Posted on 07/05/2009 12:54:52 PM PDT by AJKauf
Have you ever wondered what the last change to the U.S. Constitution was, before the delegates at Philadelphia signed it?
It was actually pretty momentous.
The Constitution provides that in the lower house of Congress “the Number of Representatives shall not exceed one for every thirty Thousand, but each State shall have at Least one Representative.” The last change was from “one for every forty Thousand” to “one for every thirty Thousand.”
Who made it? And why?
Nathaniel Gorham of Massachusetts explained that “if it was not too late he could wish [this change], for the purpose of lessening objections to the Constitution.” His request was soon seconded by Daniel Carrol of Maryland and Rufus King of Massachusetts — and then a really important person took a position on this proposal...
(Excerpt) Read more at pajamasmedia.com ...
But also a House that would have people who might actually listen to the lowly peon citizen. Would it be all that infeasible to turn Capitol Hill into a 30 story office tower?
they’d never be able to get anything done! hmmmmmmm...
>Would it be all that infeasible to turn Capitol Hill into a 30 story office tower?
Given the current size of government, how could MORE representation [on behalf of the Citizen] be bad?
Therein lies the merit of it.
The Constitution doesn't require such a ratio. It says the House can't "exceed" one Representative for every 30,000 people. It doesn't say it needs to have one Representative for every 30,000 people. The current House does not "exceed" that number, so it is not violating the Constitution (at least in this regard).
that’s not like real life at all!
The Number of Representatives does not exceed one for every thirty Thousand.
The Constitution says shall not be greater than, not, shall not be less than, one for every thirty Thousand.
This would make it feasible to shrink the House to 50 people.
No it wouldn’t, because the House needs to be proportional by States.
Does the Constitution say how small they can go? Just round to the population of the biggest state (presumably California) and you get your “proportionality.” Proportionality certainly doesn’t exist in any arithmetic approximation now when comparing, say, Rhode Island to Texas.
The bigger impact of a move in either direction. would be on the Electoral College, whose per-state membership equals that of Senators plus Representatives. Revert to the old 30K:1 proportion and we essentially have a president elected by popular vote. Shrink to minimum size and the flyover states will have an uncommon clout.
It’s time for a Virtual Congress on the Internet. That way you can have those 10,000 congressmen, and they never have to leave their districts.
I believe the 435 setting to be a compromise between those extremes without violating the letter of the Constitution.
Then make it 1 to 50,000 or maybe 1 to 100,000.
This kind of “close” representation would mean your Congresscritter would live in your city or town and you would probably know the candidate on a first-name basis. This would eliminate “celebrity” legislators and improve the quality of representation because you could actually sit down with your rep and make your views known, face to face.
Those prima donnas now in Washington don’t know you (unless you make big contributions) and don’t care what you think.
Absolutely the truth.
I recently sent my Rep Joe Wilson (R-2nd-SC) an email asking him why the pubbies haven't called out nobama for all the unconstitutional things he's done. Here's Joe's response to my email:
Thank you for your recent correspondence. I appreciate your taking the time to write.Now I'm patiently waiting to vote against him in the primary next year.I understand your concerns and welcome your interest in this matter. Please be assured that I will keep your thoughts in mind should legislation pertaining to this issue come before me in the United States House of Representatives during the 111th Congress.
It is an honor to represent the people of the Second Congressional District of South Carolina, and I value your input.
If I may be of further assistance to you, please do not hesitate to contact me.
Very truly yours,
Joe Wilson
It it outrageous to have to put up with this no representation in the Congress.
What a putz! He does nothing in Congress unless a bill comes to his desk? Just sits there and waits for bills all day? Yeah..........OOOOOOK
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.