Author Topic: Article the First: Is Congress Ignoring an Amendment Ratified by the States?  (Read 544 times)

Online Solar

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 59501
  • 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 »
Koolaid is for kids, TEA is for adults

Offline zewazir

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1081
  • TANSTAAFL!
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: 59501
  • 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.
Koolaid is for kids, TEA is for adults

Offline supsalemgr

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 11377
  • 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: 59501
  • 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.
Koolaid is for kids, TEA is for adults

Offline zewazir

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1081
  • TANSTAAFL!
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.

 

Powered by EzPortal