Just in case you think we haven't really asked enough questions we offer the following:
Morton, I think you're asking questions that you already know the answers to!
I am certain you are asking the questions you already know the answers to. My question is, how do we convince the PEOPLE of this once great Country to get off their butts and start thinking and taking action?
I don't know the answers to most of these questions, but I would like to begin filling the empty Congressional seats we now know are vacant.
Texas has 36 US Representatives, representing 27,860,000. The ratio of 1:30,000 would give them over 925 seats to fill.
The Constitution limits up to 1 for every 30,000, but doesn't require that adjustment, it only requires the enumeration. Does Congress set, by House rule, the ratio to be seated?
I am pretty sure a lot of illegal households are counted in many states, especially southern border states.
"The Constitution limits up to 1 for every 30,000, but doesn't require that adjustment, it only requires the enumeration."
What are you trying to say Fred?
Not sure if I understand your point. I think also, that you have misinterpreted the sentence and in particular part, the word "exceed". Is that possible?
Maybe I have misinterpreted, Morton. Does The Constitution allow one Representative, not to exceed every 30,000 people in the state?
I do not think I am confused about the meaning of "exceed". My point was one Rep. per 30,000 is a limit. A state cannot have more than one ,per 30,000.
My question was, does Congress set, by House Rule, the ratio, per capita, to be seated, as in one Rep. per !00,000, etc.
My last statement, begs the question, is the number of Representatives based on total population or those legally residing in the state?
I am not being contentious, I just sought a bit of clarity on what the Constitution actually means.
Obviously, California, New York, Texas and Florida, plus et al.would cause some over crowding problems in our current Capitol Bldg. if the one rep, per 30,000 was determined to be a Constitutional mandate and not a limit, on having more than one Rep. per 30,000
Morton, I wrote a reply to you but it seems to be lost in the ozone,
but chances are I inadvertently clicked on something, trying to edit it, that sent it into permanent storage... it's frozen in "SAVE" mode!
I gave the briefest summery, I could, below!
In simple terms, Fred
And taking into account all the code words you use, I believe you are indeed confused about the words in I,2,3,3. You also ask a lot of questions filled with these code words, so some definitions are in order.
With the U.S. Population exceeding 308,745,538 (2010 Census) and Representatives per state, apportioned, at one per 30,000
is it possible we could have over 10,290 Reps. trying to pass sensible legislation, in The U.S. House of Representatives?
Even if it is possible, is it desirable?
Is an Amendment to The Constitution required to modify this ratio of one Rep. per 30,000?
An Amendment has already been passed by Congress to clarify this issue. It is the First Proposed Amendment to the Original Bill of Rights package sent to the first Congress, where ten of them (3 thru 12), were accepted as ratified by 3/4 of the States. The First one missed ratification by one vote, the Second, (involving pay raises), was passed by Congress and ratified by 3/4 of the states in 1992. The First was also passed by Congress, but will require 27 more states to be ratified today. See David Zuniga's writings for a more full explanation of this.
can you give a link to the writings of David Zuniga.. Thank you for any assistance you may be able to give.
Here is the link you asked for to David Zuniga. Sorry it took so long. I didn't realize you had made a request. Sorry for the delay. Here is the LINK.