We shall dream again.

The “we” is We the People. Women are more than half of We the People yet have only 18% representation in the US House.

The “shall” is constitutional. Counting the people is the purpose of the decennial Census; lawmakers are then to divide by the representation ratio in Article I, Section 2, Clause 3 of the US Constitution: “The Number of Representatives shall not exceed one for every thirty Thousand, but each State shall have at Least one Representative.”

The “dream” is foundational. The representation ratio is the constitutional definition of We the People.

The “again” is time. 2016’s presidential election is not about a woman in the White House: it’s about women in the US House of Representatives. Congress always added seats (representatives) to the US House after each Census: in 1920, they suddenly stopped.

We shall dream again America ~ as it’s a heritage dream ~ one that represents all of US.

Bryan W. Brickner

Women’s Suffrage Documentary

The Cannabis Papers: A citizen’s guide to cannabinoids (2011)
By Publius

Cancer prevention awareness and the cannabinoid system are the focus of February’s health update from Publius and The Cannabis Papers: A citizen’s guide to cannabinoids (2011). This month: PubMed science on inflammation, a unique receptor, GPR55, and the ability of one’s cannabinoid system to induce apoptosis, programmed cancer cell death.

2014 ~ Inflammation (HIV-1) and CS/GPR55
“Receptors for THC, CB1, CB2, and GPR55, are differentially expressed on multiple cell types including monocytes and macrophages, which are important modulators of inflammation in vivo and target cells for HIV-1 infection.”

Δ9-Tetrahydrocannabinol Treatment During Human Monocyte Differentiation Reduces Macrophage Susceptibility to HIV-1 Infection.
Williams JC, Appelberg S, Goldberger BA, Klein TW, Sleasman JW, Goodenow MM.
J Neuroimmune Pharmacol. 2014 Feb 23. [Epub ahead of print]
PMID: 24562630 [PubMed - as supplied by publisher]


2013 ~ Alcohol, Dentric Cells and CS/GPR55
"Our results provide insights into alcohol mechanisms of DC [dentric cell] regulation and show, for the first time, that alcohol is inducing CNR2 [CB2] and GPR55 in human DCs."

Differential expression and functional role of cannabinoid genes in alcohol users.
Agudelo M, Yndart A, Morrison M, Figueroa G, Muñoz K, Samikkannu T, Nair MP.
Drug Alcohol Depend. 2013 Dec 1;133(2):789-93. doi: 10.1016/j.drugalcdep.2013.08.023. Epub 2013 Sep 5.
PMID: 24060590 [PubMed - in process]


2013 ~ Inflammation (Cancer) and CS/GPR55
“GPR55 has been shown to have a role in cancer and gastrointestinal inflammation, as well as in obesity and type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM).”

A potential role for GPR55 in the regulation of energy homeostasis.
Simcocks AC, O'Keefe L, Jenkin KA, Mathai ML, Hryciw DH, McAinch AJ.
Drug Discov Today. 2013 Dec 24. pii: S1359-6446(13)00423-6. doi: 10.1016/j.drudis.2013.12.005. [Epub ahead of print] Review.
PMID: 24370891 [PubMed - as supplied by publisher]


2013 ~ CS Synergistic Against Cancer
“The observed synergistic effect with cannabinoid agonists implicates an involvement of the cannabinoid system.”

Cytotoxic effect of efavirenz is selective against cancer cells and associated with the cannabinoid system.
Hecht M, Harrer T, Büttner M, Schwegler M, Erber S, Fietkau R, Distel LV.
AIDS. 2013 Aug 24;27(13):2031-40. doi: 10.1097/QAD.0b013e3283625444.
PMID: 23612009 [PubMed - in process]


2011 ~ GPR55 Driving Cancer Cell Migration
“It has now been revealed that LPI [L-α-lysophosphatidylinositol] activates GPR55, a G protein-coupled receptor that couples to G(12/13) and G(q) proteins, which direct oncogenic signalling. New evidence indicates that LPI and GPR55 are key partners in driving cancer cell proliferation and migration.”

L-α-lysophosphatidylinositol meets GPR55: a deadly relationship.
Ross RA.
Trends Pharmacol Sci. 2011 May;32(5):265-9. doi: 10.1016/j.tips.2011.01.005. Epub 2011 Mar 1.
PMID: 21367464 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]


2010 ~ Breast Cancer and CS/GPR55
“LPI and GPR55 play a role in the modulation of migration, orientation and polarization of breast cancer cells in response to the tumour microenvironment.”

A role for L-alpha-lysophosphatidylinositol and GPR55 in the modulation of migration, orientation and polarization of human breast cancer cells.
Ford LA, Roelofs AJ, Anavi-Goffer S, Mowat L, Simpson DG, Irving AJ, Rogers MJ, Rajnicek AM, Ross RA.
Br J Pharmacol. 2010 Jun;160(3):762-71. doi: 10.1111/j.1476-5381.2010.00743.x.
PMID: 20590578 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE] Free PMC Article


2006 ~ Evolution and CS/GPR55
“Within this limited number of twelve organisms, the endocannabinoid genes exhibited heterogeneous evolutionary trajectories, with functional orthologs limited to mammals (TRPV1 and GPR55), or vertebrates (CB2 and DAGLbeta), or chordates (MAGL and COX2), or animals (DAGLalpha and CB1-like receptors), or opisthokonta (animals and fungi, NAPE-PLD), or eukaryotes (FAAH).”

Evolutionary origins of the endocannabinoid system.
McPartland JM, Matias I, Di Marzo V, Glass M.
Gene. 2006 Mar 29;370:64-74. Epub 2006 Jan 23.
PMID: 16434153 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]

~ posted by bwb

*This post continues a theme from January 2013: the under-representation of women in the US House. It’s an updated excerpt from the introduction of my 2006 book, Article the first of the Bill of Rights: Constitutional representation – the forgotten story of We the People. The main update: in 2006 the US House was 16% women – today it’s 18%.

The founders approach to government was scientific. They had many ideas about how to build a new government, but they also had a lot of doubt. This led to debates on how to proceed, as revolutions are never clear.

The founders attempted to build a system that would protect such rights as the (now) famous, “Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness.” They also knew, when talking of citizens and representation, that there was no monopoly on how to define those three rights. Freedom is a deep well; it has also been aptly referred to as an abyss. Our revolutionaries certainly knew the abyss. Thirteen colonies do not revolt against their King and fight an eight-year civil war and not come to know the abyss. Those subjects-turned radical revolutionaries who took up arms against their law and the King of England, they had firsthand knowledge of how deep the well of human freedom ran – they lived it and then left us a blueprint: the US Constitution.

The first time I considered constitutional representation a political issue, rather than a historical one, was in graduate school at Purdue University. Before that, when I taught high school US history classes, I recall discussing the representation ratio but dismissing it; frankly, it seemed old.

Then, as a political science graduate student, I was assistanting a professor who was lecturing on the US Constitution, The Federalist Papers, and James Madison. At one point, the third clause in Article I, Section 2 entered the lecture. After class we discussed the size of a constitutional House, one based on the constitutional ratio of “one for every thirty Thousand.” The House would be huge, we agreed, but mostly we thought it impractical.

That was nearly twenty years ago. Since then I began to think of the representation ratio in constitutional, and not congressional, terms. If we were to build a new Congress based on the constitutional ratio of one for every thirty Thousand, we would have a House of Representatives of 10,000 members. This would bring dozens of groups (factions) into the constitutional process and fundamentally change Congress. For example, women won the right to suffrage with the Nineteenth Amendment (1920), but have never received their right to representation according to their numbers. Women are more than 50 percent of We the People, and yet they are represented in the current House, our 113th, with 79 Representatives, or 18 percent of the representation; that is a 32 percent under-representation of women as a group. Such under-representations of We the People create profound political, and constitutional, consequences.

Bryan W. Brickner

The Cannabis Papers: A citizen’s guide to cannabinoids (2011)
By Publius

Cervical cancer awareness and one’s cannabinoid system are the focus of this month’s health update from Publius of The Cannabis Papers: A citizen’s guide to cannabinoids (2011). January's highlighted message is the ability of one’s cannabinoid system, using the endocannabinoid anandamide, to induce apoptosis ~ programmed cancer cell death.

2004
The endocannabinoid Anandamide (arachidonyl ethanolamide) inducing apoptosis of uterine cervix cancer cells via another type of receptor ~ the vanilloid receptor-1.

Arachidonyl ethanolamide [Anandamide] induces apoptosis of uterine cervix cancer cells via aberrantly expressed vanilloid receptor-1.
Contassot E, Tenan M, Schnüriger V, Pelte MF, Dietrich PY.
Gynecol Oncol. 2004 Apr;93(1):182-8.
 

2009
The stable analogue of the endocannabinoid Anandamide, R(+)-methanandamide, inducing apoptosis in human cervical carcinoma cells.

R(+)-methanandamide-induced apoptosis of human cervical carcinoma cells involves a cyclooxygenase-2-dependent pathway.
Eichele K, Ramer R, Hinz B.
Pharm Res. 2009 Feb;26(2):346-55. doi: 10.1007/s11095-008-9748-3. Epub 2008 Oct 28.


2012
The ability of the endocannabinoid Anandamide to induce apoptosis is enhanced by blocking fatty acid amide hydrolase (FAAH).

Arachidonoyl ethanolamide [Anandamide] (AEA)-induced apoptosis is mediated by J-series prostaglandins and is enhanced by fatty acid amide hydrolase (FAAH) blockade.
Kuc C, Jenkins A, Van Dross RT.
Mol Carcinog. 2012 Feb;51(2):139-49. doi: 10.1002/mc.20770. Epub 2011 Mar 22.


2013
The cannabinoid system and omega-3/6 endocannabinoids noted for their anticancer modulation.

Cannabinoids and omega-3/6 endocannabinoids as cell death and anticancer modulators.
Brown I, Cascio MG, Rotondo D, Pertwee RG, Heys SD, Wahle KW.
Prog Lipid Res. 2013 Jan;52(1):80-109. doi: 10.1016/j.plipres.2012.10.001. Epub 2012 Oct 26.


2013
The cannabinoid system and cannabidiol inhibiting colon carcinogenesis.

Inhibition of colon carcinogenesis by a standardized Cannabis sativa extract with high content of cannabidiol.
Romano B, Borrelli F, Pagano E, Cascio MG, Pertwee RG, Izzo AA.
Phytomedicine. 2013 Dec 24. pii: S0944-7113(13)00472-8. doi: 10.1016/j.phymed.2013.11.006. [Epub ahead of print]

Posted by Bryan W. Brickner

There’s no Blue Ox in John Bunyan’s The Pilgrim’s Progress (1678), though there does seem to be about everything else.

The book is an English Christian classic for its allegorical portrayal of a pilgrim’s pilgrimage. In Bunyan’s tale, “Christian” is both a metaphor (one who accepts Jesus as Christ) and the name of the Pilgrim who takes a life changing journey from the City of Destruction to Mount Zion and the Celestial City. Christian’s trip reads like Alice in Wonderland dosed with Voltaire’s Candide and highway-tested with Zarathustra-like problem solving. For example, after seeing the cross, dropping his burden and watching it fall into the mouth of a sepulchre (burial pit), Christian meets three Shining Ones (angels) who bless him with gifts; he then breaks into song:

Who’s this? the Pilgrim. How! ‘tis very true,
Old things are passed away, all’s become new.
Strange! He’s another man, upon my word.
They be fine feathers that make a fine bird.

Then Christian gave three leaps for joy, and went on, singing:

Thus far did I come laden with my sin;
Nor could aught ease the grief that I was in
Till I came hither: What a place is this!
Must here be the beginning of my bliss?
Must here the burden fall from off my back?
Must here the strings that bound it to me crack?
Blest cross! blest sepulchre! blest rather be
The Man that there was put to shame for me![i]

John Bunyan (1628-1688) was a “tinker” by trade (he fixed pots and pans and traveled Gypsy-like) and an earthy-type of preacher (imagine a swearing Puritan). He was jailed twelve years for preaching Protestantism (basically, he wanted to preach his way – the way he felt the Good Lord); they would have let him out if only he’d stop the preaching – but he kept saying he’d preach his word of God as soon as he was out the prison gates. Bunyan began The Pilgrim’s Progress while jailed (he wrote lots of books) and the Quakers helped secure his unconditional release through petition to the English Crown.

How famous was John Bunyan? Ben Franklin wrote in his Autobiography (1791) that The Pilgrim’s Progress was the second most popular book in colonial America (Bible first); he also said, as a noted book collector, that Bunyan’s works were his first complete collection.

Obviously, Bunyan and the Protestants didn’t invent the Pilgrim: there have been and will be Jewish pilgrims, Catholic pilgrims and even Nothing-in-Particular pilgrims. In the US though, our founding and what we celebrate on Thanksgiving Day are rooted in a Protestant-Puritan Pilgrim Age.

This problem, that there are no Protestants on the US Supreme Court (the last one was in 2010, Justice John Paul Stevens), is not a religious problem; Article VI of the US Constitution is clear on that question, as it states: “but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.” No, this is about representation and twelve words in Article I of the US Constitution: “The Number of Representatives shall not exceed one for every thirty Thousand.” Unambiguously, this is not religious: it’s representational and about representing We the People in Congress according to our birthright – George Washington’s number, 30,000.

The US Congress sets the number of justices on the Court and a constitutional House of 10,000 Representatives would certainly add judges; to wit, as things are, five judges decide the fate of a law for a nation of over 300 million citizens: that’s one justice for every 60 million people.

Here’s a just bid: add a nine before the nine to make it 99.

Yeah, 99 Supremes instead of nine. That alone would add Protestants (51% of Americans according to Pew Research), Nothing-in-Particulars (12%), Mormons (1.7%), Atheists (1.6%), Buddhists (0.7%), and Muslims (0.6%) to the six Catholics (24%) and three Jewish (1.7%) justices on the Court. While we are on the topic, let’s think of adding citizens like a truck driver judge (approximately 0.5%), you know, people familiar with life on the road, journeying like a pilgrim across this land of ours – yeah that sounds supreme as well.

In The Pilgrim’s Progress, after encountering the Shining Ones, Christian’s dreamscape takes him to three men in iron fetters – Simple, Sloth and Presumption – reminding all of us in the 21st century (and perhaps even this weekend) that maybe things haven’t changed that much.

Happy Thanksgiving Everyone ~ Peace Up!
Bryan W. Brickner

[i] John Bunyan, The Pilgrim’s Progress (New York: Washington Square Press [1678] 1961), 37.

Excerpt from Chapter 3:9, Oligarchy
The Book of the Is (2013)

9
In Federalist 56, Madison defends the House against the charge that it: “will be too small to possess a due knowledge of the interests of its constituents.” The founders wanted to insure local interests were represented; Madison’s theories require Representatives to bring local knowledge to the federal House. The founders also believed: “every Representative will have much information to acquire concerning all other States.”

The House wasn’t (just) designed as a place to make laws: it was designed as a place of knowledge as well. Not only would a large House send more Representatives to Washington, it would also send more Representatives back home with new knowledge. The initial House had 65 members: the current has 435. It’s hard to see how 435 can come home and let 300 million of us know what’s going on – thus the form letters. 

Excerpt from Chapter 3:11, Oligarchy
The Book of the Is (2013)

11
The previous charge might raise some eyebrows as it looks a lot like what has happened. We can look at why Madison said this wouldn’t happen, as discussed in Federalist 58, and maybe we can see why one for every thirty Thousand is a fair and agreed upon number.

In Federalist 58, Madison again places the charge to be defended in the title: “Objection That The Number of Members Will Not Be Augmented as the Progress of Population Demands Considered.” Madison and the others saw the problem clearly and even anticipated what we now face. Here is also where we see an assumption made by the Constitutional Convention breakdown: the founders thought the large states would defend this principle.

Perhaps it just hasn’t happened yet, as it probably will be the large states that will demand House augmentation. Madison: “There is a peculiarity in the federal Constitution which insures a watchful attention in a majority both of the people and of their representatives to a constitutional augmentation of the latter.”

I see how Madison is still going to be correct; he and the others thought augmentation would take place because the general population in the larger states would demand it. If states like California, New York, Texas, Florida, Illinois, Michigan, and Ohio, if they demanded constitutional representation, they would achieve it.

This “peculiarity” hasn’t materialized only because the large states haven’t demanded it. Madison wrote that from the interest of the large states: “it may with certainty be inferred that the larger States will be strenuous advocates for increasing the number and weight of that part of the legislature in which their influence predominates.” Madison argued that if there were problems, the general population could step in by building a coalition of the constitutionally willing:

Should the representatives or people, therefore, of the smaller States oppose at any time a reasonable addition of members, a coalition of a very few States will be sufficient to overrule the opposition; a coalition which, notwithstanding the rivalship and local prejudices which might prevent it on ordinary occasions, would not fail to take place, when not merely prompted by common interest, but justified by equity and the principles of the Constitution.

The Preamble (Intent) to our Constitution:

We the People of the United States,
  in Order to form a more perfect Union,
  establish Justice,
  insure domestic Tranquility,
  provide for the common defence,
  promote the general Welfare,
  and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity,
  do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

There are three notable “Effects of Usurpation” that undermine our system of checks and balances and our more perfect Union:

   I. The Legislative check and balance is Article 1, Section 2, Clause 3: “The number of Representatives shall not exceed one for every thirty Thousand.”

The current Congress should have over 10,000 Representatives and not 435.

No check, no balance.

   II.  The Executive check and balance is Article 2, Section 2: “Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in Congress.”

In 2013, under constitutional representation, there should be over 10,000 Electors for We the People in the Electoral College.

No check, no balance.

   III.  The Judicial check and balance is twofold: a constitutional House of Representatives (districts of 30,000) and Amendment 7, which states: “In Suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars [$20], the right to trial by jury shall be preserved …”

No check, no balance.

A constitutional United States, unlike our current situation, would be a representative republic based on federal districts of 30,000 people; that is the American way. The founders, specifically George Washington and James Madison, put the number 30,000 in our Constitution, and 50 states ratified it. In truth, Americans are Americans by the power of constitutional words.

Also, building a constitutional Congress based on federal districts of 30,000 people would correct one of usurpations most embarrassing facts: women being 51% of We the People and 18% representation in Congress.

The power of usurpation thrives on the lack of checks and balances. As We the People embrace our constitutional heritage (which appears to be happening), we might find it to be a great place to gather – you know – “in Order to form a more perfect Union.”