Ok, yes,
Some of the Founders did want to clarify the message that there should be a certain number of Reps in the House. Thus the First Amendment proposal that it "be no more than" 1/50,000, etc. Not sure of the ramifications of the words "no more than", or the need to ratify the Article of Amendment in the First.
However, the real issue here is that they needed a FAIR AND EQUITABLE RATIO to be set on the two issues of taxation and representation. They decided that the two should coincide and be proportional and vary at a "set rate". In terms of Representation, that scale was "set" at One Representative for every Thirty Thousand Constituents according to a scale that varied from one extreme to another.
They decided that a true "Representative Republic" would do well with 30,000 people per district and that would be fair in such a political structure as we supposedly have. That said, it is clear that a violation of this "limit" on EITHER issue, taxation or representation, is a violation of the philosophy of "No Taxation without Representation".
That is the real issue, because although they have made DARN sure that we are taxed consistent with our population, they have FAILED miserably to make sure that our Representation did the same.
Instead of following the EXACT restrictions of Article I,2,3,3, our OWN government has MOVED the RATIO from one end Total Democracy toward the other end, Total Dictatorship. The scale looks like this:
Total Democracy1/1----------1/30,000--------1/761,000-------1/Infinti -Total Dictatorship
So you see that a move to direct us toward a dictatorship is clearly their plan. The idea that we should have to pass a "law" to restrict representation to only 435 Representatives in Congress, no matter how many people are counted in the Census, is ludicrous. If we continue to allow this, the more the population rises in America, the less representation we the people will have. PERIOD!
Replies
I've done it- It works
thanks Keith