Here we go again...Article II:5(a)(b) unconstitutional..

bad law with "consent of the governed eliminated or distorted beyond recognition:

Here are the “NUMBER IS MORE IMPORTANT, with money a close second”--results: “Top two Vote-getters”:

US REPRESENTATIVE 52nd District

Precincts: 432
Counted: 432
Percentage: 100.0%

Vote for: 1
BRIAN BILBRAY - REP
44872
41.30%
SCOTT  PETERS - DEM
24531
22.58%
LORI  SALDANA - DEM
23886
21.98%
JACK DOYLE - Independent
4401
4.05%
JOHN K. STAHL - REP
3823
3.52%
WAYNE  IVERSON - REP
3231
2.97%
SHIRLEY DECOURT-PARK - DEM
1713
1.58%
EHAB T. SHEHATA
831
0.76%
JOHN L. SUBKA - REP
778
0.72%
GENE H. CARSWELL - REP
585
0.54%


Here are the “Regardless of Political Party Affiliation” violating Article IV:4 Republican form of One Person protected in voice of “consent of the governed,  results:

BRIAN BILBRAY - REP 53,289 REP
44872
41.30%

JOHN K. STAHL - REP
3823
3.52%
WAYNE  IVERSON - REP
3231
2.97%

JOHN L. SUBKA - REP
778
0.72%
GENE H. CARSWELL - REP
585
0.54%


SCOTT  PETERS - DEM 50,961
24531
22.58%
LORI  SALDANA - DEM
23886
21.98%
SHIRLEY DECOURT-PARK - DEM
1713
1.58%
EHAB T. SHEHATA, SOCIALIST from website
831
0.76%


JACK DOYLE, INDEPENDENT 53,289 + 4401 = (57,690)
4401
4.05%

While it is close and the MIV’s are not finished, with Party Affiliation – the REP more accurately reflect the governance of “Consent of the Governed” which is not a number – it is the Republican form of Representative government guaranteed by Article IV:4 ... not changing the State of California to a Democracy of collective mass - number only.  

In this race, the effect of Party division is apparent...the other bad-unconstitutional Article II:5: The Primary should exclusively be Party Only.... the right in a Republican form of government, for Person of the Constitution to choose governance among the philosophy within the party - line. In June 5's election, “Consent of the governed” is not required...for only collective mass’ opinion is required and over-rules “Rule of Law” we are a Republic in a Democracy.

The Republican form of One Person Protected, means that all Philosophy of governance within the party is heard.  Democracy  is  number of collective mass of the group called San Diego 51st C.D. is much more important - governance is irrelevant and immaterial:

Also, very excellent candidates within the party...are not allowed a clear voice of choice by “consent of the governed-Republican”,  because of the effect of numbers more important... to protect the Party’s chances in the “runoff” in November.

US REPRESENTATIVE 51st District: The 51st was left unchanged and untouched by the Citizens Redistricting Committee....  It includes Imperial County’s Spanish; but the Agricultural alfalfa, and carrots industry have never had a voice in the politics of this “Filner- District”.  Although the agricultural District made public and written statements regarding the need to be included in Riverside’s Agricultural community as “Common Interest” – They were ignored by the commission.  These men did a very good job - I was there.

 Also, Michael Crimmins has been working nearly 100% alone... he has established a lot of relationships – but number more important that “Party Affiliation shall continue to abandon the Agricultural industry while the prisons, markets, workers of state unions will continue to dominate...and “Filner Gives us stuff”.  With some help, especially voting roster content- wise.

Precincts: 212
Counted: 212
Percentage: 100.0%

Vote for: 1
MICHAEL  CRIMMINS - REP 10,262 REP
7338
20.97%
XANTHI GIONIS - REP
2045
5.85%
BERNARD  PORTLEY - REP
879
2.51%



JUAN  VARGAS - DEM 24,725 DEM
16806
48.03%
DENISE M. DUCHENY - DEM
4945
14.13%
JOHN  BROOKS - DEM
1916
5.48%
DANIEL C. RAMIREZ - DEM
1058
3.02%

REMEMBER, with Numbers as a Democracy of collective mass people who put x’s, Democratic first and second — shall remain Dem. First and Second... that is how Article II:5 is designed.  Every REP or person DEM who doesn’t agree with Unions or Obama... loses selfsame voice... because Party Affiliation is irrelevant and immaterial.  Another example, In downtown Los Angeles, where I was doing roto-dial campaign calls, a voter answered the phone and said “I can’t speak English in my own neighborhood. I’ve lived here [more than 35 years] and watched this neighborhood changed to Spanish, Vietnamese.  My vote doesn’t count anymore.  Then in answer to a comment I made, “I wish you would.”  I did tell one of our County Party Leaders...who didn‘t answer or even consider the comment.

In other words, Caucasian loses as much from the bias of the CA Voter’s Right redistricting via skin color-race, except Caucasian with country-of-origin-culture - other than the US Citizenship of those who have a ‘special, district to elect their own people” naturalize Americans because they have obtained citizenship to vote - and that means the have Pledged their Allegiance to the Republic, under God.

Adherence to the redistricting, the above voter noted he cannot have his ‘consent of the governed’ counted, is reflected when a naturalized citizen decides Not To Learn English – the official language of both United States and California. These citizens – the majority reside in the 51 C.D., depend on their English speaking friends or the radio - tv stations in their language. Because they choose not to learn English, they become submissive and subservient to those who do speak English.. They lose the sovereignty of their Constitutional Person — and they don’t even know it!!  They, like “The Numbers Game” mentality hold no respect for the conscience and integrity of One Person which is why our Nation was formed as a Republic.

Understanding the difference between Democracy and Republic is important. It is also why “Declaration of Constitutional Principles” are so important; and it is why “In God We Trust” is our Motto.  We are one with our God.  We are one with our “Supreme Law of the Land”; and We are One in the “Oath of Office” in Article II - for the President and Article VI for anyone – located in any level or sub-level of government.

When a law is bad, the snow-ball effect is that everything gets worse in a downward spiral...affecting "consent of the governed', voice of each-one person as a minority; and this American Principle Tom Jefferson: "All, too, will bear in mind this sacred principle, that though the will of the majority is in all cases to prevail, that will to be rightful must be reasonable; that the minority possess their equal rights, which equal law must protect, and to violate would be oppression."; And

Any Democracy...does not even recognize the existence of any unqualified rights of the Individual (no physical characteristics - member of homo sapiens with cognitive attributes), mush less his possessing God-given, unalienable rights as conceived by the American Philosophy. (H.A. Long "The Twelve Basis American Principles; www.lexrex.com)".

The Problem with All 3 of the 11, 14, 25 is the Same....

NUMBERS! With its opposition: SUBSTANCE: Content or Essence of Proposition - Bill - Act;  and of the Individual Candidate or Office Holder, regardless of level of 'Federated Form'of governing. That Individual's core, as in his/her ethics, service, religion applied to the issues, pro-con arguments, resources for thoughtful decision-making,  and as service to the Nation of  'We the people' First. Then that Individual's accountability to the elected or appointed role and position, because the Party Membership describes the Ethics and religion viewpoint of the whole via Platform and actions taken over time; and then the Candidate-Office Holder's 'Issue at hand' to determine the merits of the Legislature or Congress which is the Republic of our Nation: Duty, Honor, Country!

NUMBERS are simple and short: in polls, surveys = decision regarding directions for legislation, issues, who might be in 1st or 2nd place. In Candidates during Primary = simply the greater NUMBER of First and Second Place voter's votes with the Candidate not required to state party affiliation or ethics-accountability, or the 5W's& H of his/her SUBSTANCE. In Propositions, simply who spends or yells the loudest without regard for the Ethics or SUBSTANCE.  #14 does not recognize the Political Party's Process for determining and Role in informing Voters of the SUBSTANCE of a Candidate, Issue, Proposition.

Proposition 14 is the form of Democracy which at the State and Federal levels of government often result in confusion, redistribution of money or business; redo of old thoughts: Social Justice; more government power because the NUMBERS Cannot and Shall Not address or substitute for SUBSTANCE.  That's is the reason the Health Act, The re-do of the Supreme Court's decision that a corporation is an individual and therefore can donate or interact in an election to help a candidate who would not become an Obama-type; or that a government 'watchdog' is much better at business than business is at its own ethics!

Most important Next Tuesday, July 20, 2010, NUMBERS, unless Democrats (not about Party - but ends up that way because Republicans Will Not compromise Justice and the Court of Last Resort to politics), not SUBSTANCE may Seat a Justice on the Supreme Court who is without SUBSTANCE demonstrating her belief in other than the United States Constitution, and therefore the ethics and religion   expressed in the Principles written in The Declaration of Independence. Because of this President's politics and nominee, the "Patient Protection and Affordable Act" may not be found UnConstitutional because should she pass without SUBSTANCE; she shall support The Progressive Political Party before the United States of America.

Numbers without SUBSTANCE are very misleading, incorrect, and depose the SUBSTANCE of our 234 year old Republic Government.

Comment Before Article from "FOX AND HOUNDS":

Do 11 and 14 Add Up to 25?

By Joe Mathews

Journalist and Irvine senior fellow at the New America Foundation. He is co-author of California Crackup: How Reform Broke the Golden State and How We Can Fix It (UC Press, 2010).

Wed, July 14th, 2010

Prop 25, the November ballot initiative to permit budget bills to pass with a majority vote instead of 2/3, also represents something of a referendum on two recent voter-approved measures, Prop 11 and Prop 14.

Prop 11, the redistricting reform initiative passed in 2008, and Prop 14, the just-approved top-two primary, were pushed through in hopes of creating a legislature that would be more effective, representative, and ultimately trustworthy.

But do voters, having changed how legislative districts are drawn and candidates are elected, feel better enough about the legislature to give them more room to maneuver?

Prop 25, by making it easier for legislative majorities to pass a budget, calls that question.

Longtime readers know I'm sympathetic to Prop 25's goal of removing the 2/3-supermajority requirement from the state's budget system. (I'd like Prop 25 even more if it removed the supermajority requirements for taxes, as its opponents claim it does -- claims that seem dubious when one reads the plain language of the measure).

And I think that the state's reform community has been right about one thing: creating a more effective and more representative legislature through political reform must come before we make changes to the budget system.

However: as a matter of politics and of reality, I fear that Prop 11 and Prop 14 have not done enough to change the system and give voters the confidence in the legislature they need to go ahead and approve something like Prop 25.

Part of the trouble is that the reforms in Prop 11 and Prop 14 have yet to take effect. The other part of the trouble is that the two measures, for all their virtues, are unlikely to make big changes in how our legislature operates. The intense partisanship of both parties and the sorting of Californians into like-minded communities will make it extraordinarily difficult to produce more competitive legislative districts. And there's little evidence that Prop 14's change in primary rules will produce more than a few moderates-and it's far from clear that electing more moderates will fix the legislature.

Prop 25, in a way, suffers from the same disease as Prop 11 and Prop 14-it's a fine, but not quite good enough to change much measure. In fact, by making it easier to pass spending while keeping the 2/3 restriction for new revenues that makes it so difficult to raise taxes, Prop 25 could make deficits worse.

What would be a better approach? Begin with a deeper change in legislative elections, by scrapping our current system of single-member districts elected in first-past-the-post plurality contests. Replace it with a system of multi-member districts that represent the distinct regions of California and elect at least some of those members proportionally, so that everyone has representation and so that the parties compete everywhere.

Once those sorts of reforms make the legislature more representative, then you move on the supermajorities - and not just the budget two-thirds rule, but similar rules that limit the legislature's room to maneuver on tax hikes, education spending, local government funding and transportation.

For now, don't hold your breath waiting for 11 and 14 to add up to 25.

• About Fox & Hounds
• Contact Us
• Advertise
• Privacy Policy