Chuck Norris: Return to the Constitution by Ignoring It
Because Chuck Norris frequently writes about church-state separation — always to attack it and promote theocracy — it would be a good idea to understand how he approaches the Constitution. Apparently, his idea of "returning" to the Constitution involves deliberately and blatantly ignoring what it says. What might this tell us about how he "interprets" the First Amendment?
What many might not realize is that there is nothing ultimately sacred about the present number of congressmen and congresswomen we have in the House of Representatives. Actually, the proper numbers of representatives from each state has been debated since our founders' time. The Constitution (Article I, Section 2, Clause 3) requires and endeavors to assure fairness and equity by requiring at least one representative per state, two senators per state and representation in the electoral college. (At the other extreme, it states that "The number of representatives shall not exceed one for every 30,000.") So why not go with the lesser amount? It seems to me that in our day, in both House and Senate, fewer representatives by area would be more reasonable and effective than more representatives by population.
I don't only think there are too many cooks in Congress' kitchen nowadays, but the numbers are stacked in discriminatory ways. For example, if California represents a larger liberal voice with its 53 representatives, what chance or how fair is it for smaller more conservative states who have between one and five representatives and votes in the House? The U.S. doesn't need a new reapportionment act to raise the number of representatives, but a return to the Constitution to reduce the number of representatives in pursuit of creating more equitable regions or districts.
Personally, I believe, just as we have one governor per state, we should consider reducing Congress to one representative and two senators per state (the minimal by constitutional requirements). If one representative works for Alaska, Delaware, Montana, North Dakota, South Dakota, Vermont and Wyoming, why can't it work for all the rest of the states? Here's a movie we all can star in: "Honey, I shrunk the Congress!"
Source: World Net Daily
If Chuck Norris was able to read in the Constitution that there has to be at least one Representative per state, then we know for a fact that Norris was able to read in the Constitution that Representatives "shall be apportioned among the several States...according to their respective Numbers." In other words, the number of Representatives in each state has a minimum of one, but it otherwise based on the population of every state. This is something children learn in school.
If Chuck Norris knows that the number of Representatives which each state has is based on how many people are in each state, then he knows exactly why California has more Representatives than smaller states: California has a larger population. So Chuck Norris' idea of a "return" to the Constitution is ignore one of the first and most basic constitutional principles: proportional representation.
I don't think it's a coincidence that Norris' idea, aside from be contrary to the Constitution, would also be contrary to democracy: reducing the number of Representatives to lower than the number of Senators would transform the most directly democratic part of the legislature into the least democratic part. This is consistent with and reflective of Chuck Norris' attitude towards church/state issues: more authoritarian governmental control, less equality, less freedom, and less democracy.
So the next time you read Chuck Norris pontificating on religion and secularism, just keep in mind that he doesn't show any interest in people being more free and more equal. Instead, it should be clear that he's looking for more ways to control more people by fewer and fewer people who are placed at the top. It doesn't seem to matter if this requires creatively reinterpreting the Constitution to support his authoritarian plans or simply ignoring and contradicting the Constitution in order to further those plans.
Comments
>if California represents a larger liberal voice with its 53 representatives, what chance or how fair is it for smaller more conservative states who have between one and five representatives and votes in the House?
This is why our government is so left-leaning from the president on down. Even those last few liberal justices that were appointed. It’s because the cards are so unfairly stacked against the conservative population.
I have to say it’s interesting that he thinks representatives represent land mass and not people–if I take his calculation recommendations correctly?
The Senate is small-state biased because California and New York get 2 senators while Wyoming, Alaska, and all those square states west of the Mississippi get two senators. Because the Senate and not the House gets to ratify Supreme Court nominees, the conservatives have an edge. [This edge extends to the Electoral College, too.]
I did a review of the Senate votes for the confirmation of Justice Sam Alito in 2006. He was confirmed by a 58-42 vote, with 54 Republicans and 4 Democrats voting Aye while 41 Democrats and 1 Republican voting Nay. I then used the 2000 population figures and assigned 50% of each state’s population to each senator and added up the population, or the so-called “will of the people”. Would you believe that the 42 senators who voted Nay represented more of the U.S. population (50.2%) than the 58 who voted Aye (49.8%)? So much for the “will of the people” but then again Bush lost the popular vote in 2000.
Redistricting can distort a state’s representation, too. The redistricting after the 2000 census gave us some odd state delegations, and what Texas did in 2003 was reprehensible and should never have been upheld by the Supreme Court (Do you think Scalia and Thomas would have ruled the way they did had it been a Democratic mid-decade re-re-districting instead of a Tom-DeLay-led effort in Texas?)
Reapportionment gave the Red states 7 more House seats and Electoral College votes at the expense of Blue states, a trend likely to continue as the population shifts from the northeast and Great Lakes regions to the South and midwest.
All of this makes it even more amazing that the Democrats captured the House and Senate in 2006 because they had to win in a lot of areas favoring Republicans (i.e. Red states for Senate and gerrymandered GOP-leaning House districts).
“if California represents a larger liberal voice with its 53 representatives, what chance or how fair is it for smaller more conservative states who have between one and five representatives and votes in the House?”
That’s what the Senate is for. If I remember my history correctly, the Founding Fathers created the Senate AND the House to be fair because many believed that having only the House would give the large states an unfair advantage and having only the Senate would give the small states an unfair advantage.
Doesn’t California generally elect conservative governors?
To me, Chuck Norris seems to illustrate perfectly a quote attributed to the late Robert Heinlein:
“The 3-legged stool of understanding is held up by history, languages, and mathematics. Equipped with these three you can learn anything you want to learn. But if you lack any one of them you are just another ignorant peasant with dung on your boots.”
Norris writes competently enough, but with little understanding of history and no insight.
I wish Chuck Norris would die a slow agonizing death by being gang raped in church by 10 horny catholic priest!
….what? not harsh enough?
Chuck Norris’ comment that “liberal”
California voters rights be attenuated simply because they are liberal shows he knows and cares nothing of American constitutional values.
Yeah, how dare Californians think they should get more votes, simply because there are more of them!
A Wyoming voter is already worth 4 California voters in the Presidential election, Norris’ “plan” would make a Wyoming voter worth about 70 Californians.
I’m sure he would like the result, but I don’t think even Chuck and his mighty mustache could defend to claim that it would be fair.