In Baker v Carr, the majority made up the basis for asserting jurisdiction because the Constitution, the supreme law of the land, did not give it the power to do so. The Constitution never mentioned anything regarding state election procedure, other than that it could not hinder any legal rights of its citizens as mentioned in the Constitution and that the number of representatives per state were to be determined by state population. Therefore, the Constitution never mentioned that federal courts had the jurisdiction to hear constitutional questions to regarding state elections; the majority simply made that up in order to hear the case. There is no branch of federal government that specializes in redistricting. Since representatives' political
…show more content…
The goals of government are explicitly laid out in the Constitution. Therefore, if there is no existing legislation in the Constitution regarding an issue, nothing should be assumed by a judge. Although, seeming contradictory, West also makes sense in this argument as well. Although West believed that rights are derived from majority power, we also need to realize how biased our laws are and change them over time. For example, women's property used to be given to their husbands when they got married. However laws have adapted to change them. Similarly, although difficult, the Constitution needs to be changed so that issues that arise with redistricting in order to accurately represent the state population. One could argue that the federal court had jurisdiction because Baker was dealing with political rights (not to be confused with a political question, which the federal court would then not have jurisdiction, as mentioned in the case), which is covered in the Constitution and then would have to be interpreted by a federal court. However, even though the Constitution does provide legislation in the 14th Amendment (Art. I, Sect. I and II) that is on the topic of political rights, it does not provide any legislation that discusses redistricting, so until an amendment is passed that regulates the manner in which districts are drawn, this is an illogical
The goals of government are explicitly laid out in the Constitution. Therefore, if there is no existing legislation in the Constitution regarding an issue, nothing should be assumed by a judge. Although, seeming contradictory, West also makes sense in this argument as well. Although West believed that rights are derived from majority power, we also need to realize how biased our laws are and change them over time. For example, women's property used to be given to their husbands when they got married. However laws have adapted to change them. Similarly, although difficult, the Constitution needs to be changed so that issues that arise with redistricting in order to accurately represent the state population. One could argue that the federal court had jurisdiction because Baker was dealing with political rights (not to be confused with a political question, which the federal court would then not have jurisdiction, as mentioned in the case), which is covered in the Constitution and then would have to be interpreted by a federal court. However, even though the Constitution does provide legislation in the 14th Amendment (Art. I, Sect. I and II) that is on the topic of political rights, it does not provide any legislation that discusses redistricting, so until an amendment is passed that regulates the manner in which districts are drawn, this is an illogical