In other words, the amount of taxation to be assigned to a given state will be determined by its population. It also means each state's representation in Congress will be determined by their population.
The ratio of Representatives to people and the ratio of people to taxes is known as apportionment. The ratio of representation in Congress was established to be 1 representative for every 30,000 people. However,
There was an error in the transcription of the wording in Article 1, Section 2, Clause 3. The Article should have said that the states would have 1 representative for every 30,000. Instead, the clause states that the ratio shall not "exceed 1 representative for every 30,000..."
The proper wording of this clause would limit the power of Congressional Representatives. This error in transcription gives them virtually unlimited power.
When the power is vested in a few corrupt career politicians, the voice of the people is not being heard. By reducing the size of the Congressional Districts to no more than 50,000/1 and increasing the number of representatives, the People, (the average Joe), would be able to reclaim control of the House of Representatives.
It was the intention of the authors of the Constitution to provide each state with what they considered to be adequate representation in Congress. The clause should have read; "each state shall be entitled to one Congressional representative for every 30,000 people.
The wording of this clause in Article 1, Section 2, was transcribed incorrectly. They made an attempt to clarify the intent in that Article by proposing an amendment to the Constitution. It was the first of twelve amendments proposed to the states for ratification.
The first and second proposed amendments initially failed to be ratified but in 1992 the second amendment was ratified, then becoming the 27th Amendment to the Constitution. The originally proposed First Amendment is still pending and with the approval of 27 more states it will become the 28th Amendment to the Constitution.
By following the Constitution we would have much smaller Congressional Districts. The lobbyists who control the 435 career politicians In Washington D.C. would have a tough time bribing over 6,000 representatives of the people.
Reducing the size of the Congressional Districts and increasing the number of representatives would decrease the power of the Congressional Representatives and it would magnify the voice and power of the people.
To remedy the problem, we must ratify the proposed First Amendment to the Constitution. Only 15 state legislatures have voted for or against its ratification. The people in the remaining 35 states have a right to cast their vote to limit the size of Congressional Districts. Eleven states legislatures have already ratified the amendment and 27 more states are needed to repair the broken House of Representatives.
See my page on the Lufkin case, there is NO law requiring You to pay and the Civil Rights Act of 1866 protects You from foreign entities, especially the foreign owned non- federal bank of NO reserves. It is a requirement that any contract You sign Shall BE entered by your Free Will, see ND Century Code #9. Resistance to evil is obedience to God.
Also see Bill Benson The law that never was.
Also ISIS IS ISreal & THEY are using US Aid money in terrorist ops, ask why killary gave ISIS $250,000,000? Why did the army drop tons of arms for ISIS? Why was the US Army used to rescue ISIS? All searchable terms, folks!
Ask why mad dog mathis is in ISreal getting His Orders???
Wouldn't over 6000 representatives have a hard time fitting in today's Capital building? Many changes would have to be made to make this right - like building more capital buildings to hold meetings and votes, right?
With today's electronic technology - we don't really need physical bodies in Washington DC - may be that would make Congress less corruptible if all our representatives weren't housed in one place where they are easy targets for the gangsters, bribesters, banksters -- to intimidate, be lied to or be bribed.
Wouldn't the 100 senators still be likely targets and easily influenced?