By The Numbers!
By 2050, the U.S. population is projected to reach about 435 million.
Question:
Is "...one Representative for every thirty Thousand inhabitants", (Federalist Papers #55 and #56), the same as ONE FOR EVERY MILLION?
Here's what those numbers look like;
1/30,000 = One thirty thousandth
1/1,000,000 = One millionth
Do those numbers look the same to you? Why create a limit that can easily be ("exceed"ed)? Why write in the fractional number 1/30,000 in the first place? And why the word "exceed"? I'll tell you why. Because they said what they said and they meant what they said. The word "Exceed" was intentionally used as a way to set up a permanent RELATIONSHIP! Not a permanent NUMBER, but a permanent FRACTION!
The true and complete definition of the word "exceed", tells the reader that this rational relationship is not allowed to go up or down, "as much as is practicable", and any tolerances are decided in favor of the citizen, not the government.
Here's what Madison had to say about numbers;
"The truth is, that in all cases a certain number at least seems to be necessary to secure the benefits of free consultation and discussion, and to guard against too easy a combination for improper purposes; as, on the other hand, the number ought at most to be kept within a certain limit, in order to avoid the confusion and intemperance of a multitude." (a pure Democracy)
"The number of which this branch of the legislature is to consist, at the outset of the government, will be sixty five. Within three years a census is to be taken, when the number may be augmented to one for every thirty thousand inhabitants; and within every successive period of ten years the census is to be renewed, and augmentations may continue to be made under the above limitation."
"At the expiration of twenty-five years, according to the computed rate of increase, the number of representatives will amount to two hundred, and of fifty years, to four hundred. This is a number which, I presume, will put an end to all fears arising from the smallness of the body. I take for granted here what I shall, in answering the fourth objection, hereafter show, that the number of representatives will be augmented from time to time in the manner provided by the Constitution."
"I must pronounce that the liberties of America cannot be unsafe in the number of hands proposed by the federal Constitution."
"These, however, will in all of them be the fruits of a more advanced population, and will require, on the part of each State, a fuller representation. The foresight of the convention has accordingly taken care that the progress of population may be accompanied with a proper increase of the representative branch of the government."
And he spoke of the House as;
"the security of the people against the government."
And finally at the end of #56 we see:
"Allowing to this case, (the number of constituents/district in England's House of Commons), the 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."
Therefore?
All Congressional House Districts MUST by law, be comprised of, as near as is practicable,
THIRTY THOUSAND INHABITANTS,
without going over!
Agree? Disagree? Comments? Questions?
Reply if you Dare!
Replies
I agree!
Remove all the government unconstitutional agencies and spending and we can easily establish this relationship as it should be. Until then, government is essentially a "private" club that enriches and empowers politicians who don't care about the people...
You kind of just identified the problem, but in reverse.
The fact is that a small House = a small voice for the people, which leads directly to the corruption you speak of, and more. The solution lies in attacking the problem that created the symptom, not the other way around.
So the solution lies not in attempting to rid ourselves of the symptom first, but to right the ship and return the people's voice to Congress first, or the symptom will simply return. We do this first by allotting the proper number of Representatives to the House and immediately overturning the 17th Amendment, then afterward we can begin to overturn all of the other things that we know are unconstitutional or just plain wrong.
This is correct and true!