Green Party Watch

Green Party Watch
America's #1 Source for Green Party News & Views!
Showing posts with label Asa Gordon. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Asa Gordon. Show all posts

Monday, April 24, 2017

PLAINTIFF'S REPLY IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE AN AMENDED COMPLAINT AND IN OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS’ COMBINED OPPOSITION*

ASA GORDON, ) ) Plaintiff ) ) v. ) Case 1:16-cv-02458-RJL ) NATIONAL ARCHIVES AND ) RECORDS ADMINISTRATION, et al. ) ) Defendants ) _______________________________

"..This Case or Controversies arises out of the ministerial legal duties of the defendant National Archives and Records Administration’s (NARA) Office of the Federal Register (OFR) required by law to perform certain functions relating to the Electoral College. NARA acting pursuant to 3 U.S.C. 6, 11, 12, and 13, creates legal rights to "ensure" the constitutional integrity of "Certificates of Votes", including by its publication of "Provisions of the Constitution and United States Code relating to Presidential Elections" an enforceable right to receive truthful information concerning the electoral process that automatically creates standing if these rights are violated. “[t]he actual or threatened injury required by Art. III may exist solely by virtue of ‘statutes creating legal rights, the invasion of which creates standing….’ ” Warth v. Seldin, supra, at 500, 95 S.Ct., at 2205, quoting Linda R.S. v. Richard D., 410 U.S. 614, 617, n. 3, 93 S.Ct. 1146, 1148, n. 3, 35 L.Ed.2d 536 (1973). Furthermore, Defendants' have not contested arguments rasied in Plaintiff's Memorandum in Support of Plaintiff's Motion for leave to File Amended Complaint. _______________________________ * Case 1:16-cv-02458-RJL _ Document 17 ..."  Click here to view

Affidavit of Asa Gordon, Exe. Dir. DIG...

 Duly sworn, under oath, I Asa Gordon make the following statement:
 I am a co-founder and Executive Director of the Douglass Institute of
Government(DIG). I am a resident of the District of Columbia and a registered voter of
this jurisdiction.
 In mid November of 2000, associates of co-founder of DIG Lawrence Douglass Jamison,esq (dec.)
from across the country, and in particular from the States of Georgia and Florida, made inquiries of
DIG as to what redress or penalties were available to citizens with respect to disenfranchisement in
Florida's 2000 Presidential elections under the Constitution of the United States. Particular inquiries
were made of DIG when it was reported in the media that the Florida legislature had threatened to
select the Florida presidential electors without regard for state or federal court guidelines. In
consultation with Jamison we made several inquiries of local officials, professors of law, civil rights
organizations and attorneys as to what course may be undertaken to lodge a grievance for infringement
on the constitutional right of suffrage and what related information may be readily available to the
public. From these inquiries we were led to reference Government web pages on the Presidential
election process maintained by the National Archives and Records Administrations' (NARA) Office of
the Federal Register (OFR). We passed this information on to those who had made inquiries of DIG
without review at that time.
By late December of 2000, after a later review, I became aware that the OFR had posted at their web
site on the electoral college an Internet reference link to a particular document, Relevant Provisions of
the U.S. Constitution and Federal Law: under the heading General Information. This Internet reference
seriously misinforms the general public of their electoral rights. At this same web site, under the
heading State Resources, the OFR provided a link to Letter from the Archivist to Governors. I became
aware that the flawed document at the agency web site is published in pamphlet form "for use by the
Executives and Electors of the several States in the performance of their duties in connection with
Presidential Electors." See Amended Complaint at ¶8. Before I had made these discoveries I
mistakenly used the OFR internet links to pass their flawed document on to my associates in November
of 2000.
As a consequence of my lectures over the last decade and a half on behalf of DIG and as Secretary
General of the United States Colored Troops chartered by the African American Civil War Museum
Freedom foundation on the post Civil War Reconstruction Era in U.S. history, I became cognizant of
the fact that the OFR had committed a serious error in judgment in the publication of their pamphlet
entitled "Provisions of the Constitution and United States Code relating to Presidential Elections" by
their exclusion of the second section of the fourteenth amendment. To my dismay, I later learned that
local officials, professors of law, civil rights organizations, Internet web sites on electoral rights, law
libraries, Government documents libraries, and attorneys practicing Civil Rights law are profoundly
influenced by this inaccurate OFR source. This misinformation was, in fact, a major cause for the
ignorance and disbelief that many local officials, professors of law, civil rights organizations and
attorneys displayed in response to my personal herculean efforts to bring general public and
professional awareness to this missing provision of the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S.
Constitution.
 At the Federal Register Main Page ( http://www.archives.gov/federal_register/) the OFR proclaimed
"OFR plays an important role in: The Electoral College",
(http://www.archives.gov/federal_register/electoral_college/electoral_college.html). The OFR also
declared:
"Our Mission
The Office of the Federal Register (OFR) informs citizens of their rights and obligations by
providing ready access to the official text of Federal laws, Presidential documents,
administrative regulations and notices, and descriptions of Federal organizations, programs
and activities."
 At the Electoral College Link), the OFR declared:
"U. S. Electoral College
The Office of the Federal Register coordinates the functions of the Electoral College on
behalf of the Archivist of the United States, the States, the Congress, and the American
People. ..."
In fulfillment of their declared mission, the OFR has produced "Provisions of the Constitution
and United States Code relating to Presidential Elections" as General Information within the zone of
interest of all citizens. This document is posted on the Internet by the OFR and is broadly linked to and
reproduced at numerous public Internet sites. This document has also been reproduced in pamphlet
form for public dissemination by the Superintendent of Documents as Gov. Doc. No. AE 2.102:P
92/2000 for acquisition by public and academic libraries pursuant to the Federal Register Act
44U.S.C.15. & 1CFR2. Thus actual injury to a broadly misinformed citizenry has been realized and
threatens to be perpetuated unabated.
I have informed NARA and the DC Secretary of State of the error in OFRs' judgment to exclude
from the pamphlet "Provisions of the Constitution and United States Code relating to Presidential
Elections" that portion of the Constitution that pertains more directly to voting rights of individuals and
the penalty for disregarding those rights".
 NARA belittles my effort as a member of that class of misinformed and targeted citizens who
has chosen to exercise his obligation to safeguard his rights once realized. Acting under the purview of
the Federal Register Act 44U.S.C.15;1CFR2, NARA has exacted actual injury upon me directly by
asserting they have no obligation to correct any wrongful editorial judgment identified by me in
fulfillment of their stated mission to inform me of my electoral rights, nor or they obligated to correct
any wrongful editorial judgment that threatens injury to my electoral rights by misinformed officials
who rely on NARA for guidance in protecting my electoral rights. Thus the injury I have suffered is
both actual and threatened by the only agency that has the statutory authority and responsibility to
correct this case or controversy.

I affix my signature hereto.
______________________________________
Asa Gordon, PRO SE
Executive Director and Founder
Douglass Institute of Government
digasa@aol.com 

Tuesday, August 16, 2016

GPUS RacistElectoralReformPlatformPlank








This video is posted in response to requests to provide context for my
comments on the Saturday Morning Program addressing the adoption of the
Green Party platform for 2016, August 6th, at the Green Party National
Presidential Convention, Green 2016, Houston, Texas August 4-7, 2016 in
regards to the Platform Approval of an Electoral Reform plank grounded in a
redemption era legacy to restore white supremacy in the former Confederate
States.

Re:
Green Solutions

1. Electoral reform for a better democracy.
f. Abolish the Electoral College and provide for the direct national
election of the president by Instant Runoff Voting. As a step in that
direction, support National Popular Vote legislation which would guarantee
the Presidency to the Presidential candidate who receives the most popular
votes in all 50 states (and the District of Columbia), which would take
effect only when enacted, in identical form, by states possessing a
majority of the electoral votes -- that is, enough electoral votes to elect
a President(270 of 538).

This platform plank is grounded in neo-redemptionist Supreme Court
decisions in 1892 & 1875 that overturned reconstruction by gutting the
Voting Rights of the formally enslaved pursuant to the Second Section of
the Fourteenth Amendment and reestablished white supremacy throughout the
former rebellious confederate states.

The following corrective electoral reform that honors the Voting Rights
legacy of the United States Colored Troops received a majority of the votes
but was essentially vetoed by the overwhelming disparate votes by the
Greens of California who sponsored the offending platform that dishonors
the legacy of the Reconstruction era White Abolitionists and Civil War
veterans of African descent.

{Rejected} platform amendment with majority support.

f. Abolish the Electoral College and provide for the direct national
election of the president by Instant Runoff Voting. In the interim support
The Malapportionment Penalty MAP initiative to Democratize the Electoral
College by enforcement of "the right to vote" Reconstruction amendment
(Amend. XIV§2 ) that mandates a state's proportional allocation of
presidential electors based on the popular vote split or suffer a
"Reduction of Representation" in the electoral college / members to
congress subject to (2USC§6).

Thanks to all for expressing interest in my concern with the GPUS National
Popular Vote (NPV) Electoral reform platform plank grounded on a
neo-redemptionist Supreme Court ruling that "gutted" the reconstruction
amendment that secured the franchise for the former enslaved of African
descent, and in the restoration of the Malapportionment Penalty (MAP)
alternative reform plank.

Ref.Document's_link:
https://www.dropbox.com/s/n8ofqa7p521f8fv/map-greenpagesnation_merged.pdf?
dl=0
PowerPointLink:
https://www.dropbox.com/s/fdho3jpiv0yllag/gpus-
racistplatormplank-video.pptx?dl=0

Historical Contextual WEB site:
THE HISTORICAL LEGACY

The Malapportionment Penalty MAP initiative is to "Democratize the
Electoral College" by enforcement of "the right to vote" Reconstruction
amendment (Amend. XIV§2 ) that mandates a state's proportional allocation
of presidential electors based on the popular vote split or for the state
to suffer a "Reduction of Representation" in the electoral college /
members to congress pursuant to (2USC§6) .
http://asagordon.byethost10.com/MAP_HISTORICAL_PERSPECTIVE.html

The Constitution's Voting Rights Apportionment Formula
The Constitution's malapportionment penalty clause establishes a de jure
apportionment formula that mandates proportional representational redress
for de facto partisan abridgment of voting rights.
http://asagordon.byethost10.com/MAP-formula.pdf

Regards,
Asa Gordon, Chair DC Statehood Green Party Electoral College Task Force
http://asagordon.byethost10.com/ASA.htm

Wednesday, June 1, 2016

MAP initiative to be honored and featured at National Conference for Civil Rights

"At long last, after a decade and a half of advocacy by Asa Gordon and a majority of the Green Party to enforce "the right to vote" Mal-Apportionment Penalty (MAP) clause in Section 2 of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution (Amend. XIV§2), a clause that mandates proportional allocation of elected representatives based on the popular vote split, or for a state to suffer a "Reduction of Representation" pursuant to title 2 section 6 of the United States Code (2USC§6) for any abridgment of citizen voting rights , the MAP initiative (voting rights "Roots") will be honored and featured in a National Conference for Civil Rights activists.

I am honored to serve as a keynote speaker, to be granted two workshops and invited as a singular conference presenter at the 6th National Civil Rights Conference to present the full scope of the historical and contemporary context for the modern  application of the MAP initiative for voting rights..." 

 I would like to take this opportunity for a personal shout out to those whose support of my efforts in regards to the MAP initiative over the last decade and a half are inestimable: The Late Lawrence Jamison, esquire, Gary Michael Coutin, esquire, Garrine P. Laney, Scott Mclarty, Alexis Scott, Herb & Lenora Foerstel, Netfa Freeman, Diane F. White, Kimberly Wilder, C.R. Gibbs, Lawrence Jackson, Frank Hanrahan, Frank Gordon, Pat LaMarche, Cynthia McKinney, Jabari, Hugh Esco, Morgan Moss, Rick & Michele, John Antrony La Pieta, Herb Gonzales, Jr., George Martin, Paul Pumphrey, David Schwartzman, Dr. Keith D. Parker, Dr. Frank Smith, Brent McMillan, Perry Redd, William Powell Jones, Richard Kreiter, AH American History TV C-Span 3, Carol Gordon."

 - Asa Gordon

6th National Civil Rights Conference
Meridian/Philadelphia, Mississippi

June 19 – 22, 2016
Conference Theme
Rise, Advocate, Educate and Cooperate:
Honoring the Past and Embracing the Future
The National Education and Empowerment Coalition, Inc., the Cities of Philadelphia and Meridian (Mississippi), and the 2016 National Civil Rights Conference Planning Committee cordially invite you to attend the Sixth Annual National Civil Rights Conference.  This exciting and informative conference will be held in Meridian, Mississippi and promises to generate considerable intellectual dialogue and debate, as well as create opportunities to strengthen existing networks and forge new opportunities for professional development and personal growth - see  conference agenda highlights at the following web site http://civilrightsconference.com/ (click on the information tab in upper right corner).
The National Civil Rights Conference will coincide with [1] the Annual Mississippi Civil Rights Memorial Services, an annual event remembering and honoring the three slain civil rights workers (James Earl Chaney, Andrew Goodman and Michael Schwerner) and other Mississippi civil rights movement participants; [2] memorial activities on the grounds of the Historic Mt. Zion United Methodist Church - see attachment # 1; and [3] the Civil Rights and Social Justice Awards presentation - see attachment #2.

The planning committee is very please to share attachment #3 with you,  the keynote speakers and panel discussions.  Please share the attached information with family and friends.


Conference registration information and materials are posted on the above web site.  Contact the planning committee chair (kdparker@civilrightsconference.com) or visit the conference web site for additional conference information.

Sincerely,
Keith D. Parker, Chair







2016 National Civil Rights Conference Planning Committee

Monday, August 5, 2013

"How Black Civil War Veterans Reconstructed the Union and Established Democracy in America" was presented at the Green Party of the United States 2013 Annual National Meeting

"...On Friday July 26th, 2013, Asa Gordon, Chair of the DC Statehood Green Party Electoral College Task Force and Secretary General of the Sons & Daughters United States Colored Troops, presented a  special version of the signature African American Civil War Memorial  "Historical Voting Rights" Civil War Sesquicentennial Lecture: The USCT Legacy of National Redemption and Democracy ( How Black Civil War Veterans Reconstructed the Union and Established Democracy in America)  during the party's 2013 Annual Meeting in Iowa City, Iowa  at the Iowa Memorial Union, University of Iowa..."

Event Url
http://calendar.uiowa.edu/MasterCalendar/EventDetails.aspx?data=hHr80o3M7J7CFkcDh%2bESZv4EsSc%2fLnzlYEQm8OpsDqOQrdyaETHbQME6r9f9wVsB

Iowa Press citizen
http://search.press-citizen.com/localevents/event/100/28613-African-American-Civil-War-Memorial-Historical-Voting-Rights-Civil-War-Sesquicentennial-LectureEvent Url
http://calendar.uiowa.edu/MasterCalendar/EventDetails.aspx?data=hHr80o3M7J7CFkcDh%2bESZv4EsSc%2fLnzlYEQm8OpsDqOQrdyaETHbQME6r9f9wVsB

Iowa Press citizen
http://search.press-citizen.com/localevents/event/100/28613-African-American-Civil-War-Memorial-Historical-Voting-Rights-Civil-War-Sesquicentennial-Lecture

"...In the aftermath of America's Civil War it was accepted that the union had  been saved, but "The reinauguration of the national authority-reconstruction"  (A. Lincoln) and the establishment of full participatory democracy was still very  much in doubt. The lecture presents ignored historical facts, and reveals the  hidden Civil Rights legacy of how Black Civil War veterans reconstituted the  nation in alignment with the DECLARATION and established the foundation of  citizens' voting rights in the United States of America.

The lecture was adapted  for the 2013_GPUSANM to provide explicit historical progressive  reconstruction era constitutional context for  the "Democratize the Electoral College Civil Action" Gordon et.al. vs Clerk of HOR now pending  in Federal Court. The  lecture demonstrates how voter suppression tactics, "Winner-take-all",  and "Gerrymandered Districts" in national presidential elections violates the electoral mandate of the second section of the Fourteenth Amendment to the constitution  adopted during Reconstruction. The presentation  also exposes that the misguided National Popular Vote (NPV) initiative is grounded in a reactionary redemption era Supreme Court ruling that overturned Reconstruction to reestablish white supremacy, and furthermore explicitly violates the malapportionment clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Green Pages has published a full online article based on this lecture that details the contemporary context of the Federal Civil Action..."



FOR MORE INFORMATION:
Asa Gordon_(202)635-7926
http://www.gp.org/speakers/detail-speakers.php?ID=29
Exe. Dir. Douglass Institute of Government
Sec. Gen. Sons & Daughters United States Colored Troops
Chair DC Statehood Green Party Electoral College Task Force
NASA /GSFC Astrodynamicist (Ret.)

Monday, October 29, 2012

Green Papers: Diverse Views from a Green Perspective

Green Papers: Diverse Views from a Green Perspective

The GOP’s Neo-Redemptionist Electoral College

November 11 | Posted by admin | Electoral College, Green Party, National Politics
Electoral Quotas for a White Majority
by Asa Gordon



REPUBLICAN LAWMAKERS are intent on establishing a neo-Redemptionist Electoral College that will only reflect the majority will of white people as “[T]he Republican Party becomes more and more a white folks’ party”. (“The GOP is trying to rig the electoral college,” Harold Meyerson, Washington Post, Sept. 21, 2011).

The original politics of Redemption was to to reclaim the South for white Democratic, one-party rule in the U.S. South following the First Reconstruction of the 1860s. [ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Redemption_(United_States_history)]. The GOP’s neo-Redemptionist Electoral College would claim the Nation for white Republican, one-party rule in the U.S. from the Second Reconstruction of the 1960s.

The Republican party has demonstrated that it can unambiguously embrace a white partisan majority that represents a national minority, whereas the Democratic party has proved to be ambivalent in embracing a national majority that embraces the collective will of non-white minorities.

The Washington Post’s recent cynical editorial (“A cynical GOP move, If you can’t win the election, change the rules,” Oct. 16, 2011) on the GOP’s “Rigging the Electoral College” declares:
“State [Pennsylvania] Senate Majority Leader Dominic F. Pileggi (R) has introduced a bill that would shift Pennsylvania from a winner-take-all system to one that awards electoral votes by congressional district, as Maine and Nebraska do. Mr. Pileggi and other supporters of the switch say that a district-based approach better reflects the will of all of Pennsylvania’s voters. ”
What the supporters fail to say, and what the Washington Post editorial fails to report, is that the switch to a district-based approach best reflects the will of not all but a specific subset of Pennsylvania’s voters: those who are white.

In the 2008 Presidential election, Barack Obama, with about 55 percent of the popular vote, was awarded all of Pennsylvania’s 21 electoral votes under the “Winner-take-all” rule. John McCain, with about 45 percent of Pennsylvania’s popular vote, was awarded zero. Supporters of the Pileggi District plan pose the question, how can a system that ignores nearly half the votes cast by the state’s residents be considered fair? The GOP has posed the right question, but presents the wrong answer.

Let us do the math for the 2008 Presidential Election. (The Congressional district data is from the Swing State Project). The math exposes that Pileggi’s District plan does not provide redress for an unfair distribution of Presidential electors that fails to reflect the will of Pennsylvania’s voters, but in fact provides a disproportionate allocation of electors that favors the choice of Pennsylvania’s white electorate. Let us examine what the results would have been for Pennsylvania’s voters if the Pileggi plan had been in effect for the 2008 Presidential Election. Under the Pileggi plan, John McCain would have been granted 11 electoral votes by virtue of winning 11 congressional districts. Indeed, Senator McCain won 3 districts that were represented by Democrats in the House. Obama would have been awarded 8 for the 8 congressional districts he won, plus two for carrying the state’s popular vote for a total of 10. That is, McCain would have been awarded a majority, 52%, of Pennsylvania’s electors as opposed to Obama’s 48%, a clear undemocratic reversal in the allocation of electors compared to Obama’s popular vote victory. Is this fair?

In fact, Pileggi’s District plan disproportionately allocates Pennsylvania’s electors in a manner that exaggerates McCain’ s 51% popular vote majority among Pennsylvania’s white voters. The 2010 census has provided the opportunity for Pennsylvania’s Republican legislature and governor to redraw the district lines to further bias Pennsylvania’s electors to augment the choice of Pennsylvania’s white voters.

Clearly, Pileggi’s plan makes no attempt to redress the electoral college’s bias against popular- vote majorities. Tom Corbett, Pennsylvania’s Republican governor, like other swing states under GOP control, supports the Pileggi plan. Under GOP District plans, Obama could carry Michigan, and Ohio’s popular vote as a result of large concentrations of minorities in urban areas and still lose most of those states’ electoral votes.

Overlooked, (by design) by the GOP lawmakers and in the rigged reporting of the main stream media on this issue is the obvious truth: The fairest apportionment of presidential electors is to allocate them on the basis of a popular vote split within the state as a whole. By this rule the number of electors awarded would have been 12 for Obama and 9 for McCain, a proportional distribution that accurately and fairly reflects the will of all of Pennsylvania’s voters. To overlook this more democratic method of allocating electors that mathematically represent the will of all of the people and instead select a rule that distorts the will of the people in order to allocate electors reflecting the majority choice of one group of white people is racist as a mathematical fact, i.e. the Pileggi plan is a white supremacist plan by intent, design and result. Note that the media often misrepresents the District Plan as a “proportional system.” As we have seen, it is surely not.

“The electoral college, after all, was created out of a compromise so that Southern whites wouldn’t be outvoted by Northerners in the House of Representatives or in presidential elections. The compromise was to tally slaves in apportioning congressional districts among the states, and then award the presidency to the winner of the states’ electoral vote, not of the nationwide popular count.” (“The GOP is trying to rig the electoral college,” Harold Meyerson, Washington Post, Sept. 21, 2011).

The GOP’s Tea Party constitutional “originalist” movement seeks to preserve the legacy of this original racial quota for white minorities through the establishment of a neo-Redemptionist Electoral College.

Asa Gordon, Chair of the DC Statehood Green Party Electoral College Task Force and Executive Director of the Douglass Institute of Government currently has a Civil Action pending in the United States District Court to Democratize the Electoral College. (See http://www.electors.us).

Sunday, October 28, 2012

The PA GOP thought by "Democratizing the Electoral College" they could have put Pennsylvania in play for Romney.






"Some prominent state GOP figures say top party leaders passed on a clear chance to deliver the White House for Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney when they rejected a change to the state’s allocation of Electoral College votes last year..." 

Wednesday, March 9, 2011

Southern Congressional Representatives Challenged by Malapportionment Civil Action

Asa Gordon
Now pending before the  United States District Court  is a Civil Action that challenges the Constitutional legitimacy of  several Southern Representatives membership in the 112th Congress of the United States. 

Gordon et al v. Clerk, US House of Representatives, (Case: 1:11-cv-00003) filed Jan. 3rd, 2011 by the Chair of the DC Statehood Green Party Electoral College Task Force, Asa Gordon, seeks to enforce the US Constitution's Malapportionment Penalty (14th Amendment to the United States Constitution, Section 2), which mandates a reduction of a state's presidential electors and congressional representatives ("the basis of representation therein shall be reduced") if "the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice President of the United States... is denied... or in any way abridged."  

In the civil action cited above, Plaintiffs sought to enjoin the Clerk of the  House of Representatives from recognizing the full slate of Congressional representatives from "unbounded Southern electoral states."  Plaintiffs requested that the Court take judicial notice that Arkansas, Georgia, Louisiana, Tennessee, Texas are "unbound presidential elector states."  These "unbound" electoral states, following the general presidential election of November 4, 2008, allocated their presidential electors on a "winner take all" basis wherein there exists no "winner take all" election statute. These states have in effect disenfranchised the citizens of the state who voted for the presidential electors pledged to any candidate with less than the popular majority vote.

These Southern states in particular, which awarded all of their unbounded presidential electors by "winner take all" provisions not grounded in any state or federal law, have engaged in de-facto disenfranchisement of those electors of the state based on the votes of the states' African-American citizens. The suit sought a temporary restraining order or, in the alternative, a preliminary injunction prohibiting the Clerk from including the full slate of unbounded electoral states' Congressional representatives, which are subject to the malapportionment penalty in the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution.  

        The Civil Action avers that the Constitution requires  that unbounded  Southern  States allocate their presidential electors in proportion to the popular vote split or suffer the federal statutory mandate to reduce the states' representatives in Congress.  The 'winner take all" allocation of presidential electors triggers the malapportionment penalty of Section 2 of the 14th Amendment (Amend.14§2) as implemented by the "Reduction of representation" federal statute Section 6 of title 2 of the United States Code (2USC§6). The "reduction of representation" statute creates a remedy for the abridgment in the right "to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice-President of the United States." 

        The original intent of the Reconstruction Amendment (Amend.14§2), as implemented by 2USC§6, was to place a ruinous penalty on those former confederate states that would effect "minority vote dilution."  It took over a century to properly enforce section 1 of the 14th Amendment.  Let us not allow another century to pass before enforcing Section 2.

GORDON vs CHENEY/BIDEN  1/28/2008-10 addressed the malapportionment of the Electoral College , now  GORDON et.al. vs CLERK HOR 1/3/2011 addresses the malapportionment of  congress. 

In a letter to John Boehner, Speaker of the U.S. House of Representatives, The DC Statehood Green Party (DCSGP), proposes that the Speaker form a House Committee of Congressional Legitimacy to study and recommend House Rules and procedures to ensure that in this and subsequent sessions of the House that all members to the House are in full compliance with the US Constitution and the US Code . In a companion letter to the Honorable Karen L. Haas, Clerk of the U.S. House of Representatives, The DC Statehood Green Party requests that the Clerk advise the Party as to how the Office of the Clerk views its responsibility in this matter.  Specifically, the Party seeks information regarding House of Representatives procedures for recognizing House members from any state that may be subject to the Constitutional mandate for a "Reduction of Representation," and legally subject to the requirements of 2 US Code  pursuant to  2USC §6. 

In recent developments two Louisiana voters, filed a Motion to Intervene as co-plaintiffs  with a plea to "permit the Intervenors to adopt the existing pleadings, briefs and legal arguments by Plaintiffs". In response, the Defendant represents to the court that the Defendant "takes no position on the Motion to Intervene as Co-Plaintiffs" taking exception that the Intervenors have not been   “given an unconditional right to intervene by a federal statute”.

All court pleadings, videos, press releases and essays are available at http://www.electors.us

"Democratize The Electoral College" Published: in the Wednesday, February 17, 2010 edition of the Atlanta Daily World.
http://www.atlantadailyworld.com/articles/2010/02/22/viewpoints/doc4b7afa734a47e762104017.prt
http://www.nomorestolenelections.org/news/gordon_democratize_electoral_college
http://www.democracysquare.org/news/gordon_democratize_electoral_college

Tuesday, February 16, 2010

US Court of Appeals "Sidesteps" the issue of Mal-apportionment

US Court of Appeals "Sidesteps" the issue of Mal-apportionment 
MAP Appellate Court JUDMENT "Lack of Standing"

United States Court of Appeals
DC Circuit
February 1st, 2010
JUDGMENTORDERED and ADJUDGED that the judgment of the district court be affirmed.
...  The plaintiff is not injured by the operation of the five states’ winner-take-all systems because he does not vote in those states  ...  Accordingly, we affirm the decision of the district court dismissing the plaintiff’s complaint for lack of standing.
Note: In March I will file a petition for a panel rehearing and rehearing en banc. The  panel's Judgment  is in Conflict with a Plethora of Supreme Court Decisions on Standing in Minority Vote Dilution Civil Actions, and  presents a question of exceptional importance by leaving the  congressional representatives of the unbounded states in Constitutional limbo. The decision in point of fact is not even a ruling on the actual case of controversy that formed the basis for my original complaint (mal-apportionment in the counting of votes cast not a mal-apportionment in the casting of votes) . Furthermore, the Panel decision without a declaratory order for proportional apportionment of the 2008 presidential electors for the unbounded southern states now places the pending reapportionment in the house of representatives based on the 2010 census in Constitutional  jeopardy. Accordingly this is a petition that will far exceed the standards for a rehearing en banc pursuant to F. R. App. Pr. 35(b)(1)(A)&(B). 


The Green's Civil Action  to "Democratize the Electoral College" has exposed the constitutional vulnerability of the "winner take all" electoral college and has provided the legal blueprint on the basis of this Appellate Court Judgment that any voter of the states in question now have standing to file a constitutional claim to challenge the congressional apportionment of their respective states.

Asa'
Exe. Dir. DIG
Chair DCSGP-ECTF

Thursday, February 11, 2010

GPBLACK CAUCUS JOURNAL: Questions For A Neo-Confederate Justice? An Exposé of Legal Darwinism and Neo-Redemptionist Federalism by Asa Gordon


For Senators who will follow Justice Clarence Thomas’ lead and establish that the President has kept his word, the reason to reject his nominee is a given. President Bush made a campaign promise to nominate a justice in the tradition of conservative Justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas. The August 4, 2002 issue of The Washington Post Magazine reports in the article “Supreme Discomfort” that Ken Masugi, one of Thomas’ aides at the EEOC in the ’80s, spent many hours discussing ideas and ideology with Thomas. He recalls one such conversation in which Thomas posed this question:


“Is there some way to be a conservative without being a Confederate?”
 
{Q} How would you answer Justice Thomas? Why do you suppose Justice Thomas posed this question?

 
This opening question will lead the nominee into a reveiling public confrontation over the Old South/Confederate inheritance in our contemporary political culture. The nominee’s response will either alienate a major Republican base of  Southern support or expose the historically crass underpinnings of the nominee’s Neo-Confederate judicial philosophy.

There is a line of questions that can establish if any conservative judicial  nominee by Bush embraces a judicial philosophy that is not constrained by “judicial restraint”, but represents an extreme conservative “judicial activism” infused with a socially adverse judicial ideology of 19th century “Legal Darwinism”and Neo-Confederate Redemptionist Federalism. Judicial “restraint” or “activism” are not ideologies, nor do they represent an exclusive conservative or liberal approach to the law. “Originalism”, “judicial restraint”, “judicial activism”,”strict constructionism”, “orthodox jurisprudence”, “textualism”, “fundamentalism”, “minimalism”, and “stare decisis” are all quasi-scientific rationales that a conservative Neo-Confederate Justice will evoke to cloak a judicial philosophy grounded in supremacist ideology.

The problem is that the questions that were posed to the recent Supreme Court nominee John G. Roberts and will be asked of any conservative judicial  nominee by Bush are revealing of inquisitors who are unaware or choose not to confront  this unpleasant reality. The self-righteous  bi-partisan liberal and conservative media pundits rebukes of veteran Civil Rights leaders John Lewis and Wade Henderson for their characterization of the “indisputably qualified conservative” Roberts as a pre Brown v Board of Education Justice as outrageous, make it clear that many Whites of any political persuasion just don’t get it, are totally clueless and in denial. Their paternal rebutes represent a belief in a race so supreme in reason that there is no doubt that fairness resides even where prejudice is assumed to exist. It is a faith that even moves “liberal” Senators Patrick J. Leahy, Herb Kohl, and Russell Feingold to vote on “hope” and garners the endorsement of the “liberal” Washington Post. Is there any wonder that Plessy v. Ferguson’s(1896) ruling “[I]t is not by reason of anything found in the act, but solely because the colored race chooses to put that construction upon it” remains this nations ageless judgment of racial conflict. Yes media pundits, the Pre-Brown Plessey Justices that made the decision to provide judicial sanction to legal apartheid in America were all “indisputably qualified conservative” justices that just knew they were not racist, that their judgment was not racist, and that the criticism of the blacks of their day was emotional.

Here is a  historical factual generic question that exposes the underlining lies and denial inherent in all of this nation’s Civil Rights Jurisprudence and Supreme Court nominations. The Conservative justices are joined by their academic boosters in the distortion of history and contemporary reality.

{Q} In the years following the Civil War, senators demanded that nominees to the Court hold orthodox views on issues relating to Reconstruction. A Republican attorney, nominated by a Republican President was acknowledged to have been “a man of great ability who earned the respect of the Supreme Court bench and bar”, but was rejected by a Republican Congress that further temporarily depacked the court by eliminating the Supreme Court seat for which he was nominated, because he had recently drafted the President’s message vetoing the Civil Rights Bill that became the basis of the 14th Amendment. He was rejected for raising the same arguments against the passage of the 14th amendment that Conservative opponents and the present president have raised against affirmative action. Who is this attorney? Why should we not follow this congressional precedent by the framers of the 14th Amendment and reject your nomination for the same reasons?

Questions should seek to expose a covert Neo-Confederate Justice. Questions posed to a Conservative Justice should focus on identifying and exposing the historical context of  the purported Conservative judicial ideology. The questions should not seek to determine how the nominee may rule on issues which may come before the high court in the future, but demonstrate how the nominee would have ruled on classic issues that have appeared before the high court in the past, with disastrous consequences for today.  Such questions will establish that the “smoking gun” revelation that should disqualify the nominee resides not in the discovery of unknown position papers but in the examination and public exposure of  the Conservative judicial philosophy of  “Originalism” and “Strict Constructionism”. A truthful response will demonstrate that history has already judged this judicial philosophy represents a judicial strand of reasoning that  abandons the protection of a citizen’s civil rights in the name of a supremacist federalism. An untruthful response will denigrate and alienate a large segment of the Republican base support.  The problem lies in the fact that such questions will not only prove to be painful for the nominee, but painful to the American public in exposing the myth and fraud surrounding the debate over Supreme Court nominations and a sordid history of the high court itself. In either case, the public, and maybe even the punditocracy will have received an education.

ORIGINALISM?

{Q} Are you in agreement with Supreme Court Justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas who divine attributes of a definitive “original intent” to the constitutional framers? Is it your view that “Judicial Restraint” requires that the constitutional framers “original intent” must provide the determinative standard by which all constitutional interpretation of legal precedents must be judged and condemn all departures as impermissible manifestations of “judicial activism”?

{Q} The original intent of the framers of the Constitution of 1787 restricted the franchise to white males with property. The original intent of the framers of the post Civil War Reconstruction 13th, 14th & 15th Amendments was to expand the franchise. Which of these “original intents” best represents our American values of democracy today?

LEGAL DARWINISM

{Q} The American Heritage History of “THE LAW IN AMERICA” by Bernard Schwartz (Editor, Alvin M. Josephy, Jr., 1974), declares, “[T]he Fourteenth Amendment was converted into a Magna Carta for business”. Do you agree or disagree? If not why not?

Questions should be posed to establish if  a  Conservative Judicial nominee is a throwback to the 19th century Legal Darwinists. The Legal Darwinists believed that the judiciary should limit itself to the role of arbiters (referees) to insure that the nation’s superior beings, especially its highest attainment the “corporate person”, should not be unduly constrained by the collective will of the inferior masses in the form of representative government. The government must be constrained from intervening in social contests determining the “survivor of the fittest” or providing unnatural support in sustaining inferior social classes that undermine the progressive evolution of the state. The Legal Darwinists seek to codify the “Social Darwinism” of the Victorian biologist Herbert Spencer, who declared, “I am simply carrying out the views of Mr. Darwin in their application to the human race.” The Legal Darwinist jurisprudence is guided by the “invisible hand” of Social Darwinism.  The Legal Darwinists embrace William Graham Summer’s observation that “The millionaires are a product of natural selection.” The Legal Darwinist adopts a legal philosophy which would allow the nation’s weak and unfit to fail and expire, and holds that this not only represents good social policy but is morally right. Legal Darwinists reject Justice Holmes protestation in his Lochner v. New York dissent that “The Fourteenth Amendment does not enact Mr. Herbert Spencer’s Social Statics.” At the dawn of the Civil Rights era, Justice William O. Douglas declared, “For years, the Court struck down social legislation when a particular law did not fit the notions of a majority of Justices as to legislation appropriate for a free enterprise system.” Is this the kind of conservative judicial activism the nominee will continue to champion as a Supreme Court Justice?

{Q} Is it your view that the the framers of the Fourteenth Amendment intended to include corporations as “persons?”

{Q} Justice Roberts, in a memo sent to the Attorney General on Dec. 11, 1981,  summarized a lecture by former Solicitor General Erwin N. Griswold at Washington and Lee University. In that memo he declared that Griswold’s lecture “devotes a section to the so-called ‘right to privacy,’ arguing as we have that such an amorphous right is not to be found in the Constitution. He specifically criticizes Roe v. Wade.” Would you characterize the so-called ‘corporate person’ as an amorphous right not found in the Constitution?

{Q} The constitutional protection of corporations by the courts required the judicial broadening of due process to include substantive, as well as procedural, limitations on governmental power. Is this an exercise of conservative or liberal judicial activism?

{Q} Legal history has judged that the preponderance of “activist” Supreme Court rulings on “due process clause” protections under the Fourteenth Amendment has overwhelmingly favored the “corporate person”, the creation of man, over the “human person”, the creation of God. The Supreme Court recently ruled to affirm property seizures from human persons through forced sales for private development by corporate persons. (1) Is this an example of Conservative “judicial restraint” or Liberal “judicial activism”?

{Q} Do you believe the “corporate person,” the creation of man, has the right to patent the creations of God for the “human person”?

{Q} A memo by Justice Roberts  declared that legal efforts to address workplace discrimination against women were “highly objectionable” and that efforts to require employers to pay women the same as men performing jobs of “comparable worth” as “staggeringly pernicious” and “anti-capitalist.”  Will you please explain for us how non-discrimination between men and women for equal pay for comparable work in the corporate workplace is incompatible with capitalism?

The Legal Darwinist primary commitment to personal freedoms is in opposition to regulation by our government of  the behavior of “corporate” persons rather then concern for restraints on our personal behavior.

NEO-REDEMPTION FEDERALISM

“The Redeemers who overthrew Reconstruction and established `Home Rule’ in the Southern States conducted their campaign in the name of white supremacy.”, The Strange Career of Jim Crow,C. Vann Woodward, 1974.

Justice Roberts clerked for the late William H. Rehnquist, who as a Supreme Court clerk for Robert H. Jackson, wrote memos arguing against school desegregation. Conservative neo-confederate justices believe that the Confederate States of America interpreted the Constitution correctly, while the interpretation of the Constitution that preserved the union of the United States of America was wrong. This neo-confederate federalism is not the federalism of the framers of the Constitution, but the federalism of the Confederate States that seceded from the union and the “redeemer” state governments that overturned Reconstruction. Their solicitude for states’ rights and for curtailing federal power is grounded in the redemptionist era rulings of the Supreme Court. They believe in those legal precedents that provided the constitutional justification for state governments to “redeem” white supremacy.

{Q} Rayford W. Logan, author of The Betrayal of the Negro From Rutherford B. Hayes to Woodrow Wilson (1965), declares, “Practically all relevant decisions of the United States Supreme Court Court during Reconstruction and to the end of the century nullified or curtailed rights of Negroes which many of the Reconstruction ‘Radicals’ thought they had written into laws and into the Constitution. Some of these decisions are still generally accepted”. Do you agree or disagree? If not why not?

The Rehnquist Court, emulating the Supreme Court’s racist Redemption I judgments that undermined the Civil Rights Acts of the 1860’s, emasculated Reconstruction II by undercutting the 1960’s Civil Rights Acts in a series of cases decided in 1989. Rehnquist’s Neo-Redemptionist Civil Rights rulings were characterized by a conservative “judicial intervention” and “judicial activism” so extreme that even a conservative Congress determined that the Rehnquist Court had gone too far. During the 2nd Session of the 101st Congress, the Civil Rights Act of 1990 was introduced “to restore and strengthen civil rights laws that ban discrimination in employment. The bill responds to a number of recent decisions by the United States Supreme Court that sharply cut back on the scope and effectiveness of these important federal laws.”

Subsequently, the 102nd Congress passed the “Civil Rights Act of 1991,” which specified in Section 3(4) that one of its purposes was “to respond to recent decisions of the Supreme Court by expanding the scope of relevant civil rights statutes in order to provide adequate protection to victims of discrimination.”

Roberts Was Influenced by Critics of the Warren Court: Like Rehnquist, the Nominee Is a Skeptic on Judicial Intervention, headlines the September 6, 2005 issue of the Washington Post.

{Q} Can you cite a bill or any legislation that was passed by Congress to specifically overturn cited liberal “activist” rulings of the Warren Court that are comparable to the congressional legislation that was passed to overturn the cited conservative “activist” civil rights rulings of the Rehnquist Court?

{Q} Author Eric Foner in his work Reconstruction : America’s Unfinished Revolution 1863-1877, (1988) chronicles a case that arose from what he describes as “the bloodiest single act of carnage in all of Reconstruction”. He castigates the Supreme Court’s ruling, writing, ” In the name of federalism, the decision rendered national prosecution of crimes committed against blacks virtually impossible, and gave a green light to acts of terror where local officials either could not or would not enforce the law.” Please identify the Rehnquist court ruling that cites this same redemptionist decision as precedent for nullifying a contemporary congressional civil rights law giving victims of sex-based violent crimes the right to sue their attackers in federal court. Do you find this decision’s reliance on an infamous racist court ruling appalling? If not, why not?

{Q} Stetson Kennedy author of After Appomattox : How the South Won the War (1995), writes, “Not content with having knocked the props out from under the amendments, the Court went on to strike yet another blow at black rights … these two decisions by the highest court in the land occasioned a vast amount of celebration in the semiautonomous region of the country that had dedicated itself to white rule and apartheid. The hard-won Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments to the Bill of Rights were still in the U.S. Constitution, but the statutes designed to enforce them had been largely wiped out. Black rights as dead letters were something the South’s white supremacists could live with.” Author Eric Lurio in The Cartoon Guide to The Constitution of the United States, (1987), describes one of these decisions as “A twisted wonder to behold” and declares, “It is very rare indeed, when the Supreme Court calls the Constitution a liar”. Can you cite the Rehnquist Court ruling that relies on these odious precedents while displaying no coherent legal principle ?

NEO-CONFEDERATE “LOST CAUSE” JURISPRUDENCE:
William J. Watkins, Jr. editor of the Freeman magazine, in his essay, Justice Thomas and-the Nature of the Union, published in the Southern Partisan (2nd Quarter 1995), declares, “On Tuesday! May 23, 1995, the Court came within one vote of vindicating the Confederates’ view of the Constitution. Writing for the four dissenting justices in the U.S. Term Limits v. Thornton, Justice Clarence Thomas declared: ‘The ultimate source of the Constitution’s authority is the consent of the people of each individual state, not the consent of the undifferentiated people of the nation as a whole.’  When one examines the words of Justice Thomas it is obvious that he has read the works of the intellectual father of the Confederate States of America, John C. Calhoun.” The New York Times was noticeably vexed as it nervously pointed out that “Justice Thomas’s dissenting opinion almost deposed the Federal Government from its primary role in the constitutional system and resurrected the states as the authentic organs of democratic government.”

{Q} Have you read the works of the intellectual father of the Confederate States of America, John C. Calhoun?  Which of these two presidents best represents your view of federalism, i.e. the nature of the union, Abraham Lincoln, the former president of the United States of America, or Jefferson Davis, the former president of the Confederate States of America?

The Southern Partisan essay goes on to observe:
“That we could come so close to seeing our view of the federal compact triumphant 131 years after the surrender at Appomattox ought to hearten all Southerners and friends of constitutional government. The cause that the men in Butternut fought for was a just one whose decision is not yet final. Only by the intelligent use of time, experience, and the history of the federal compact, will we see the tables completely turned. The nature of the union was and remains a critical issue in the life of the Republic…. Though the South came up one vote short of vindicating her view of the Constitution in US. Term Limits, the retirement of one justice could remedy the situation.”

{Q} Are you that remedy?

Wednesday, January 13, 2010

NEW Court Order to Rule on Gordon v. Biden without Oral Argument


On Monday, January 11, 2010 the  court  concluded, on its own motion, that oral argument would not assist the court in the case of Gorden v. Biden.


Asa Gordon's  Oral Argument on Democratizing the Electoral College, a major voting rights civil action  endorsed by the Green Party Black Caucus in 2004, had been scheduled for oral argument in the US Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia (No. 09-5142) on Thursday, January 14, 2010.    "...Accordingly, the court will dispose of the appeal without oral argument on the basis of the record and the presentations in the briefs. See Fed. R. App. 34(a)(2); D.C. Cir. Rule 34(j)."


Asa Gordon, chair of the DC Statehood Green Party's Electoral College Task Force and executive director of the Douglass Institute of Government filed this civil action in the US District Court for the District of Columbia (1:08-cv-01294) on July 28, 2008 to protect the rights of presidential electors and the voters they represent. 



Since the debacle of the 2000 presidential election, the DC Statehood Green Party, in partnership with the Douglass Institute of Government, has led the way in educating the general citizenry of their constitutional "right to vote" under the provisions of paragraph two of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution (Amend. XIV§2) and statutory code (2U.S.C.§6)

12 min video featuring Asa Gordon on MAP Civil Action "Democratizing the Electoral College"

Political Prisoners

August 2, 2007--Imam Jamil Al-Amin has been moved to federal custody!

Correspondence with the commissioner should be put on hold for now, updates will be announced as they occur

Please keep the Imam and his family in your thoughts and prayers


Read the details on his transfer

INTERNATIONAL COMMITTEE TO SUPPORT IMAM JAMIL AL-AMIN
(the former H. Rap Brown)
547 West End Pl. SW
ATLANTA, GA. 30310


Real killer confesses--again--to the killing of Kinchen--Atlanta deputy sheriff for whose shooting death Imam Jamil was convicted and sentenced to life in prison! The State refuses to consider his confession, while continuing to keep Imam Jamil wrongfully imprisoned and isolated.


SEE FOR YOURSELF--PHOTOCOPY OF RECENT, FEBRUARY 2007 HANDWRITTEN CONFESSION OF OTIS JACKSON

NEW INFORMATION PROVING INNOCENCE OF JAMIL AL-AMIN!


OnTheWilderSide

OnTheWilderSide
Supporters of progressive activism, Green Party politics, and noncorporate cultural workers.

Blog Archive