The Originally Proposed First Amendment

Constitution Title

On October 2, 1789, President George Washington, at the request of the First Congress, sent the 12 amendments approved by the First Congress on September 25, 1789 to the executives of the 13 existing States. The President requested that the State Executives submit these 12 amendment proposals for adoption or rejection to their respective state legislatures. Ratification of the originally proposed First Amendment.

This Congressional request included sending the amendment proposals to Rhode Island and North Carolina even though they had not yet ratified the Constitution, Vermont was not yet a state but was allowed to participate in the amendment ratification process.

Georgia and Massachusetts refused to ratify any of the proposed amendments vote on the proposed amendments and Delaware rejected the originally proposed First Amendment, because they felt the Bill of Rights was unnecessary. Connecticut ratified the proposed First Amendment, but did not notify Thomas Jefferson who was the Secretary of State that they had done so. Pennsylvania initially voted against ratification but reconsidered their position and voted to ratify the amendment ratified the amendment on September 21, 1791

Vermont became the 10th state to ratify the proposed amendment on November 3, 1792 when Vermont became the 10th of 14 states to ratify the amendment. Once Vermont ratified the ratifications of Connecticut, Georgia, Massachusett and Delaware became unnecessary.

On March 1, 1792, Secretary of State Thomas Jefferson announced that 10 amendments had been ratified by 10 of the 13 state legislatures. Jefferson did not count the ratification of Vermont in his tally. If he had the number of states voting for ratification would have been 11 of 14. In either case the proposed amendment would have been lawfully ratified.

George Washington vetoed the Congressional Apportionment Act of 1792 because the act would have rounded up the fractional number of representatives to the larger whole number which would have cause eight of the states to have more than one representative for every 30,000, This act would have violated the Constitution. Thomas Jefferson believed that reducing fractions to the lower number was the proper method for determining the number of states needed for the ratification of an amendment,

New Jersey: November 20, 1789
Maryland: December 19, 1789
North Carolina: December 22, 1789
South Carolina: January 19, 1790
New Hampshire: January 25, 1790
New York: February 24, 1790
Rhode Island: June 7, 1790
Pennsylvania: September 21, 1791 (after rejecting it on March 10, 1790)
Virginia: November 3, 1791
Vermont: November 3, 1791^[19]

Thirty Thousand.org Website

Apportionment.us

Why does America need more representatives and smaller congressional districts?
It will produce smaller government and more individual freedom.

Previous attempts at reforming the United States Congress have aimed at symptoms and not their root cause – enormous district sizes and the related difficulty of faithfully representing the American people with a limited number of representatives.

The advantages of a larger U.S. House of Representatives are:

INCREASED accountability – as district sizes become smaller, each voter’s influence on their representative increases.

DECREASED government spending – this seems counter-intuitive, but the data strongly support significant reductions in aggregate spending as the House grows in membership (see the Chen/Malhotra paper from the November 2007 issue of the American Political Science Review).

INCREASED competition – the principles of free markets tell us that when competition is present, we get increased quality at a lower cost. With more House seats, races will be more competitive. The best illustrative example is comparing small New Hampshire (400 state house members with a high turnover rate of over 30%), to California, with its embarrassing lack of competition (state house of only 80 members with NO turnover - a 100% incumbent success rate for the past 4 election cycles).

INCREASED voter turnout – data support that the smaller the district sizes, the greater percentage of voters turn out for the election (see the Quidam Voter Turnout paper from October 2009).

DECREASED cost of running for office – the average winning campaign for a U.S. House seat in 2008 was approximately $1.5 million. This enormous financial barrier to entry prevents ‘average’ citizens from entering national politics, and gives incumbents a great advantage. If the average district size were reduced, more everyday Americans could run for public office.

DECREASED scope of individual representatives – the problem with the current model is that power is too concentrated, making individual representatives much too influential in the legislative process. Diminishing their individual scope and influence should reduce the need for continual media appearances and campaigning, and re-focus their efforts on serving constituents as citizen-legislators.

INCREASED freedom – a strong relationship exists between district size and freedom. At the state level, the smaller the average district size, the higher that state scores on various freedom indices (see the Quidam Freedom Indices article from October 2009).

DECREASED propensity for gerrymandering – With a lot more districts, the concept of creating an oddball-shaped gerrymandered district makes much less sense and yields less value as compared to today’s model.

INCREASED cost of lobbying – it’s much cheaper and easier to lobby 435 people than a significantly larger number. More representatives may equate to less influence of lobbyists and more protection for the American people.

The main reason the government of the united States has failed is because the people are no longer adequately represented in Congress, This is due to how Congress has interpreted Article 1 Section 2 Clause 3, It reads as follows:

Article 1, Section 2, Clause 3

Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons. The actual Enumeration shall be made within three Years after the first Meeting of the Congress of the United States, and within every subsequent Term of ten Years, in such Manner as they shall by Law direct. The Number of Representatives shall not exceed one for every thirty Thousand, but each State shall have at Least one Representative; 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.

The minimum number seats in the House is 50 and that the maximum number of seats in the House is one representative for every thirty thousand, Currently that Congress could nave no more than one representative for every thirty thousand people living in a particular state. If the population was 300 million Congress can not lawfully have more than 10,000 representatives

Article 1 Section 2 Clause 3 does not require that each state have one representative for every 30,000.. According to the wording, Congress must provide each state with one representative and prevent any state from having more than one representative for every thirty thousand people.

Congress apparently believes that they can create a House with at least one representative per state and no more than one representative for every thirty thousand people. With the Apportionment Act of 1929 Congress permanently froze the number of representatives at 435.

This completely violates the intent of the founding fathers. According to Congress they have limit the size of the House of Representatives to any number they wish as long as the number is equal to or greater than one per states and that there shall be no more than one representative for every thirty thousand,

By limiting the number of representatives of the people Congress has consolidated all of the political power into the hands of the few so they can control and exploit the many.

Replies

Online Professor February 12, 2019 4:38
Why does America need more representatives and smaller congressional districts?
It will produce smaller government and more individual freedom.

Previous attempts at reforming the United States Congress have aimed at symptoms and not their root cause – enormous district sizes and the related difficulty of faithfully representing the American people with a limited number of representatives.

The advantages of a larger U.S. House of Representatives are:
1. INCREASED accountability – as district sizes become smaller, each voter’s influence on their representative increases.
2. DECREASED government spending – this seems counter-intuitive, but the data strongly support significant reductions in aggregate spending as the House grows in membership (see the Chen/Malhotra paper from the November 2007 issue of the American Political Science Review).
3. INCREASED competition – the principles of free markets tell us that when competition is present, we get increased quality at a lower cost. With more House seats, races will be more competitive. The best illustrative example is comparing small New Hampshire (400 state house members with a high turnover rate of over 30%), to California, with its embarrassing lack of competition (state house of only 80 members with NO turnover - a 100% incumbent success rate for the past 4 election cycles).
4. INCREASED voter turnout – data support that the smaller the district sizes, the greater percentage of voters turn out for the election (see the Quidam Voter Turnout paper from October 2009).
5. DECREASED cost of running for office – the average winning campaign for a U.S. House seat in 2008 was approximately $1.5 million. This enormous financial barrier to entry prevents ‘average’ citizens from entering national politics, and gives incumbents a great advantage. If the average district size were reduced, more everyday Americans could run for public office.
6. DECREASED scope of individual representatives – the problem with the current model is that power is too concentrated, making individual representatives much too influential in the legislative process. Diminishing their individual scope and influence should reduce the need for continual media appearances and campaigning, and re-focus their efforts on serving constituents as citizen-legislators.
7. INCREASED freedom – a strong relationship exists between district size and freedom. At the state level, the smaller the average district size, the higher that state scores on various freedom indices (see the Quidam Freedom Indices article from October 2009).
8. DECREASED propensity for gerrymandering – With a lot more districts, the concept of creating an oddball-shaped gerrymandered district makes much less sense and yields less value as compared to today’s model.
9. INCREASED cost of lobbying – it’s much cheaper and easier to lobby 435 people than a significantly larger number. More representatives may equate to less influence of lobbyists and more protection for the American people.
http://apportionment.us/Chen-Malhotra.pdf
Online Professor February 12, 2019 4:41

Videos

#1 - Introduction to Apportionment.US
#2 - Summary of the Apportionment Lawsuit (Part 1)
#3 - Summary of the Apportionment Lawsuit (Part 2)
#4 - Constitutional Representation
#5 - Constitutional Equality
#6 - How Unequal is the U.S. House?
#7 - The Senate and Equality
#8 - The Government's Position in the Lawsuit (Part 1)
#9 - The Government's Position in the Lawsuit (Part 2)
#10 - The Government's Position in the Lawsuit (Part 3)
#11 - Constitutional Mandate of "Equal as is Practicable"
#12 - The Real Size of the U.S. House (hint: it's NOT 435)
#13 - The Original 1st Amendment
#14 - The Impact of Party Loyalty and Special Interests
#15 - Advantages of a Larger House (Part 1)
#16 - Advantages of a Larger House (Part 2)
#17 - Common Objections to Enlarging the House (Part 1)
#18 - Common Objections to Enlarging the House (Part 2)
#19 - How You Can Help!
Online Professor February 12, 2019 4:51

The main reason the government of the united States has failed is because the people are no longer adequately represented in Congress, This is due to how Congress has interpreted Article 1 Section 2 Clause 3, It reads as follows:

Article 1, Section 2, Clause 3

Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons. The actual Enumeration shall be made within three Years after the first Meeting of the Congress of the United States, and within every subsequent Term of ten Years, in such Manner as they shall by Law direct. The Number of Representatives shall not exceed one for every thirty Thousand, but each State shall have at Least one Representative; 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.

The minimum number seats in the House is 50 and that the maximum number of seats in the House is one representative for every thirty thousand, Currently that Congress could nave no more than one representative for every thirty thousand people living in a particular state. If the population was 300 million Congress can not lawfully have more than 10,000 representatives

Article 1 Section 2 Clause 3 does not require that each state have one representative for every 30,000.. According to the wording, Congress must provide each state with one representative and prevent any state from having more than one representative for every thirty thousand people.

Congress apparently believes that they can create a House with at least one representative per state and no more than one representative for every thirty thousand people. With the Apportionment Act of 1929 Congress permanently froze the number of representatives at 435.

This completely violates the intent of the founding fathers. According to Congress they have limit the size of the House of Representatives to any number they wish as long as the number is equal to or greater than one per states and that there shall be no more than one representative for every thirty thousand,

By limiting the number of representatives of the people Congress has consolidated all of the political power into the hands of the few so they can control and exploit the many.

This reply was deleted.

Forum 2.0