Author Topic: Article the First: Is Congress Ignoring an Amendment Ratified by the States?  (Read 3964 times)

Online Solar

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 62109
  • Gender: Male
I'm posting this now because will soon to be in the news, there is currently a lawsuit floating through the court system.
We are no longer a Representative Govt as our Founders had envisioned.

Stand for What is Right or Settle for What is Left.

Quote
Article the first ... After the first enumeration required by the first article of the Constitution, there shall be one Representative for every thirty thousand, until the number shall amount to one hundred, after which the proportion shall be so regulated by Congress, that there shall be not less than one hundred Representatives, nor less than one Representative for every forty thousand persons, until the number of Representatives shall amount to two hundred; after which the proportion shall be so regulated by Congress, that there shall not be less than two hundred Representatives, nor more than one Representative for every fifty thousand persons.



On June 8, 1789, James Madison, the congressman representing Virginia’s 5th District, rose to speak in a session of the First Congress and advocated passage of the slate of amendments to the Constitution to be known to history as the Bill of Rights. On December 15, 1791, the requisite number of states (three-quarters, or nine states) ratified the amendments and thus the Bill of Rights became the constitutional law of the land.

Many Americans are familiar with the 10 amendments that comprise our current Bill of Rights, but what of the other two proposed amendments that didn’t make the cut? What if one of them actually was ratified? What if recognition of that ratification would bring about a significant and fundamental change in the composition of the Congress?

One man, a self-described “Democratic-Republican,” has filed suit in federal court to prove that such a scenario did indeed take place and that Article the First (the first of the 12 proposed amendments, 10 of which became the Bill of Rights) should be accepted as the constitutional law of the land.

First a bit of background. Article the First was the first of the slate of 12 proposed amendments passed by the House and Senate and sent to the states for ratification. Article the First deals with the proportioning of the number of representatives in the House of Representatives.

In correspondence sent to this author, Frederick John LaVergne recounted events that he claims offer credible evidence of the ratification by the requisite number of states of one of those two originally rejected proposed amendments:

In the fall of 2011, the ratification records of Connecticut and Kentucky as concerns the “Articles of Amendment” — what we, today, refer to as “The Bill of Rights”, were discovered hidden away in the drawers of the archives of those States.

In BOTH cases, the documents clearly demonstrate that “Article the First” had been passed in the affirmative by the Legislatures of those States, even though the US Government and history say they didn't. We can now prove different. [Emphasis in original.]

By ANY counting, that meant that 12 of the then 15 States voted to ratify “Article the First”. [Emphasis in original.]

To become a part of the Constitution, an amendment must pass 75% of the States’ Legislatures. 12 of 15 are 80% — clearly over the 75% threshold.

Therefore, “Article the First” has been the law of the land for over 220 years.

Much More~~~~~~~~~~

https://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews/constitution/item/14223-article-the-first-is-congress-ignoring-an-amendment-ratified-by-the-states

More on the subject.

http://www.boldtruth.com/
« Last Edit: March 24, 2018, 02:58:13 PM by Solar »
#WWG1WGA

zewazir

  • Guest
There are currently 435 representatives, therefore more than 200. Check.

There are approximately 325 million people, so one representative for every 747,000 persons which is definitely less than 1 for every 50,000.  Again, check.

Within the requirements, even if we are ignoring it. So if it ends up being the First Amendment according to history, nothing will really change.

Online Solar

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 62109
  • Gender: Male
There are currently 435 representatives, therefore more than 200. Check.

There are approximately 325 million people, so one representative for every 747,000 persons which is definitely less than 1 for every 50,000.  Again, check.

Within the requirements, even if we are ignoring it. So if it ends up being the First Amendment according to history, nothing will really change.
Yeah, nothing is going to change, simply because they love the power.
#WWG1WGA

Offline supsalemgr

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 11965
  • Gender: Male
There are currently 435 representatives, therefore more than 200. Check.

There are approximately 325 million people, so one representative for every 747,000 persons which is definitely less than 1 for every 50,000.  Again, check.

Within the requirements, even if we are ignoring it. So if it ends up being the First Amendment according to history, nothing will really change.

Are you suggesting we expand the House to meet the 1/50,000 standard? That would just be adding to the swamp.
"If you can't run with the big dawgs, stay on the porch!"

Online Solar

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 62109
  • Gender: Male
Are you suggesting we expand the House to meet the 1/50,000 standard? That would just be adding to the swamp.
I would love to see it.
Think Electoral college. This would mean more accountability, especially in places like Ca, where more than two-thirds of the state have no representation and the rest are over-represented via Gerrymandering.
#WWG1WGA

zewazir

  • Guest
Are you suggesting we expand the House to meet the 1/50,000 standard? That would just be adding to the swamp.
You're misreading the requirement.  It say "no MORE than 1 per 50,000."  MORE than one per 50,000 would be like one per 49,000, or 40,000, whatever.

We have WAY, WAY below the "no more than 1 per 50,000" requirement, and over twice the minimum of 200 requirement.

Nothing would change, even if they find actual proof that article of the original bill were ratified.

Offline |Glitch|

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 112
  • Gender: Male
There is a lot of misinformation being presented here.

This "Article the First" is already part of the US Constitution, and always has been:

Quote
...The number of Representatives shall not exceed one for every thirty thousand, but each state shall have at least one Representative; and until such enumeration shall be made, the state of New Hampshire shall be entitled to chuse three, Massachusetts eight, Rhode Island and Providence Plantations one, Connecticut five, New York six, New Jersey four, Pennsylvania eight, Delaware one, Maryland six, Virginia ten, North Carolina five, South Carolina five, and Georgia three.  --- Article I, Section 2, Clause 3 [excerpt]

The above was actually proposed by George Washington during the Constitutional Convention of 1787.  It was his only contribution to the US Constitution (other than presiding over the convention of course), establishing the minimum representation.

The only difference between the proposed amendment and what the US Constitution already contained was the number of Representatives upon reaching 100 that would be determined by Congress.  Congress did indeed establish that limit in the Apportionment Act of 1911 (Public Law 62–5, 37 Stat. 13), where they limited the House of Representatives to a maximum of 435 voting members, regardless of population.  The number of House Representatives stays fixed, and is divided up among the various States depending upon the percentage of their population.  In other words, with each passing generation your vote becomes worth less as each Representative now has to represent more.

With regard to "Article the Second", the States eventually did ratify that amendment, and it became the 27th Amendment in 1992.

Lastly, there was a great many more than twelve amendments proposed that were never ratified.  New York alone proposed more than forty amendments before voting to ratify the US Constitution.  Virginia proposed another twenty (including what became the First and Second Amendments).

So this thread is really about nothing.
« Last Edit: May 11, 2018, 12:44:18 PM by |Glitch| »

Online Solar

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 62109
  • Gender: Male
There is a lot of misinformation being presented here.

This "Article the First" is already part of the US Constitution, and always has been:

The above was actually proposed by George Washington during the Constitutional Convention of 1787.  It was his only contribution to the US Constitution (other than presiding over the convention of course), establishing the minimum representation.

The only difference between the proposed amendment and what the US Constitution already contained was the number of Representatives upon reaching 100 that would be determined by Congress.  Congress did indeed establish that limit in the Apportionment Act of 1911 (Public Law 62–5, 37 Stat. 13), where they limited the House of Representatives to a maximum of 435 voting members, regardless of population.  The number of House Representatives stays fixed, and is divided up among the various States depending upon the percentage of their population.  In other words, with each passing generation your vote becomes worth less as each Representative now has to represent more.

With regard to "Article the Second", the States eventually did ratify that amendment, and it became the 27th Amendment in 1992.

Lastly, there was a great many more than twelve amendments proposed that were never ratified.  New York alone proposed more than forty amendments before voting to ratify the US Constitution.  Virginia proposed another twenty (including what became the First and Second Amendments).

So this thread is really about nothing.
Then you missed my opening sentence, though I see now in rereading it, I failed to mention why it will be in the news.
The movement to split Ca is moving through the court system, called soj51, they are arguing that Congress illegally stole representation from rural voters by limiting the amount of representation, which is part of our argument for secession, or rather, forming an entirely new State, the State of Jefferson.
So yes, there is a reason for this article.

Welcome to the forum Glitch.
#WWG1WGA

Offline |Glitch|

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 112
  • Gender: Male
Then you missed my opening sentence, though I see now in rereading it, I failed to mention why it will be in the news.
The movement to split Ca is moving through the court system, called soj51, they are arguing that Congress illegally stole representation from rural voters by limiting the amount of representation, which is part of our argument for secession, or rather, forming an entirely new State, the State of Jefferson.
So yes, there is a reason for this article.

Welcome to the forum Glitch.
Thank you for the welcome.

Congress did indeed limit/restrict representation with the Apportionment Act of 1911, but it was not "illegal" or unconstitutional.  The very fact that it is Public Law 62–5 makes it legal.  The US Constitution also does not place any upper limit on representation.  It only establishes the absolute minimum representation.  Which means that Congress may decide on any limit they desire, providing it is greater than 30,000 people per Representative or a minimum of one Representative per State.

With the current population of 325.7 million (2017), that works out to 748,736 people per US House Representative.  That is considerably more than minimum of 30,000 the US Constitution requires.

With regard to California splitting into two or more States, I refer you to Article IV, Section 3, Clause 1 of the US Constitution:

Quote
New states may be admitted by the Congress into this union; but no new states shall be formed or erected within the jurisdiction of any other state; nor any state be formed by the junction of two or more states, or parts of states, without the consent of the legislatures of the states concerned as well as of the Congress.

I would not put much hope in the efforts to split apart California.  It seems highly unlikely to get congressional approval and without that approval it can't happen. 

Online Solar

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 62109
  • Gender: Male
Thank you for the welcome.

Congress did indeed limit/restrict representation with the Apportionment Act of 1911, but it was not "illegal" or unconstitutional.  The very fact that it is Public Law 62–5 makes it legal.  The US Constitution also does not place any upper limit on representation.  It only establishes the absolute minimum representation.  Which means that Congress may decide on any limit they desire, providing it is greater than 30,000 people per Representative or a minimum of one Representative per State.

With the current population of 325.7 million (2017), that works out to 748,736 people per US House Representative.  That is considerably more than minimum of 30,000 the US Constitution requires.

With regard to California splitting into two or more States, I refer you to Article IV, Section 3, Clause 1 of the US Constitution:

I would not put much hope in the efforts to split apart California.  It seems highly unlikely to get congressional approval and without that approval it can't happen.
They are using West Virginia as part of their argument, and as you posted, "consent of the legislatures of the states concerned as well as of the Congress."
Believe me, wiser minds are working on this, far wiser than you or me, and they're convinced we can win, and are doing it for free.
#WWG1WGA

Offline |Glitch|

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 112
  • Gender: Male
They are using West Virginia as part of their argument, and as you posted, "consent of the legislatures of the states concerned as well as of the Congress."
Believe me, wiser minds are working on this, far wiser than you or me, and they're convinced we can win, and are doing it for free.
I don't think using West Virginia as part of their argument is going to work out as well as you might hope.  West Virginia only became a State after the Civil War began.  West Virginia became the only portion of a State to secede from the Confederate States.  Which is why a very diminished Congress gave their approval.

So unless California intends to start another Civil War before splitting off and seceding from the rest of California, it is not a very appropriate example to go by.  It is highly unlikely Congress is going to sympathize with the political differences between rural and urban, or consider that a worthy excuse to split a State apart.

Online Solar

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 62109
  • Gender: Male
I don't think using West Virginia as part of their argument is going to work out as well as you might hope.  West Virginia only became a State after the Civil War began.  West Virginia became the only portion of a State to secede from the Confederate States.  Which is why a very diminished Congress gave their approval.

So unless California intends to start another Civil War before splitting off and seceding from the rest of California, it is not a very appropriate example to go by.  It is highly unlikely Congress is going to sympathize with the political differences between rural and urban, or consider that a worthy excuse to split a State apart.
Simply meaning, precedent as part of a bigger argument.
If you're interested, you can read a step by step account of court proceedings leading to this point at soj51.org.
#WWG1WGA

Offline |Glitch|

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 112
  • Gender: Male
Thanks, but I left California in 1991 with absolutely no intention of ever returning.

Online Solar

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 62109
  • Gender: Male
Thanks, but I left California in 1991 with absolutely no intention of ever returning.
I stayed to fight. But then, I was born here and remember the State when it was Conservative and the only things political were reserved for politics.
#WWG1WGA

Offline |Glitch|

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 112
  • Gender: Male
I stayed to fight. But then, I was born here and remember the State when it was Conservative and the only things political were reserved for politics.
You were given a choice.  Many weren't, and California has never been conservative.  Not even when Reagan was Governor.

 

Powered by EzPortal