"Representation...Shall be Apportioned"
What exactly does apportioned mean and why should we care? You should care if you believe that you are one of "The People" and therefore hold all the power in America. That is why representation shall be apportioned. So let's define "apportion".
Apportion
Divide and allocate.
synonyms: share out · divide out · allocate · distribute · allot · assign · dispense · give out · hand out · mete out · deal out · dole out · ration · parcel out ·
There's the word we're looking for. "Ration". So to apply the concept of "Apportion", all one would have to do is "divide and allocate" a given "ration" or "ratio" to a given group of a numerical kind. So all we have to do then is to figure out what "ratio" they had in mind when "apportioning" Representation, so hence the following guide;
Article I, Section 2, Clause 3, Sentence 3;
" The number of Representatives shall not exceed one for every thirty Thousand, but each state shall have at least one Representative,.."
So there you have it. One for every thirty Thousand. But wait! How do we check to see if that really is what they had in mind, (approx. one Representative for every thirty Thousand people). Well here's how we know: they made provisions in that same sentence to immediately allocate a requisite number of Representatives to each state, beyond just the guaranteed "one". To whit;
"and until such enumeration shall be made, the State of New Hampshire shall be entitled to chuse three, Massachusetts eight, Rhode Island and Providence Plantations one, Connecticut five, New York six, New Jersey four, Pennsylvania eight, Delaware one, Maryland six, Virginia ten, North Carolina five, South Carolina five, and Georgia three."
If we wish to see how close they estimated, all we have to do is the math;
Population at the time was estimated to be approximately 3.8 Million.
At that population level, each Representative would have been "Representing" or "speaking for", approximately 58, 461 people. Those are the numbers that were "allotted" to each state on average. IMHO that is DIRECT evidence of what size districts that they were shooting for and why the "ratio" was set at thirty thousand. It is clearly recorded in history that this conversation did take place and numbers from thirty to fifty thousand were considered the maximum size for ANY district or section of the population. It was agreed to be set at "No more than 50 Thousand, preferably thirty Thousand". That's the "RATIO" they had in mind before they even made the first census.
So there you have it. Solid evidence that our FOUNDING FATHERS believed that representation should be a given ratio and that "ratio" should be 1/30,000. PERIOD! Even the Congressional Apportionment Amendment highly supported by David Zuniga and AmericaAgain! where the number recommended is 1/50,000, which BTW, is very close to their first estimated "allotment" or district size of 58,461 constituents per District.
So what we have here is a Constitutional Crisis!
NO QUESTION.
But one YOU can solve!
So what we have in specific terms is a true "Emergency" in every sense of the word. As such, ALL elections scheduled for the midterms 2018, should be suspended AT ONCE and have the vacant seats filled in EVERY state before the 2020 Census, so that Representation in 2020 will be Constitutionally correct.
So we can clearly see that EVERY STATE IN THE UNION OF STATES must be found deficient in Representatives and possessing District sizes and District maps that are in direct violation of Article I, Section 2, Clause 3, Part 3, where they "shall not exceed thirty Thousand" constituents per district. So that means that there exists over Ten Thousand vacant seats in Congress. Therefore the states are "entitled" "to fill such vacancies."
So how is that done, you ask? Simple.
Article I, Section 2, Clause 4, wherein;
"When vacancies happen in the Representation from any State, the Executive Authority thereof shall issue Writs of Election to fill such Vacancies."
So THERE you have it, the WHOLE truth, the whole ball of wax. Every state in the country now MUST be "allotted" "one (Representative) for every thirty Thousand,.." people. THAT IS THE LAW! *(Article 6, Section 2)
So now all you need to do is take this information to "the Executive Authority" usually the Governor, or perhaps the committee responsible for creating and approving Congressional Districts and their corresponding maps and demand they issue writs of election for every single empty seat and redraw the district maps to reflect the new district size limitation. The mapping is usually done by the Legislature with final approval in the hands of the Governor.
If they don't listen to you or even directly tell you to go pound salt, don't be afraid to take it to your local Sheriff and let him know what's going on in his County, right under his nose. Let him know that you informed the Legislature of the vacancies.
That's what needs to happen in America and it needs to happen TODAY!
Here are the numbers in case you wanted to see the extent of the problem and how we got here.
Graph Expired
Replies
Morton you hit a homerun with this article. It is the responsibililtty of the Governors of the states to call for an election to fill the vacant seats in the House of Representatives. We need ond courageous Governor of one state to xdd challenge the his states lack of adeqluate and proper represntation in the House of Representatives by call for an election to fill vacancies in Congress.
In 1788 the State of Georgia had less than 80,000 people, but had three representatives in Congress. Today Wyoming has a popultion of over 600,000 and has only one Congressional Representative.
If Wyoming had one representative for every 30,000, they would have 20 representatives in Congress instead of only one. The House of Representatives in 1790 had 100 members representing a total of 3.5 million people. Today California has a population of 39 million and is represented by 53 Congressmen.
If the House of Representatives in 1790 was apportioned as it is today, only Virginia with a population of approximately 700,000 would have had a population large enough to qualify for a Congressional representative.
The really shocking numbers that illustrate the fraud so clearly, that there is no arguing with it, is when you compare the population of the unites States of America in 1830 to the population of Pennsylvania today and compare it to the number of Representatives allotted to those respective populations. Here are the numbers.
1830 - Pop. of the u.s. - 12,823,989 - Reps. in the House - 240
2010 - Pop. of Pennsylvania - 12,866,020 - House Reps. - 18
What's wrong with this picture?
There is an old and accepted practice in Law that one Congress CANNOT dictate to the next Congress. So essentially what you have is every session since then has voluntarily adopted the Act as part of their Congressional acts. There is no law that can force the act of one Congress to carry over to the next. This is a fully accepted practice in law-making.
One Congress can make completely new rules and laws irrespective of the previous Congress if they wish.
And according to Wood V. Broom,
" the Representatives to the Sixty-third and each subsequent Congress shall be elected by districts composed of a contiguous and compact territory, and containing as nearly as practicable an equal number of inhabitants."
And;
"The said districts shall be equal to the number of Representatives to which such State may be entitled in Congress,.."
This means that the seats shall be apportioned by the rules of Article I, Section 2, Clause 3. (see above)
So Wood V. Broom changes NOTHING!
So, Ohio alone, one of the most populous states, should have 390 elected representatives for a population of 11,900,000 citizens.
Question: If they all made the same salary—how would each state pay for the multiplied numbers of Representatives?
If they all make $65,000/year, then 65,000 x 390 individuals would be taking home their portion of the total, which is 25,350,000. 25 Trillion in paychecks each year. I see that this is not anywhere near possible or desirable.
Taking the higher percentage of your suggested 50,000, then the population divided by 50,000 equals 238 elected representatives, which then equals a total cashout per year of 15,470,000. I see that this is not anywhere near possible or desirable either.
Thoughts?
No need for a fancy reply here J.
Just CLICK HERE!
Also think about this Jeanine,
In 1830, with a population of 12.8 million souls, "The number of Representatives" that were "allotted" to the states was 240. That works out to one Representative for every 53,333 people, by the way.
Skip forward to 2010 - Pennsylvania shows a population of 12.8 million souls. So what is "The number of Representatives" "allotted" to them? --18-- What's wrong with this picture? The real question is;
If the United state decided it was necessary to "allot" 240 Representatives for 12.8 million people, then why is it that 12.8 million today are only "allotted" 18?
And;
If we could afford THE COST OF those 240 Representatives for 12.8 million people in 1830, then why are you asking me how we're supposed to afford 240 Representatives for the SAME 12.8 million people living in Pennsylvania now, instead of a completely pathetic EIGHTEEN?
Why are there only 18 highly paid, life-time politicians pretending to speak for 710,000 people each, when it's clear there should 240 low paid Representatives with term limits who are only responsible to speak for only 53,000 people?