Page 2
Summer Session Kansan
Friday, June 14, 1963
You Know. Don't You?
It is strange that in America, of all places, there should exist a hereditary right to governmental power. It certainly is not what our founding fathers had in mind when they framed the Constitution.
With the backlog of several centuries of bitter experience under the rule of royalty, the United States was designed to be governed by representatives of the people.
AND ONE OF the most important parts of the Constitution is the provisions which guarantee proportional representation. That is, each man's vote will count as one, and no man's will count more.
But all that has changed; the proportional power of your vote depends upon where you live. The urban dwellers do not have proportional representation; especially in the state legislatures. The farmer is king there.
At one time, the farmer had the right to the most representation in state legislatures; he outnumbered the city folk.
Since 1940, the population has become concentrated in the cities and suburbs, but the governmental power remains concentrated in the hands of the farmer.
THE FARMER HAS no right to this power. He simply has retained power by the same practices familiar to the royal families of Europe. But short of revolution, the only change of governmental power must come from the governing forces.
The royal families of Europe refused to step down gracefully, and the farmer has not proven a bit more willing.
But all this was changed by a U.S. Supreme Court ruling.
The Supreme Court ruled that the state legislatures must be reapportioned in a manner which guarantees each citizen in the state his rightful, proportional vote. The ruling, in effect, means that any and all reapportionment plans are subject to review by a federal court.
THE FARM-BLOC doesn't like that. That means that they can't continue to rule without right; the Supreme Court has smacked down the Gerrymander and told the farmer that he must step down from the throne.
It was predictable that the farm bloe would faunch at this ruling of the court. No ruler likes
to face the facts of a dying dynasty. It's no fun.
So the farm bloc has taken counter measures. They can't continue this inequity under the present rules, so they are trying to change the rules.
You know, the Constitution. That piece of paper which freed the farmer from the feudal system.
HERE IS HOW they want to change the rules: three amendments—(1) revise the method of amending the Constitution, through state legislatures and without getting approval of the Congress, (2) restrict the federal judiciary's action in cases affecting apportionment of state legislatures, and (3) create a new "Court of the Union" to override decisions of the U.S. Supreme Court.
Almost funny, isn't it? This isn't: a dozen state legislatures have approved the first amendment, another dozen the second, and the third has been approved by three.
If finally pushed through, the new rules would offer several interesting variations from justice and reason. It would mean that an amendment to abolish freedom of speech or religion would be ratified if adopted by the legislatures of three-fourths of the states.
In short, 34 states could propose the amendment to end freedom of speech, and if 38 of the 50 states approved—bingo, it would be the new rule.
THE DANGER OF this procedure can be seen in these statistics: 34 legislatures cover only 40 per cent of the national population; and 38 legislatures are controlled by representatives who individually represent but about 15 per cent of the national population.
By now, you may be thinking, "What is the big sweat?; 38 states would never approve an amendment to abolish freedom of speech."
You are probably right. There really is nothing to worry about.
BUT THEN AGAIN, who would have guessed that the three lunatic suggestions proposed would be approved by a total of 27 legislatures.
Civil liberties are a funny thing; you don't appreciate them until it is too late. Like when they are gone.
But of course, you aren't sleeping at the switch. You know your state legislature didn't approve any of the three amendments. Don't you?
— Terry Murphy
Summer Session Kansan
111 Flint Hall
University of Kansas student newspaper
bounded 1889, became biweekly 1904, triweekly 1908, daily Jan. 16, 1912.
Member Inland Daily Press Association, Associated Collegeate Press.
Represented by National Advertising Service, 18 East 50 St., New York 22,
N.Y. News service: United Press International. Mail subscription rates:
$3 a semester or $5 a year. Published in Lawrence, Kan., every afternoon during the University year except Saturdays and Sundays, University holidays, and examination periods. Second class postage paid at Lawrence, Kansas.
Short Ones
Gov. George Wallace, speaking to reporters as he arrived for the integration confrontation at the University of Alabama: "Glad to have you in Alabama. You may not have any excitement because there will be only peace and tranquility."
\* \* \*
HORIZON (Mav. 1963; $4.50).
The new Horizon is in its usual stylish vein. Its key article concerns one Baron Georges Eugene Haussmann, whose job in the 19th century was to turn Paris from a medieval walled town into a modern city. He helped to develop the boulevards, several parks, part of the Louvre, and the Opera House. Here are some of the other enticements in this handsome new volume.
"Far Out on Long Island," by William K. Zinnser, which shows the various lures of that weekend vacation spot; an article about LSD, a new chemical which intensifies and changes man's perceptions; "The Emperor's Monumental Folly," about Emperor Hadrian's villa at Tivoli; "The New Look in Valhalla," developments in Wagnerian opera; an article about a comedian named Woody Allen; another about a dancer named Carmen de Lavallade; "Great Confrontations II: Leo the Great and Attila"; "Pretense on Parnassus," about celebrated English poetry; "The Lord and the Regalia," a color portfolio about European crown jewels, and so on.
* *
GOODBYE, COLUMBUS, by Philip Roth (Bantam, 75 cents); LETTING GO, by Philip Roth (Bantam, 95 cents)—Two novels by one of today's most widely hailed writers. "Goodbye, Columbus," won the National Book Award when it appeared in 1959; it is a realistic, earthy story about two young lovers, an ex-convict, and a man living in the past. It is frank and explicit in the fashion of today's novels that are so preoccupied with sex. "Letting Go" is a great big book, first published in the summer of 1962. Here again is an unadorned look at American society and the mind and heart of a modern man—Gabe Wallach, trying hard to understand himself and his world.
***
THE COUNT OF MONTE CRISTO, by Alexandre Dumas (Bantam Pathfinder, 75 cents)—An abridgment but probably the best abridgment, of the famous adventure story. Readers may do well to select this one, because a paperback edition of the entire book seems quite unlikely. Need one tell the story of Edmond Dantes, of his long imprisonment, of his famous revenge? This is one of the great tales of all time.
* *
CHAD HANNA, by Walter D. Edmonds (Bantam Pathfinder, 75 cents)—A delightful tale of the circus in old New York state. Chad Hanna is a farm boy who is fascinated by the circus, its lion, its bareback rider, its clown. Off he goes to the circus. Simple in form and plot, "Chad Hanna" is distinguished by Edmonds' feeling for, and knowledge of, America in its pioneering era.
* *
* *
EMMA, by Jane Austen (Bantam Classics, 60 cents)—A reprint of an earlier printing by Bantam Classics. Many regard "Emma" as the finest achievement of Jane Austen. It is a delightful tale, and one that is not at all full-scale. Like "Pride and Prejudice" it explores the manners and attitudes of early 19th century England.
WILD IS THE RIVER, by Louis Bromfield (Bantam, 60 cents)—A flamboyant tale of New Orleans in Civil War days. Bromfield pulls all the stops in this one, and there is little doubt of his sympathies; the villains are damn Yankees. It's a sultry, wild passionate story.
SO I WAS WATCHING
SAM BENEDICT
AND EVERYBODY
WAS ATTACKING
HIM BECAUSE
IN COURT HE
WAS DEFENDING
A NAZI AND
A COMMUNIST.
WELL, NOT EXACTLY. DID YOU KNOW THAT IN THIS COUNTRY THE SUPREME COURT HAS SAID THAT ITS NOT ACTUALLY AGAINST THE LAW TO NOT HAVE A RELIGION!