The Inescapable Truth

The truth is that if you look closely at the words used in the Constitution and the meaning and intent behind the Constitution, you find that it's main focus and original intent is as a pact by the states to set up a government, for the benefit and in the control of, the states and the people, respectively.

The most important and fundamental of these instructions and the limitations on the centralized federal government and their delegated powers are addressed first and the lesser are addressed in later Articles. For instance Article I establishes the power structure and apportionment of Representation and direct taxation. These are fundamental to this form of government, later described and guaranteed to each state as "A Republican form of government." 

Thus, I contend that the restriction and limitation described in Article I, Section 2, Clause 3, is without question a limitation on run-away, rampant, out of control, government based, abuse of power. It was designed to limit the size of each Congressional House district to a reasonably small number, but not so small as to overload the legislative process. So, with that goal in mind, a seemingly fair RATIO was established in the original writings of the Constitution and was so important that it appears in the first Article.

It is worth noting that, although present for all of the meetings, George Washington rarely spoke, but when he did, they all listened. And when the subject of Representation came about and a fair and equitable ratio was being established, George stood up and declared that in his mind, 30,000 Constituents per district was a good RATIO. So it was established at that number by Article I, to whit;

Article I, Section 2, Clause 3

"The number of Representatives shall not exceed one for every thirty Thousand,.."

Some would argue that "Shall not exceed"means "shall never be more than". This is not only an incorrect interpretation of the true meaning of the word "exceed", but a completely ludicrous claim. The Constitution was not set up to make sure there was a limit on the power of the people's voice, but on the contrary, it was set up to limit the power of government over the people,

JUST LIKE THE REST OF THE CONSTITUTION!

So with that in mind, I contend that if you take the correct meaning of "exceed" and combine it with the obvious design and need for limited government written into the Constitution, you will come to the same conclusion I have.

That NO CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICT in ANY state, should "EXCEED" 30,000 people, nor should it be less than that. Why? Because "shall not exceed" goes both ways. It means, shall not change up or down, PERIOD!

Questions? Comments?

Views: 182

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

I agree that the Constitution calls for a number of 30,000 people per Federal Representative.  I don't see much chance of focusing on this and getting more representatives elected.  I think we should focus on something like term limits for senators and House.  Also, it should help to stop the extreme political divide that the parties have going.   Lewis

Term limits will not stop the corruption and if the Constitution says we should have "one for every thirty thousand" then that's what we should have.

It is not open for individual evaluation and interpretation. It is written into law for a reason and that reason is a check against any one man or political seat having too much power. If one guy represents 30,000 people he holds the power of that many voices. If he represents one million, he would wield the power of those one million voices and the political seat would then take on the value of those voices. THAT'S why we cannot ignore this problem. We must challenge our current state legislatures to request the correct number of seats be allotted to their state.

I think we should not view a US Representative as having power equal to the number of constituents that are in his district.  A House Rep has his one vote; therefore, a Rep with one million would not have 33 times the clout of a Rep with 30,000 constituents.  They both would have one vote.

  What is really interesting is that in the Electoral College , AS WRITTEN, it is a States' function to send NOMINATIONS  of names for the President.   From the Top Three names, the House is to chuse a President, and EACH State only gets one vote.  How awesome is that?!!  We have Democrats wanting to do away with the Electoral College because of a slight disadvantage in the large states, but the Original, and still legal, Electoral College would give all States a single vote for President, and then we would essentially end this huge Party-Power-Propaganda-Popularity-Play about trying to convince us plebeians whom to vote for.  We would not vote.  Only the States would vote.  Please read Article II and Amendment XII of the Constitution, and wish we could go back to doing it that way.  It would eliminate most of our Nationwide Divisiveness. 

"...a Rep with one million would not have 33 times the clout of a Rep with 30,000 constituents."

HUH? Are you losing your marbles? That statement couldn't be farther from the truth. Do the MATH! It doesn't lie.

A Rep. with 33 times more people AUTOMATICALLY carries 33 times the power of those voices into the chambers of Congress. 

Think about it. Yes the Rep. only gets one vote, but that vote is supposed to be for only 30,000 people. You have to realize, as a logical thinking human that if that one vote is cast as a vote to speak for one million voices, that it carries the weight of those one million voices. If 30,000, then only that many voices are straddled to that one vote.

This is the very reason there is a limit in the first place, as a check against unlimited power. There IS a limit and it IS 30,000 People per District. It IS there for a reason. That reason IS important!

It is there as a check against the corruption and evil that even our Founding Fathers knew was inherent in man and could be used to abuse government power.

You're right about one thing,

The Electoral College IS affected by this same rule, whereby the number of Electors shall be equal to the number of Representatives and Senators combined, that a state would be eligible for in Congress. This means, for instance, that if Pennsylvania is eligible for 427 Reps. and 2 Senators, then they would have 429 Electors in Pennsylvania. Instead we have 20. Equal to our 18 Reps, and 2 Senators combined.

There's your real problem!

There is my real problem??  Not sufficient number of Electors in the Electoral College.  I need to hear more.  I say the problem relates to what Electors DO , not how many there are of them.

They do what they do, act like they act, because there are not enough of them to form a decent cross section of opinions. Too much power in too few hands.

digressing from God and his law is the whole intent of constitutionalist's!! debtors to mammon   Deuteronomy 4:2. 12 :32 is insurmountable backed by Matthew 15:9...  the whole thing is Satan's bait and switch and Christian pastors not wise to discernment have failed the nation

Please elaborate,

I don't think I understand. I've encountered the old "Bait and Switch", the infamous "Smoke and Mirrors", the wonderful "Dog and Pony Show", and the ever popular "Divide and Conquer", but I don't get the part about the "whole intent of constitutionalists".

Please explain.

The Bible says to not add to his law..Right?  A constitutor is one who by simple agreement promises to pay the debt of another...  A Constitution is a set of rules for the debtors...  Those who gave up God and the freedom he offered man to be in Dominion follow rules added to God's law and gave up God as Supreme and view the Constitution as their new God.   You cannot have both as God says to not follow other gods or serve them Exodus 20:3-5 ...All of the US Titles only apply to persons,,,not men and women but persons...   If you respect persons your a sinner  James 2:9 according to scripture in the King James.  The government is a person ...a dead corporation...It makes laws...If you register with a person then your a sinner that must march to that persons laws....Grasp that a man and a person are not the same....read your own code ..Read here.  https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/15/1127  Read Ezra 7:23-26 to know who what and where a minister is from what he does and who is obedient to.. Now read Romans 13 so you can really grasp whats being said as the whole of Christendom got scammed from the pulpit to misinterpret that scripture. Matthew 15:9 will help with that Eureka moment your about to have!

I still don't think we have clarity on what constitutionalists are and how they are regressing from either God's principles or from the Constitution, so I don't know whether I am one.  I think our Federal Government has regressed from following the Constitution by about 98 percent, and the States don't seem to care enough to quell the Federal excesses.  The two parties have the States thinking it is good like it is.

RSS

© 2019   Created by Online Professor.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service