Pin It
Favorite

We must protect the 14th Amendment 

Nipomo

Do we have the appetite for change, or are we just going along for the ride?

If we want to have equal representation, we are going to have to ask the Supreme Court to revisit the Buckley v. Valeo ruling upholding the ruling that holds money as personal property and the use of money as a freedom of speech, as in the First Amendment—but not to the demise of equal representation as in the 14th Amendment.

Why we must ask the Supreme Court to revisit Buckley v. Valeo is to show that freedom of speech cannot be in conflict with the 14th Amendment for equal representation.

The Supreme Court has ruled in the past that each district’s representation will be maintained in the formation of changes for gerrymandering. Outside districts’ money can disproportionally influence a district’s representation and can smother the guidelines for equal representation that is guaranteed in the 14th Amendment.

The Supreme Court’s parameters for maintaining equal representation addressing gerrymandering is very explicit. Manipulation of a district’s boundaries for political expediency is held in check by the five rules that the Supreme Court wrote to protect against the loss of equal representation from any district.

Freedom of speech money cannot be held as a tool to replace equal representation that would place in jeopardy the 14th Amendment.

It’s time we ask the Supreme Court to revisit Buckley v. Valeo to hold exercising their use of freedom of speech money to be held in check for the protection of the 14th Amendment and over-influencing a district’s representation.

Pin It
Favorite

Latest in Letters

Comments

Subscribe to this thread:

Add a comment

Readers also liked…

Search, Find, Enjoy

Submit an event

More by Eugene G. Carl

Trending Now

© 2017 New Times San Luis Obispo
Powered by Foundation