The Definition of Exceed
Article I, Section 2, Clause 3, has often been interpreted incorrectly. This is because of the controversial wording. I hope this explanation will clear up any confusion as to the exact meaning and intent of the Article. TO whit:
"The number of Representatives shall not exceed one for every thirty Thousand,.."
This statement has been interpreted as follows:
"The number of Representatives shall not 'exceed', (be greater than) One for every thirty Thousand,.." (Constituents).
This interpretation insinuates two things:
- That the number of Representatives is limited to "NO MORE THAN" one Representative for every thirty thousand Constituents and:
- That it is perfectly ok for the number of Representatives to be "LESS THAN" one for every thirty thousand Constituents with absolutely no lower limit.
Let's examine this. If you allow this to be true, then by this definition of the second condition, it's perfectly fine for the number of Representatives to be "One for every 3.5 million or even more", and by definition, the whole country to have a single Representative, or in other words, "A Complete Dictatorship" with one person making ALL of the decisions for everyone, no matter how many Constituents are in the country. This fits both of the conditions of the "NO MORE THAN" but not "LESS THAN" interpretation of the word "exceed".
However, It's been suggested that the wording is simply backwards and that this is the only problem with the Article. So by this philosophy, if we simply reverse the wording, everything would be fine and the Article would be perfect. I beg to differ. Because if you continue to define the word "exceed" as meaning "NO MORE THAN", then you're gong to have the same problems. Let's take a look at this and see if we can understand the problem with this. Let's invert the Article as follows:
"The number of Constituents shall not exceed thirty Thousand for every one,.." (Representative).
And if we apply the same kind of definition of the word "exceed" to mean "NO MORE THAN", then this statement is open to the same two conditions as the inverse statement as follows:
- That the number of Constituents shall be "NO MORE THAN" thirty thousand for every one Represenatative and:
- That it is perfectly fine for the number of Constituents to be "LESS THAN" thirty thousand for every one Represenatative with absolutely no lower limit.
If we follow this to its logical conclusion, then by the definition of the second condition, it's perfectly fine for the number of Constituents to be "One for every One"; or by definition "A Complete Democracy" with every single person in the country voting on every law.
This explanation is the best way I can think of to explain why the definition of the word "exceed" ABSOLUTELY CANNOT be interpreted to mean "NO MORE THAN" as it is suggested. So, it's clear that inverting the words does not fix the problem.
The true problem exists in trying redefine the word "exceed" to mean only "NO MORE THAN". This has hereby been refuted and shown as incorrect. If you simply look up the word, you will see that Noah Webster defined this word to mean; "to go outside the limits of a defined boundary". It is NOT defined as being only "NO MORE THAN" but in truth is actually and properly defined as meaning "NO MORE THAN OR NO LESS THAN". It's true definition creates a limitation in BOTH directions. NOT JUST ONE!
All one need do to understand the true intent and meaning of Article I, Section 2, Clause3, is to read from Federalist Papers # 56, and I qoute,
"Allowing to this case the whole weight which is due to it, and comparing it with that of 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, (The House of Representatives), both a safe and competent guardian of the interests which will be confided to it."
So there you have the most realistic and accurate explanation of the true meaning and intent of Article I, Section 2, Clause 3 and the true definition of the word "exceed" as it is used in this Article.
Anyone want to chime in?
Opinions? Comments? ANYONE?
Replies
Welcome Brothers & Sisters,
It would seem to me, that words like EXCEED, like soooo many others words in our wonderful CONSTITUTION, are actually meant to confuse and complicate things in the language used to describe the freedoms provided for us. Bottom Line- "Keep em confused at all costs."
I agree Jim. It's high time we didi something about it.
No matter how it is defined, it should not be ignored or redefined by a 435 law, as it has been!
Actually the Reapprotionment Act of 1921 set the number at 435 and the Reapprotionment Act of 1929 solidified the mathmatical model for figuring out who gets what. These are not laws but instead are simple Acts of Congress which are very much unconstitutional and completely reversible by Congress today.
Definition from Senate.gov/ When a bill is passed in identical form by both the Senate and the House, it is sent to the president for his signature. If the president signs the bill, it becomes a law. Laws are also known as Acts of Congress. Statute is another word that is used interchangeably with law. My understanding is it is an ACT of congress until it is ssigned by the President and then it becomes a law. So are you suggesting that the reapportionment Act was never signed into law? In that case it becomes a law after a certain number of days that the President does nothing.
I was just referring to the point that as man made laws, they don't actually comport with what we would refer to as "Laws" per se. Statutes which are unconstitutional should not be considered "law".
your point is basically made in the court case Marbury vs Madison.
I have given this problem extensive thought and discussed it with many people. The Feralist Papers written by the attendees of the Philedelphia convention make it clear what the intent was. However, I do not see any hope for correcting this terrible mistake. Therefore I propose a different solution.
Almost every state has numerous STATE House and STATE Senate districts. I have not worked out every detail so far, but my propose is to make those STATE representatives sub FEDERAL Representatives reporting back to the Federal Representative. If in each state these representatives were to be assistants (to be named somethinng less demeaning than assistant) to the Federal Representative, we would essentially have much better representation and it would at this time be approaching fifty thousand for each assistant. NC has fifty State Senators and 120 House members. NC has a population of 11 million roughly which at this time would mean roughly 90 thousand inhabitants per represntative if we only counted the state house. 65 thousand if we were to consider all 170 state legislators. I see no reason why these legislators could not preform the duties thay have now plus act as federal represenatives at the same time. Many of the ideas found at the following web page could be made law at the same time. For instance , no DC office. Only an office in that federal district. All the sub-Representatives would report to that office. More on this topic at thirtythousand.org.
You are on the right track David and Keith and I have discussed that very subject. While pondering the vageries we came to the conclusion that the state house should replace the existing reduntant Federal house members and have equal sized districts as well. So we have already thought about this extensively in our attempt at viable solutions. I commend you for thinking of it on your own and I very much like the idea of replacing the federal system with an equally distributed State based system as a replacement.