invaluable historical information awaiting discovery by honest researchers!

Note 4.

Chief Justice Warren, Alfred Kelly states, "carefully neglected the far more important fact that every one of the state legislatures that sent delegates to Philadelphia was grossly malapportioned by any 'one man, one vote' standard, and the state conventions that ratified the Constitution were in every instance set up on the same rule of apportionment." "Clio and the Court: An Illicit Love Affair," 1965 S. Ct. Rev. 119 at 136-137. Justice Story, commenting on the possible introduction of a clause "to regulate the State elections of members of State legislatures" stated, "It would be deemed a most unwarrantable transfer of power, indicating a premeditated design to destroy the State governments. It would be deemed so flagrant a violation of principle as to require no comment." I Joseph Story, Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States [Sec.] 819 (5th ed. 1905). [In the Convention Nathaniel Gorham said , "[T]he Constitution of Massachusetts] had provided that the [representatives of the] larger districts should not be in an exact ratio of their numbers. And experience he thought had shewn the provision to be expedient." I The Records of the Federal Convention of 1787 405 (Max Farrand ed. 1911). In the First Congress, Representative Michael Stone of Maryland said, "the representatives of the States were chosen by the States in the manner they pleased." I Annals of Congress 765 (1834)] Quoted from Raoul Berger, Government by Judiciary . . . Note 4, P.91.

Note 13..

"The true basis for representation, Sumner declared in a speech to the ]Massachusetts] convention on July 7 [1853], should ideally be founded 'absolutely upon equality' so as to make all men, in the enjoyment of the electoral franchise, whatever their diversity of intelligence, education or wealth, and wheresoever they may be within the Commonwealth, whether in small towns or populous city, 'absolutely equal at the ballot box.' But, he swiftly backtracked, this system of equal representation could not be advantageously instituted 'unless supported by the permanent feelings and conditions of the people.' As the practice of giving Massachusetts small towns disproportionate influence had sprung 'from custom and popular faith, silently operating with internal power, not from the imposed will of a lawgiver' . . . no radical change in the admittedly inequitable system should be tried at present, but instead the rural towns should be given more representation so as to protect the Commonwealth against the 'commercial feudalism' of the big cities." Donald, Sumner I 246, quoting 3 Sumner, Works 229-258. Quoted in Berger, Note 13, p.94.

Note 56.

As Justice Harlan stated, "the very fact that constitutional amendments were deemed necessary to bring about federal abolition of state restrictions on voting by reason of race (Amendment XV), sex (Amendment XIX)...is itself forceful evidence of the common understanding in 1869, 1919...that the Fourteenth Amendment did not empower Congress to legislate in these respects." Oregon v. Mitchell, 400 U.S. at 202, dissenting and concurring in part. [1970]

Note 57.

88 U.S.(21 Wall.) 162, 175. In United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 542, 555 (1875), Chief Justice Waite reaffirmed that "the fifteenth amendment has invested the citizens of the United States with anew constitutional right, which is exemption from discrimination in the exercise of the elective franchise on account of race. From this it appears that the right of suffrage is not a necessary attribute of national citizenship" (emphasis added).

After indicating that "the 15th and 19th amendments prohibit a State from overweighting or diluting votes on the basis of race or sex," Chief Justice Warren, quoting a prior opinion, asked, "How then can one person be given twice or ten times the voting power of another person...merely because he lives in a rural area." 377 U.S. at 557. Given that discrimination in favor of "rural areas" is historically deep-rooted, orthodox analysis would conclude: because the Fifteenth and Nineteenth govern only :race and sex," not "rural areas." My citation of old cases does not betray a weakness for ancient vintages but respons rather to the weight long given to interpretations contemporary with or close to the event, particularly when they confirm the intention of the framers as disclosed by the legislative history.

. . .

LIBERTY is a State of Being!

LIBERTY begins in our own BACKYARD!