WE THE PEOPLE, THE 110TH CONGRESS, AND PEACE IN THE WAR ON DRUGS

The 110th Congress of We the People took the oath of office this
week, which means they swore to defend the words in the U.S.
Constitution. So ask yourself this question: did George Washington
and his band of revolutionaries design a government to wage war on We
the People or a government to make peace between We the People?

The answer, according to the Constitution, is peace.

The means to peace and healing are located in Article 1 of the U.S.
Constitution - that is peace and healing between groups in the United
States, to include all citizens, even the millions of "illegal drug" users.

The thesis is simple: our House of Representatives is not designed as
the founders left it to us. This is not an abstract argument such as
interpreting the meaning of the commerce clause, but rather simple
18th century math - which works the same way as 21st century math.

Why math? Because it is unequivocal. The founders used numbers to
convey how to represent We the People. They did so for both the
House of Representatives and the Senate.

Here are the words for the House of Representatives in Article 1,
Section 2: "The Number of Representatives shall not exceed one for
every thirty Thousand."

That is what it says and the founders put it there for a reason. The
reason is because numbers tell a story. Think of it like this: the
ratio of one Representative for every 30,000 citizens is the
equivalent of each state receiving two Senators. No one questions the
constitutional validity of two Senators per state, as Article 1,
Section 3 dictates. Again, the Constitution is unequivocal: "The
Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each State."

Constitutionally speaking, one ratio cannot be valid (the one for the
Senate) and the other invalid (the one for the House).

Even though we, the citizens of today, may have forgotten or never
understood the significance of the House ratio, the founders were
well aware of it. They put it in our Constitution as a written
guarantee for us in the future. That is what constitutions provide:
they are healing words of peace so we don't fight about things.

That's right - healing words of peace. The House representation ratio
of one for every 30,000 is a constitutional fact. It means we are not
supposed to fight about it. The amendment process is the only
constitutional means for changing the words in Article 1. Instead,
the ratio has been ignored through wilful neglect. We the People of
the 21st century have forgotten what it means to be a nation
represented in a constitutional House of Representatives.

Hmmm, here is where the drug war, or any other political issue facing
our nation, might be different. Perhaps in a constitutional House of
Representatives, one based on representing the people according to
their numbers, federal programs like the war on illegal drug users
would have ended by now - and perhaps may never have even started.

Washington and his revolutionaries were radicals. One of their
radical ideas was representing We the People according to our
numbers. Why? Because, as James Madison wrote, if you increase the
size of the system (i.e., the House of Representatives), it becomes
"less probable that a majority of the whole will have a common motive
to invade the rights of other citizens." (Federalist 10)

That is how the founders designed representation in the
Constitution. The idea was (and is) to represent We the People
according to our numbers. In doing so, knowledge and virtue were to
be gained - and you also make it less likely a majority will invade
the rights of other citizens.

Here is an example, the political hot-potato of research into
cannabis and the human cannabinoid system. Since all humans have a
cannabinoid system, more research would clearly, in the name of
science, benefit all citizens. Since cannabis consumers are and have
always been a minority group in the United States, our interests and
knowledge have not been voiced or heard. But that does not mean the
founders designed a system to exclude our interests and knowledge. On
the contrary, they did the opposite.

Using the constitutional ratio of one Representative for every 30,000
people, California, with its 33 million citizens and ten years of
medical cannabis knowledge, would have over 1,100 Representatives in
a constitutional House. With that many members, "new" ideas such as
medical cannabis would no longer be abstract.

With that many members from California - not to mention all the other
states - the science in support of cannabis and the cannabinoid
system would be heard and new ideas would develop. Instead, beginning
in 1937, we have 70 years of federal "marijuana" prohibition. Since
the age requirement for membership in the House of Representatives is
25 years old, and it is another number that is always enforced, We
the People live under a federal prohibition passed by white men born
prior to 1912.

Well, in designing a system to represent We the People, the founders
gave all of us, even the "illegal drug" users, a constitutional right
to be represented according to their numbers. In making peace in the
drug war, we should remind the 110th Congress of the words they have
sworn to defend, to include these twelve words: "The Number of
Representatives shall not exceed one for every thirty Thousand."

When looking for solutions, solutions that heal, it is wise to look
in likely places, and one's Constitution is one of those places.