A Representative Form!
“If any man’s money can be taken by a so-called government, without his own personal consent, all his other rights are taken with it; for with his money the government can, and will, hire soldiers to stand over him, compel him to submit to its arbitrary will, and kill him if he resists.” - Lysander Spooner
“But whether the Constitution really be one thing, or another, this much is certain – that it has either authorized such a government as we have had, or has been powerless to prevent it. In either case, it is unfit to exist.” - Lysander Spooner
Why is this relevant? Because if a man loses control of the value and supply of his money, he is without true sovereignty. And;
If he loses sight of the source of his rights, he again will find himself without any.
The bottom line is this. If we allow our own creation, the federal government, to set the ratio of Representatives/Constituents at ANY arbitrary number other than the prescribed, "One for every thirty thousand,..", we will never have a proper Congress representing the people in the "representative Republic" we were promised and we will again find ourselves without a voice or the ability to defend any of our natural rights.
Instead, we will continue to labor under the false illusion that some Act of some congress, somewhere in time, has ARBITRARILY and without ANY authority ANYWHERE in the Constitution, set the top limit of Representatives at 435. Why? Because, they said so and we never stopped them. That's why.
This is not only not authorized or approved by the people living on the land of this country, but has no support or authority in any written word anywhere. This also begs the following questions:
- Why 435?
- What happens when the population reaches 435 Million?
- Are we supposed to believe even for one minute, that one man can adequately represent the voice and local concerns of ONE MILLION people?
- What happens when that doubles?
- Are we then supposed to believe that all of a sudden, a Representative is now able to speak for the local concerns of TWO MILLION people?
Don't be ridiculous!
Why not just make it 100 Million Constituents per Representative? That way, we would have no gridlock and bunches of great things would be the result, because we would only have FOUR members in the people's House. THEN we could get something done eh?
As it is, we are almost at one million per Rep. now and at the current rate of increase in population, we are estimated to reach that number in as little as only 50 years.
Well, let's see how "they" describe the process: Here is some info from census.gov reference apportionment.
The U.S. resident population includes the total number of people in the 50 states and the District of Columbia. The resident population of the United States on April 1, 2010, was 308,745,538 an increase of 9.7 percent over the 281,421,906 counted during the 2000 Census.
"Apportionment"
is the process of dividing the 435 memberships, or seats, in the House of Representatives among the 50 states based on the population figures collected during the decennial census. The number of seats in the House has grown with the country. Congress sets the number in law and increased the number to 435 in 1913. The Constitution set the number of representatives at 65 from 1787 until the first Census of 1790, when it was increased to 105 members.The first decennial census was conducted in 1790 and has been taken every ten years as mandated by Article I, Section 2 of the U.S. Constitution. Since the first census, conducted by Thomas Jefferson, the decennial count has been the basis for our representative form of government as envisioned by our nation's Founding Fathers. In 1790, each member of the House of Representatives represented about 34,000 residents. Today, the House has more than quadrupled in size, and each member represents about 19 times as many constituents. In 2000, each member of the House of Representatives represented a population of about 647,000.
The apportionment population consists of the resident population of the 50 states, plus the overseas military and federal civilian employees and their dependents living with them who could be allocated to a state. The populations of the District of Columbia and Puerto Rico are excluded from the apportionment population because they do not have voting seats in the U. S. House of Representatives.
The apportionment totals are calculated by a congressionally defined formula in accordance with Title 2 of the U.S. Code.
Read more about the history of Congressional apportionment.
Note - All the above bold is mine. I highlighted what I thought was important. Here's why.
To start with, apportionment and the census is for the purpose of determining HOW MANY seats there are to be allotted to a state, NOT "dividing" the 435 seats, now existing. They are contradicting themselves; they fully admit that Representation should be "based on the population,... as mandated by Article I, Section 2." and NOT be arbitrary.
Then, they describe the apportionment process and the resulting "census to be taken" as "the basis for our Representative Form of government.", while reminding us that "In 1790, each member of the House of Representatives represented about 34,000 residents." Whereupon the number of Representatives was immediately increased to 105 to match the proper ratio. Why was the very first accurately counted ratio, (apportionment) set at 34,000?
I can tell you. Here's why, because of:
Article I, Section 2, Clause 3, Sentence 3, wherein;
"The number of Representatives shall not exceed one for every thirty thousand,.."
THAT's why! Because the Constitution said so! They were simply trying to follow, as best that they could estimate, that Congress in 1790, would now need to increase "The number of Representatives" by a whopping 62%, from 65 all the way to 105. They did not attempt to divide the existing 65 seats, they ADDED MORE!
This is what the courts call "prime facie" evidence that this rationally apportioned, fractional number, 1 divided by 30,000, is to be the number used to determine "the number of representatives..."
There is no other place to go that preempts or can overturn or change this ratio to One for every "whatever we say it is". or "One for every whatever we fell like declaring it to be". Like I said before, that would be ridiculous! What's to stop them from declaring that each state only gets one? Nothing, if not for Article 1, Section 2.
As far as I'm concerned, we need IMMEDIATE emergency elections to return this country to a proper Representative Republic. This should be the only thing we need, to prove that there is absolutely NO ONE in government, following their rule book and thereby keeping their Oaths of Office. NO ONE!
Comments? Questions?
Replies
The voice of the people is directly proportional to the number of representatives we have in Congress. When the power of 330 million people is transferred into the hands of 435 Representatives, the elected officials become the masters and the people become their servants.
In order to prevent the abuse of power we must limit the power of Congress we need to restore the 30,000 to 1 ratio mandated in Article I Section 2 Clause 3.
And how do we do ANYTHING when they do not listen and ignore the Constitution?
Wow! I am so dense. I understand the concept of limiting the number of people per representative, and the concept is sound in principle, but without term limits the 435 + 100 senators has literally created a swamp of bottom feeders and it's our bottoms they are feeding on.
I believe sending a couple of thousand more reps to the U.S. House will create more chaos and grid lock.
That may well retard the mischief, but with the added salaries and perks, for reps & staff... it will be expensive, unless we can reign in the bloated bureaucracy, by scaling it back to fulfilling only the functions of government authorized by The U.S. Constitution.
An end to lifetime compensation would do a large service to us all.
And a beginning of using the word "constitutional" and "unconstitutional" would help.
Listen to the news, fake and otherwise, and count the number of times you hear either of those words. Nada, none, never. no such thing. "Law" is all they use.
Fred,
You are thinking of the cost and the mode of operations currently in use as static models. They are not unchangeable or immutable.
Does that make it a little more clear? This move to increase the voice of the people to "One for every thirty thousand,.." according to the Constitution is not only the right thing to do, but is THE LAW!
Thank you, Morton! I do understand and got hung up on the ambiguity of Constitutional verbiage, "The number of Representatives shall not exceed one for every thirty thousand ..."
I was reading it to mean, that two or more Representatives were not permitted to represent less than 30,000.
You have previously addressed this for me, and as I admitted in this thread, I am dense, but now "I understand the concept of limiting the number of people per representative".
It appeared to me that Art. 1, Sec. 2, Clause 3 was limiting the number of Representatives per 30,000, as it did not say that, there shall be one Representative per every 30,000.
I see more ambiguities, i.e. is it for 30,000 qualified voters, 30,000 men women & children, or 30,000 adult citizens, etc.
I try to understand what our founders intended. I am as guilty as anyone, by reading into something, what I prefer.
Thus sometimes, dense as I am, I struggle for more clarity and I do appreciate your forbearance.
Very good Fred, you have begun to absorb the truth,
But in response to your question
"I see more ambiguities, i.e.; Is it for 30,000 qualified voters, 30,000 men women & children, or 30,000 adult citizens, etc.?"
Article 1, Section 2 is clear on this. The census to be taken is to count EVERYONE. This is one of the issues with a representative republic. Only about half the people are eligible; only half of THEM, actually vote, (sometimes as little as 1/4 of them in some elections), out of those votes, the winner of the election gets about half of those, then we declare them the Representative of EVERYONE in their district. The numbers look like this.
This means that at best, each of our "Representatives" is voted in to office by only 5% of the people in any given district. FIVE PERCENT!
Remember, these numbers are based on current district size, but the percentages would be the same, no matter the numbers. In a district with 30,000 people, only 1500 would actually vote for the winner. The other 28,500 people's voices are not counted. That means that in any given Congressional District, 95% of the people represented did not vote for their Representative.
Again, I thank you Morton. If it were up to me, which of course it isn't, the only ones voting would be, those either more than 25 years old, with exceptions for active military, veterans and property owners...
Basically, adults, with some skin in the game, not emotionally charged, wet behind the ears, young folks, or welfare recipients and the chronically unemployed. On second thought the age ought to be the same as the minimum age for President (35), with the same exceptions.
I am responding to the stats you offered and wandering off topic and into the weeds. Just an emotionally charged, off the cuff rant! Regards, FR
You do realize that you just suggested that we should have even fewer voters per district, than we already have?
If you eliminate stupid people, welfare recipients and the young, you are shrinking the voter rolls to even less than they are now.
That means we would end up with about 3 or 4 percent of the people actually choosing their Representatives. Is that supposed to be better?
Are you concerned that we don't have enough voters/district, or are you thinking they just need to be smarter?
And THAT question sums it all up, seems to me.... .
-
1
-
2
of 2 Next