Gerrymandering was named after Elbridge Gerry, former Vice President and grand father of Eldridge Gerry founded the New York Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children, where what we know today as Child Protective Services was known as the Gerry Society.
 |
| "First, we steal the children, the land, then the votes!" said Gerry ordering his Secret Society (now known as CPS) for the next round of redistricting. |
The Response 1874-1875
SPCC Founding 1874
Henry Bergh and Elbridge Gerry, aware that the hour for children had finally come, recruited respected philanthropist John D. Wright and formally pledged themselves to the establishment of organized child protection.
Children's Protective Society
The undersigned, desirous of rescuing the unprotected children
of this city and State
from the cruelty and demoralization which
neglect and abandonment engender'
hereby engage to aid, with their sympathy and support,
the organization and working of a Children's Protective Society,
having in view the realization of so important a purpose.
On December 15, 1874, the Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children was founded and organized. Gerry annunciated its unique purpose:
"to rescue little children from the cruelty and demoralization which neglect, abandonment and improper treatment engender; to aid by all lawful means in the enforcement of the laws intended for their protection and benefit; to secure by like means the prompt conviction and punishment of all persons violating such laws and especially such persons as cruelly ill treat and shamefully neglect such little children of whom they claim the care, custody or control."
NYSPCC Incorporation 1875
On Tuesday, April 27, 1875, the SPCC was incorporated as The New York Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children, the first child protection agency in the world. John D. Wright became its first president, Gerry and Bergh vice-presidents.
But this is what they were really doing:
Humanitarian reformers had expressed concern for children before the 1870s, organizing efforts to end the corporal punishment of school children, creating institutions to care for ORPHANS, and even sending orphans by train to foster families in the West. But reformers were reluctant to interfere in families, which had a recognized right to privacy. By the 1870s, the relative weights of the concern for children and the concern for family privacy had shifted. Mary Ellen's residence with foster parents (her biological parents were dead) may have eased her protectors' willingness to cross that boundary. Differences in class and culture also facilitated the creation of the SPCCs. The organizations were directed by wealthy, conservative, Protestant white men, whereas their clientele were mostly poor, Catholic immigrant families or poor black families. These were powerful distinctions during the late nineteenth century.
Their founders conceived of the SPCCs as law enforcement agencies. Agents were to find abused children–on the street or through tips made by concerned neighbors, relatives, and even the abused children themselves–investigate their families, and prosecute abusers. Many states gave the societies police powers, such as the right to issue warrants, or allowed the police to aid them. Most importantly, "the cruelty" (as SPCC agents were sometimes known in poor neighborhoods) could remove children from their homes.
I am going with John Roberts...
Yes, this is about parental rights, where, in the modern since of human trafficking, a foreign corporation can go in after a geographic region is stripped of all its economic resources, where industries are shipped overseas, where Public Private PartnerShips swashbuckl in and snatches all the children, under the laws of chattel, land in massive, fraudulent foreclosure schemes, to embark on the salvific mission to save the savages, or rather "The Poors" (always said with clinched teeth), to implement their Social Impact Bond Programs, whereby, a default of a civil debt to the foreign corporation, transfers parental rights to the corporation, the salvage the souls in billing for their crappy predictive modeling theoretical databases to Medicaid.
 |
| "The gift of a tiny human is very merry". |
Oh, this is going to be so much fun because it is that time of year where the very special ones like to really adore the tiny humans.
Where is SIGTARP?
Anyone up for a warm mug of RFRA?
I have popcorn and all my windows are almost sealed, as I have no heat for the winter, again.
SCOTUS Vacates Ruling That Found Michigan Unconstitutionally Gerrymandered Congressional Districts
The United States Supreme Court on Monday cancelled a federal court’s decision, which found Michigan’s congressional voting districts were unconstitutional because they were gerrymandered to such a degree that it violated voters’ First Amendment rights and the Constitution’s Equal Protection clause.Gerrymandering is the setting of electoral boundaries to favor the political interests of the party in power.
A three-judge panel on the U.S. District Court of the Eastern District of Michigan ruled in April that 34 of the state’s voting districts were specifically designed to disadvantage Democratic voters, deliberately diluting the power of their vote to ensure a particular partisan outcome. The panel’s ruling ordered the state to redraw the voting district maps, calling partisan gerrymandering a “pernicious practice that undermines our democracy.”
The order was expected in light of the Justices June decision in Rucho v. Common Cause, a landmark decision which greatly reined in federal court’s ability to intervene in political gerrymandering cases. The Court ruled that the partisan gerrymandering issue was “beyond the reach of federal courts.”
In a 5-4 vote along ideological lines, Chief Justice John Roberts invoked the court’s Political Question doctrine in finding it constitutionally permissible for voting districts to be drawn with the specific intent to disadvantage voters of a particular political ideology. The ruling was seen as a severe blow to voting rights advocates challenging the disproportionate impact gerrymandering can have on voting power.
I used to tell my Sweetie about using a GINI Coefficient. Basically, there are no political lines because you can use an actual measurement tool called poverty. If you have a district with statistically significant rate of poverty, where you can use school age children who qualify for free or reduced school lunches, you know you have an economic disparity, where you can start by looking at why the economic disparity exists. Nine times out of ten you shall find stealin' the children, land and votes. See, three variables. Very simple equation using public data. But, alas, we are dealing with "Legal Geniuses" (trademark pending).
Roberts reasoned that the question before the court– “determining when political gerrymandering has gone too far”– could not be grounded in a “limited and precise rationale” because the issue “lacks judicially discoverable and manageable standards for resolving.”
He conceded that the ruling may enable increasingly inequitable political representation, but said that such a result does not violate any constitutional mandate where no standard for determination exists. Roberts did not prevent the court from intervening in cases of racial gerrymandering.
You see that? Not one mention of the DHS absentee ballot investigation. What if those political districts were manufactured through fake ass absentee ballots? What about TARP? This is the part of where I go pshaw.
Justice Elena Kagan wrote a scathing dissent in which she called the majority’s decision a low-point for democracy.
“I think it important to underscore that fact: The majority disputes none of what I have said (or will say) about how gerrymanders undermine democracy. Indeed, the majority concedes (really, how could it not?) that gerrymandering is ‘incompatible with democratic principles,’” she said from the bench.
Scotus Orders by Law&Crime on Scribd
Voting is beautiful, be beautiful ~ vote.©
No comments:
Post a Comment