Some Thoughts on the 10th Amendment

With the "introduction" of Rick Perry into the GOP race for the Presidency has come the debate pertaining to his "ideas". One of his so called "ideas" is that the 10th Amendment is supreme and lays most of the federal government unconstitutional. Now besides the fact that the 10th Amendment is at odds with this clause, this clause and this clause, or that the 10th has basically been dead since the Civil War, and forgetting the fact that Perry used to be a Democrat, rule by the 10th is a really really really bad way to govern.

Imagine if each state had their form of Social Security as Perry insinuates they should. Think of the redundant costs and overlapping pensions. Or think about how much this would restrict movement between states for employment. There are certain things that are better done on a large and national scale, such as currency, defense, entitlements, pensions, etc. Unfortunately the founding fathers did not have the foresight to write them all into the Constitution, hence why they wrote in escape clauses such as Necessary and Proper and the Commerce Clause. But it appears that Rick Perry sees something that he likes and just runs with it and he will be damned with the facts and contradicting arguments.

Some Thoughts on Proportional Representation, by State Delegation, in the US House of Representatives

After listening to Ken Rudin & Ron Elving talk about redistricting for a brief couple of minutes on last weeks It's All Politics (I really wish they dedicated more time to it) I was struck with a brilliant idea (of which I have many): Why not determine House delegations via proportional representation? Now my initial reaction was that this must not be constitutional. Yet upon a reading of Article I of the US Constitution it became evidently clear that the election of a defined number of representatives is up to each individual state unless superseded by federal law. Which means states can do whatever they want as long as they come to the correct total of legislators unless Congress says no.

That is of course where I hit a snag. Federal law since 1967 does in fact say all Reps must come from districts of equal size.

I do however think the benefits of proportional representation are great enough to warrant the repeal of that law. I think it would promote the use of third parties in the US, in more populous states it would allow for greater representation among minorities, and would result in less "big wave elections". With that said I am a huge proponent of a system that has more than 2 parties and can't be trusted.

Now if the US were to repeal that law I am worried that Wesberry v. Sanders might get in the way of constitutionality. I would argue that because the ratio of population to the number of reps is more or less equal in each state then therefore you are achieving 1 person 1 vote. But I can entertain the argument that because, under a proportional system, I have access to 9 Reps in MA that I have more of a say on issues that come before the US House than one in ND does.

The Bottom Line: Is proportional representation in the US House by state delegations legal? No because of a 1967 law requiring districts. Upon repeal of that law would it be Constitutional? More likely than not.