The history of bad Supreme Court decisions is very long and growing longer each session. Here’s another from 46 years ago, Reynolds v Simms, that has massive implications which no state has addressed.
Recently, I was informed the US Supreme Court decision Reynolds v Simms was raised in objection to a Resolution presented at the Idaho GOP Summer Meeting. The Resolution called for a return to “one county, one senator” representation in the Idaho Senate.
The Simms decision supposedly says they can’t do that at the state level. Simms is yet another of the most egregiously un-constitutional and anti-Republic SCOTUS decisions of modern times. It appears to be another perfect example, of complete federal dysfunction and a badly behaving Court, one that demands an Act of Nullification be passed by the Idaho legislature to tell the Feds to “butt-out.” Simms contorted and extended apportionment to state senators in complete contradiction to the non-apportionment of US Senators.
The ‘Simms’ decision was a 1964 case from Alabama where the State Legislature had designated that every county had at least one senator per county. The US Supreme Court (SCOTUS) ruled that the senators had to be apportioned and direct-elected by voters, the same as Representatives.
The decision flew directly in the face of not only the State Constitution of Alabama, the US Constitution (Article 1 and Article 4), the organization and election of the US Senate but is a direct attack on state sovereignty.
It seems that for decades the Supremes, the state legislatures and the people have become extremely confused as to the meaning of the republican form of government as organized and guaranteed in the US Constitution.
The US Congress was purposefully divided into two bodies; the lower House of Representatives and the upper house of the Senate. That bi-cameral organization had a distinctive purpose; to create two different types of deliberative bodies. The lower House of Representatives was to be the democratic body, meaning Representatives are both apportioned and directly elected, by a vote of the people in their Congressional Districts.
Conversely, the US Senate was to be the republican body; meaning un-apportioned and not directly elected by the people. In the original constitution the States were to have two senators for each state and were appointed by the state legislators.
As I discuss extensively in my upcoming book, “The Citizen’s Last Stand,” the 17th Amendment, brazenly and unlawfully adopted in 1913, made US Senators direct-elected but still un-apportioned. However, no article, section or amendment has given the power to the federal government to decide the organization of state elections. IN FACT, the federal Constitution requires the Feds to guarantee the republican form of government to every state (Article IV, Section 4).
Next comes the issue of jurisdiction.
First, there was no jurisdiction or power, only usurped jurisdiction and power, for the Supremes to interfere in deciding the organization of state elections. There is nowhere in the US Constitution the power, beyond the guarantee of the republican form of government and the apportionment of state representatives of the people, to direct or control the organization and appointment or election of state senators.
That means the people and the legislature in Idaho, or any state, are free to define the qualifications, districting, appointment and/or election of their state senators. The US Congress, President or the Supreme Court cannot direct that state senators be either apportioned or direct-elected. Not only is Simms inherently un-constitutional in its operation, it is completely illogical and violates Article 4, Section 4 of the US Constitution.
The most obvious course, to parallel the process of the original US Constitution, would be to either offer a state constitutional amendment (probably best) or a state statute (ok, but not optimum) to have the legislative body within each county (the Commissioners) appoint a state Senator to represent the county’s interest in the state legislature in the same manner US Senators were originally designed to represent each state in the Congress.
They would be non-apportioned and not directly elected. So the Idaho legislature would then be comprised of 44 senators and 70 representatives. Such a plan would then insure minority protection to small-population counties in one of the legislative bodies as provided for by the republican form of government. That is the meaning of, “of by and for the People!” “Of the People,” is the democratic House, “By the People,” is the republican Senate and “For the People,” is the Office of President or Governor.
However the people and Idaho legislature eventually decide to organize the appointment/ election of state senators, Simms most decidedly does not apply and should itself be specifically Nullified Amendment or by Act of the State Legislature at the earliest opportunity. It seems most everyone has almost completely forgotten the meaning of republic, even among Republicans. Decades of horrendous, and obviously lacking, civics education has done its job well.
The other issue is the unlawful ratification of the 17th amendment and what to do about it in every state, so that each state may return to the republican form of government to the federal government, is another issue also covered extensively in the The Citizen’s Last Stand. Having been apprised of this grievous miscarriage of justice from1964 by the US Supremes, it is important for each county and state legislator and the people and state as a whole, so apprised, to move accordingly and to act to remedy as quickly as possible.
We have so many long-neglected, fundamental issues coming to the fore these days.
Until we get the organization and functioning of the states fixed in correct order it seems next to impossible to approach and attack every other federal usurpation and illegal act. Such Acts which, routinely conducted by the Feds, encroach on state sovereignty; from ObamaCare to federal land management, fiscal and agency interference. All have been egregiously neglected for far too long.
We continue to fail to correct such obvious failures. We continue to neglect or actively destroy the guaranteed republican form of government within the Union of the united States. Where does this stop? Will it only stop at total implosion and breakdown of any remaining semblance of Constitutionality and the complete destruction of the Republic?
Each of the People and the States will have to decide.