Any and all Americans who want to defend their right to US Representation for Taxation:
You need to be a qualified voter, ( registered to vote, and voting in elections is best )
and have a mailing address.
You will be defending the Constitution of the United States, ( anyone against your actions,
can legally be considered engaging in a rebellion against the United States in accordance
with the 14th Amendment section 2. )
You are defending your Constitutional right to Equal representation in the
U.S. House of Representatives, in accordance with the Equal Protection Clause
of the 14th Amendment, the 1st Article of the Constitution of the United States,
and a long line of Supreme Court rulings.
We will help you defend your right to the Constitutional maximum amount of Representation
for Taxation that we all were guaranteed by our Founding Fathers in Article I
of the Constitution. You will need to file a court case in your State, below are the reasons
the Supreme Court detailed for US District Court Justices to rule in your favor.
The US District Court Justices have the obligation to apportion the Congressional
districts when the legislatures fail or refuse to obey.
The Supreme Court Ruled in 1964, Reynolds v. Sims, 377 U.S. 533, 555 - 569
Justice Brennan wrote this majority opinion:
Undeniably the Constitution of the United States protects the right of all qualified citizens
to vote, in State as well as in Federal elections. A consistent line of decisions by this Court (Supreme)
in cases involving attempts to deny or restrict the right of suffrage has made this indelibly clear.
It has been repeatedly recognized that all qualified voters have a constitutionally protected right to vote,
and to have their votes counted. The Court stated that it is " as equally unquestionable that the right to have
one's vote counted is as open to protection...as the right to put a ballot in a box." The right to vote can neither
be denied outright, nor destroyed by alteration of ballots, nor diluted by ballot-box stuffing.
The right to vote freely for the candidate of one's choice is of the essence of a democratic society,
and any restrictions on that right strike at the heart of a representative government.
And the right of suffrage can be denied by a debasement or dilution of the weight of a citizens vote
just as effectively as by wholly prohibiting the free exercise of the franchise to vote.
In Baker v. Carr 369 U.S. 186, we (the Supreme Court) held that a claim asserted under the
Equal Protection Clause challenging the Constitutionality of a State's apportionment of seats
in its legislature, on the grounds that the right to vote of certain citizens was effectively
impaired since debased and diluted, in effect presented a justiciable controversy subject
to adjudication by federal courts.
They held that a system for elections that resulted in the dilution of the weight of the votes
of certain districts which ' contracted the value of some votes and expands that value of others'
is unconstitutional, since " The Federal Constitution intends that when qualified voters elect
members of Congress each vote be given as much weight as any other vote..."
We ( the Supreme Court ) further stated:
" It would defeat the principle solemnly embodied in the Great Compromise--
Equal representation in the House for Equal numbers of people--
for us to hold that, within the States, legislatures may draw the lines
of congressional districts in such a way as to give some voters a greater voice in
choosing Congressmen/women than others."
We concluded by stating:
" No right is more precious in a free country than that of having a voice in the election
of those who make the laws under which, as good citizens, we must live.
Other rights, even the basic, are illusory if the right to vote is undermined.
Our Constitution leaves no room for classification of people in a way that
unnecessarily abridges this right."
" We do not believe the Framer's of the Constitution intended to permit the same
vote-diluting discrimination to be accomplished through the device of districts
containing widely varied numbers of inhabitants. To say that a vote is worth more in
one district than in another would...run counter to our
fundamental ideas of democratic government...
To the extent that a citizen's right to vote is debased, he is that much less a citizen.
The fact that an individual lives here or there is not a legitimate reason for overweighting
or diluting the efficacy of his vote.
Population is, of necessity, the staring point for consideration and the controlling
criterion for judgment in a legislative apportionment controversies.
A CITIZEN, A QUALIFIED VOTER, IS NO MORE NOR NO LESS SO BECAUSE
HE LIVES IN THE CITY OR ON THE FARM. THIS IS THE CLEAR AND
STRONG COMMAND OF OUR CONSTITUTION'S EQUAL PROTECTION CLAUSE.
THIS IS AN ESSENTIAL PART OF THE CONCEPT OF A GOVERNMENT OF LAWS
AND NOT MEN.
Justice Brennan's words...not mine.