The Inverse Conclusion
This is a no-brainer folks. Everybody thinks the word exceed means "no more than". Nothing could be further from the truth. A simple examination of the words in Article I, Section 2, Clause 3, will reveal the original intent of the founders and the truth of the words therein, to whit;
"The number of Representatives shall not exceed one for every thirty Thousand [people],.."
If that's not enough for you to decipher intent, then this comes to mind;
“...the relative weight of influence of the different states will be the same, with the number of representatives at sixty-five as at six hundred, and that of the individual members greater; for each member's share of power will decrease as the number of the House of Representatives increases. If, therefore, this maxim be true, that men are unwilling to relinquish powers which they once possess, we are not to expect the House of Representatives will be inclined to enlarge the numbers. The same motive will operate to influence the President and Senate to oppose the increase of the number of representatives; for, in proportion as the House of Representatives is augmented, they will feel their own power diminished. It is, therefore, of the highest importance that a suitable number of representatives should be established by the Constitution.”
[Melancton Smith; June 21, 1788; Debates in the Convention of the State of New York]
Or this;
“The man who would seriously object to this expense, to secure his liberties, does not deserve to enjoy them. Besides, by increasing the number of representatives, we open a door for the admission of the substantial yeomanry of our country, who, being possessed of the habits of economy, will be cautious of imprudent expenditures, by which means a greater saving will be made of public money than is sufficient to support them.”
[Melancton Smith; June 21, 1788; Debates in the Convention of the State of New York]
“Numerous bodies … are less subject to venality and corruption”. [James Madison, 14-August-1789]
And finally;
“...the House of Representatives will, within a single century, consist of
more than six hundred members.”
— James Wilson, November 30, 1787 Delegate to the Convention of the State of Pennsylvania, on the Adoption of the Federal Constitution.
In fact, Federalist Papers 55 and 56 explicitly promised, without qualification, that there would be one Representative for every thirty-thousand inhabitants.
Article I, Section 2, Clause 3, is a statement in words that sets up a ratio of Representatives to people. To understand the true meaning of those words better, let's just switch the words around. Turn the ratio upside down or in other words let's look at the inverse of that same statement. It would read like this;
"The number of people [represented] shall not exceed 30,000 for every one Representative."
That is exactly the same statement as the original. We are simply inverting the fraction;
from 1/30,000
to 30,000/1
and allowing the words to match the inverted fraction.
Here's another way to structure the sentence.
"The number of Representatives shall be (apportioned), [a portion] of the whole population [to avoid being a pure Democracy]. That portion shall not exceed, [shall remain at] the fraction, one [Representative] for every thirty thousand [people],.."
You see it in bold?
"The number of Representatives shall not exceed one for every thirty Thousand,.."
The original sentence is still in there. Now does the original sentence make more sense? Is the concept and the intent now stated more clearly? Is the way you say something important? You bet!
Any serious Amendment of this nature would likely read something like this;
"The number of Representatives shall be allotted as a portion of the whole population to each of the several states, by the census to be taken. That portion shall be set as a minimum limit of one Representative for every thirty thousand people, with no maximum limit, but upon acceptance of statehood, by The Northwest Ordinance, each state shall be allotted at least two..."
So now ask yourself what meaning you decipher from the words "shall not exceed". You see it doesn't only mean "no more than". It can ALSO mean;
"SHALL NOT CHANGE"
"Shall not go outside the limit of"
"SHALL REMAIN AT"
Replies