Shall Not Exceed Notice
Dear State Representative ___________________,
I have informed you of the following problem in the past. If not, consider this to be your first and final notice. Our new congressional district maps are going to be published soon. These maps MUST reflect the requirements set forth in Article I, Section 2, Clause 3, wherein; "The number of Representatives SHALL NOT EXCEED one for every thirty Thousand,.." (1/30,000). The problem is that "exceed" is being interpreted as "no more than". This flies in the face of the very definition of "exceed" AND the original intent as written in Federalist #56, wherein; "Allowing to this case the weight which is due to it, and comparing it with the House of Representatives as above explained, it seems to give the fullest assurance that A REPRESENTATIVE FOR EVERY THIRTY THOUSAND INHABITANTS will render the latter both a safe and competent guardian of the interests which will be confided to it."
In addition, it must be taken into consideration, that which the Founding Fathers were protecting against, in drafting this restriction. It was intended that this ratio of 1/30,000 be adhered to "as near as is practicable". It was also intended that this rational number, 1/30,000 should not vary UP OR DOWN! Why? If you extrapolate to the extreme in EITHER DIRECTION you will see why.
Here's a graph that will illustrate this comparison;
1/infinity <----------------------------- 1/30,000 ------------------------------->1/1
(Pure Dictatorship) (Representative Republic) (Democracy)
If one exceeds that number in one direction one gets a ratio of 1/1. This translates as one Representative in the House for every inhabitant, that being HIM or HERSELF! This a COMPLETELY UNDESIRABLE form of government. This is a PURE DEMOCRACY. This was obviously not the intent of the founding, as we are guaranteed "a Republican form of Government." in Article IV, Section 4, of the U.S. Constitution.
If one exceeds the ratio of 1/30,000 in the other direction, one gets 1/infinity. This translates to one Representative for EVERYONE. This is a PURE DICTATORSHIP, as can be seen in countries like North Korea, where one guy, (Kim Jong-Un), speaks for the entire country. This is also a COMPLETELY UNDESIRABLE form of government. This too, was and is to be avoided at all cost.
So, since they were not only trying to create a Republic, but also trying to avoid a pure Democracy AND/OR a pure Dictatorship, it was decided that A FIXED RATIO (1/30,000), would be set in stone in Article I, Section 2, Clause 3. That ratio was set at "a Representative for every thirty thousand inhabitants", as explained in Federalist #56.
Therefore, it is now obvious to any reasonable individual, that "shall not exceed" is to be STRICTLY INTERPRETED as "SHALL NOT MOVE IN EITHER DIRECTION". There is no ambiguity in this requirement.
If you claim to be in compliance with your Oath of Office, it is now required of you to follow the restrictions of Article I, Section 2, Clause 3. This means that with a population of ________________ people, the State of ________________ would now qualify for _______ seats in the House of Representatives. With the official data indicating apportionment of only ______ seats, there would now be a deficit of ______ vacant seats in the ________________ Congressional House.
Therefore, the State legislature is immediately required to "issue Writs of Election to fill such Vacancies." Your response IS REQUIRED. Compliance with these requirements is not optional or subject to the unconstitutional Reapportionment Act of 1929. The requirement to fill these vacancies is subject only to Article I, Section 2, Clause 3 and Article I, Section 2, Clause 4, of the Constitution for the united States of America.
Sincerely, Your Constituent,
_________________________________
Comments
I find the First paragraph extremely confusing. My conception of "The number of Representatives SHALL NOT EXCEED one for every thirty Thousand,." is that we WILL NOT have more than ONE Representative for every thirty thousand People. The constitution makes no mention of this population as to age race or gender. So thirty thousand countec censes. I am not seeing that in thie first paragraph of this letter. I made a change in the letter I intend to send. ;
I consider this to be your first and final notice. Our new congressional district maps are going to be published soon. These maps MUST reflect the requirements set forth in Article I, Section 2, Clause 3, wherein; "The number of Representatives SHALL NOT EXCEED one for every thirty Thousand,.." 1(/30,000). Shall Not exceed! That means there can be fewer than Thirty thousand per Representative, but it DOES NOT mean that 435 is sufficient. There should be no more than thirty thousand people for every ONE representative. Not the other way around.
The problem is that "exceed" is being interpreted as "no more than" when considering the number of Represntatives. This flies in the face of the original intent as argued Federalist #56, wherein; "Allowing to this case the weight which is due to it, and comparing it with the House of Representatives as above explained, it seems to give the fullest assurance that A REPRESENTATIVE FOR EVERY THIRTY THOUSAND INHABITANTS or more, will render the latter both a safe and competent guardian of the interests which will be confided to it."
Can any one tell me if there is something wrong with my thinking?
Sure David,
Whatever you think is good and to the point, but I would say that a form letter is more effective. When compared one to another, it reflects an organized effort. That's the reason for my format. Also I find it quite clear and not at all ambiguous or confusing in any way. I have explained it many times before and I always include a complete explanation of how and why "exceed" DOES NOT MEAN "no more than". It's been made clear in the body of the letter. I don't understand your confusion. If you need clarity, look up the definition of "exceed". Only ONE of the definitions of the word is "no more than". The other is "to go outside the boundaries of a limit".
The first paragraph is not meant to be taken alone as a full explanation of the word exceed, but that definition and the original intent of the Founders is fully explored in the letter as a whole. I think it's real good as is. I wouldn't change a thing.
Thannk you. While I see no arguent for your explanation, So far, since I see no other North Carolinians suggesting they will be sending a letter, I see this as only comeing from me! I intend to hand deleiver it directly to my represntatives local office and to notify that office that it is also being snail maied,l as well to his washinton office. I also know that people no longer read word for word what is written and often only read "The Headlines" I which to keep his focus with out any confusion. With your permision, here is my current draft;
Shall Not Exceed Notice
Dear District eleven, State Representative; David Madison Cawthorn,
I consider this to be your first and final notice. Our new congressional district maps are going to be published soon. These maps MUST reflect the requirements set forth in Article I, Section 2, Clause 3, wherein; "The number of Representatives SHALL NOT EXCEED one for every thirty Thousand,.." 1(/30,000). Shall Not exceed! That means there can be fewer than Thirty thousand per Representative, but it DOES NOT mean that 435 is sufficient. There should be no more than thirty thousand people for every ONE reprentative. Not the other way around.
The problem is that "exceed" is being interpreted as "no more than" when considering the number of Represntatives. This flies in the face of the original intent as argued Federalist #56, wherein; "Allowing to this case the weight which is due to it, and comparing it with the House of Representatives as above explained, it seems to give the fullest assurance that A REPRESENTATIVE FOR EVERY THIRTY THOUSAND INHABITANTS or more, will render the latter both a safe and competent guardian of the interests which will be confided to it."
In addition, it must be taken into consideration, that which the Founding Fathers were protecting against, in drafting this restriction. It was intended that this ratio of 1/30,000 be adhered to "as near as is practicable". It was also intended that this rational number, 1/30,000 should not vary UP OR DOWN! Why? If you extrapolate to the extreme in EITHER DIRECTION you will see why.
Here's a graph that will illustrate this comparison;
(Pure Dictatorship) - 1/infinity or even 1/one million (Pure Dictatorship by district)
<(Representative Republic)------- 1/30,000 - (Representative Republic)------->
1/1 - (Pure Democracy) This equals a lynch mob.
If one exceeds that number in one direction one gets a ratio of 1/1. This translates as one Representative in the House for every inhabitant, that being HIM or HERSELF! This a COMPLETELY UNDESIRABLE form of government. This is a PURE DEMOCRACY. This was obviously not the intent of the founding, as we are guaranteed "a Republican form of Government." in Article IV, Section 4, of the U.S. Constitution.
If one exceeds the ratio of 1/30,000 in the other direction, one gets 1/infinity. This translates to one Representative for EVERYONE. This is a PURE DICTATORSHIP, as can be seen in countries like North Korea, where one guy, (Kim Jong-Un), speaks and makes all decisions, for the entire country. This is also a COMPLETELY UNDESIRABLE form of government. This too, was and is to be avoided at all cost.
So, since they were not only trying to create a Republic, but also trying to avoid a pure Democracy AND/OR a pure Dictatorship, it was decided that A FIXED RATIO would be set in stone in Article I, Section 2, Clause 3. That ratio was set at one "Representative for every thirty thousand inhabitants", as defined in Federalist #56.
Therefore, it is now obvious to anyone with half a brain that "shall not exceed" is to be STRICTLY INTERPRETED as "SHALL NOT MOVE IN EITHER DIRECTION".
If you claim to be in compliance with your Oath of Office, it is now required of you to follow the restrictions of Article I, Section 2, Clause 3. This means that with a population approching 330 million people, there would now be approximately __9,438 – 435=9003__ vacant seats in the __US ___ Congressional House. Therefore, the State of North Carolina Which currently has thirteen congressmen for approximately ten million five hundred thousand people, is immediately required to "issue Writs of Election to fill such Vacancies." (10, 500 / 30 = 350 which comes to 337 vacant seats or missing representatives. )
Your response IS REQUIRED. This letter should be treated as an official notice to you to perform under your Oath of Office. If you do not pursue this object, you will be determined to be in violation of your Oath. This will be your only chance to comply with your Oath and the Law. Lawsuits and criminal charges will be filed against all who violate the Law. As they say, "Ignorance of the Law is no excuse."
Sincerely, Your Constituent,
David Shipp
Hendesonville, NC 28739
That's not bad David, but I would say only one thing. This is a States' issue, The blanks were meant to be filled in with State numbers, because each state is separate from another, only inhabitants of each respective state have standing to challenge those numbers and those are the only numbers that your State Rep is in charge of regulating. It is superfluous to include the national numbers in a State based letter. But I like your energy.
I found some tyiping errors and I will reconsider your statements and of course I will also include my phone number and complete address. Having just given some thought to your statements, Instead of removing the national numbers, I think I will pooint out that he is only responsible to the State of North Carolina to see that our sstate has proper represntation. I will have to think about how I will write that since he is just one of thirteen in our state. Thank you for posting this, it is an imprtant issue.
I will be editing this again and in the mean time, I changed the first line to " I assume you are aware of and have been informed of this in the past, but if not....." I will also be addressing a Patriot group , in person, of about forty people where I am allowed fifteen minute to present my topic. Then questions and answers. I will offer your original form letter by emai, as well as my own in print, so people may also write This should end up going to two districts in NC, becaus of the patriot group. Patric Henry and Madison Cawthorn, both supposedly republicans. I am also considering some thing to this effect.
This is a States issue. You are responsible for representing district eleven of North Carolina, as defined by the constitution. Each State is sovereign, as defined by the constitution. Therefore, this matter needs attention before district lines are drawn.
PS:
Also, please find a complimentary, complete copy of the Constitution with this letter.
In doing some research, I see that , according to Wikipedia, The Reapportionment Act of 1929 (ch. 28, 46 Stat. 21, 2 U.S.C. § 2a), also known as the Permanent Apportionment Act of 1929, is where the Constitution was ignored. The more I read, the less I understand how any of this can be constitutional.
this site seems to think the law to create a fixed number at 435 is an amandemnt. It is not. I see it as an unconstitutional law, as article six indicates that anything in direct conflict with the constitution is null and void. https://thirty-thousand.org/pages/ToC.htm
I have edited again to be less confrontational. I have no way to enforce the 'threats'. I heard back from thrty -thoujsand and they will be updating/ revising their site in the near future.