Super large House

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Madison got Congress to pass 12 amendments in 1789.
http://freebowen.bravepages.com/12billofrights.html

They were proposed Sept 25, 1789. Ten of them became the bill of rights on Dec 15, 1791. The ratification for one of them was a bit slow, it was finally ratified on May 7, 1992.  One of them was never ratified by the required 3/4ths majority of the states.

It would have been the first amendment if it was passed in a timely manner:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Lets assume this passed, and wasn't amended. It would require 1 representative for every 50,000 citizens. Let's assume Congress does that.

From the 2000 census we have the following number of reps.

http://www.govspot.com/lists/populousstates.htm

CA - 678
TX - 418
NY - 380
FL - 320
IL - 249
PA - 246
OH - 228
MI - 198
NJ - 169
GA - 164
NC - 161
VA - 142
MA - 127
IN - 122
WA - 118
TN - 114
MO - 112
WI  - 108
MD - 106
AZ - 103
MN - 99
LA - 90
AL - 89
CO - 87
KY - 81
SC - 81
OK - 70
OR - 69
CT - 69
IA - 59
MS - 57
KS - 54
AR - 54
UT - 45
NV - 40
NM - 37
WV - 37
NE - 35
ID - 26
ME - 26
NH - 25
HI - 25
RI - 21
MT - 19
DE - 16
SD - 16
ND - 13
AK - 13
VT - 13
WY - 10

This would make the 2 bonus electors per state be much more irrelevant. Clearly Gore would have officially won in 2000 with the states he won.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

BTW, Phillip actually supports this.

[A18]

No, that's incorrect. Those qualifications have already been met.

All it would do is require that there be no less than 200 reps, and not more than several thousand.

[Gabu]

As far as I can tell, it only says that you can't have more representatives than one per 50,000 people, not that you have to have that many.

[A18]

As far as I can tell, it only says that you can't have more representatives than one per 50,000 people, not that you have to have that many.

You're correct. I thought he was going by the "there shall be one Representative for every thirty thousand," but that's for a time that has passed.

The requirement is no less than 200, and no more than one for every 50,000 people.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

OK, my bad this would be irrelevant.  It wouldn't have made a difference since the 1912. It's possible that under the 1900 census, Nevada would not be entitled to a represenative since it had only 42,335 people.

http://txsdc.utsa.edu/txdata/apport/hist_a.php

[Jake]

2000 Results with 2000 Census Figures (Not quite accurate since it'd use the 1990 Results, but )

2776 - Bush

2905 - Gore

5681 - Total EV

2004 Results

2848 - Bush

2833 - Kerry

5681 - Total EV

[A18]

OK, my bad this would be irrelevant.  It wouldn't have made a difference since the 1912. It's possible that under the 1900 census, Nevada would not be entitled to a represenative since it had only 42,335 people.

http://txsdc.utsa.edu/txdata/apport/hist_a.php

It's referring to the general rule on people per rep. It doesn't prevent a state from having its own representative regardless, as specified in the Constitution.

[King]

CA - 678

Cool, my neighborhood would have our own representative in Congress.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

CA - 678

Cool, my neighborhood would have our own representative in Congress.

So would some city block in Manhattan.

[All aboard the Carney-val]

I think there shoud be 750 Reps and 240 Senators. The current system is useless.

[Jake]

How exactly would arbitrarily adding 300 Congressman and 140 Senators improve things?

[MaC]

yeah, if anything it would mean bigger government, and that many more payrolls.

[All aboard the Carney-val]

yeah, if anything it would mean bigger government, and that many more payrolls.

Well with the current system the constituency costs per rep gets driven up so adding more reps would decrease constituency costs.

[Hatman 🍁]

The more seats there are, the more democratic the government.

[minionofmidas]

OK, my bad this would be irrelevant.  It wouldn't have made a difference since the 1912. It's possible that under the 1900 census, Nevada would not be entitled to a represenative since it had only 42,335 people.

http://txsdc.utsa.edu/txdata/apport/hist_a.php

Nevada was ineligible to be a state for a while...that also requires 50,000 people.

Of course Philip's point is valid. The "every state gets a member regardless" rule in the original constitution is not explicitly repealed by this amendment. Just as the "electors have to cast their two votes for two different people" rule is not explicitly repealed by the XIIth amendment, so the counting of the Electoral Votes in 2004 was done in an unconstitutional manner.

[jimrtex]

Madison got Congress to pass 12 amendments in 1789.
http://freebowen.bravepages.com/12billofrights.html

They were proposed Sept 25, 1789. Ten of them became the bill of rights on Dec 15, 1791. The ratification for one of them was a bit slow, it was finally ratified on May 7, 1992.  One of them was never ratified by the required 3/4ths majority of the states.

It would have been the first amendment if it was passed in a timely manner:

Madison originally proposed his amendments as inline text edits, rather than as stand alone appendages.  The apportionment amendment was first, simply because the text it would modify was in Article I, Section 2, and the compensation amendment was next (I'd guess in Article I, Section 6).   Madison recognized the rest of the proposed amendments as forming a Bill of Rights, and would have added them in Article I, Section 9.   So it is not correct to say that there were originally 12 amendments in the Bill of Rights.

Congress during its consideration modified the form to what we are now familiar with of stand-alone articles.  Congress submitted the 12 proposed articles of amendments to the states for possible ratification, who could ratify any or all of them.  Some states simply ratified them all.  Others specifically ratified by number (eg. 3, 4, 5, ....).  Others made exceptions to not ratify the 1st or 2nd.   During this initial period, the 1st was actually closer to ratification than the 2nd.   Not all of the states ratified the Bill of Rights (among them Massachusetts - during their convention to ratify the Constitution they were for them, but then they were against them).   If more states had ratified the Bill of Rights it might have carried the other 2 articles with them.

During the 1939 sesquicentennial of the Bill of Rights, this non-ratification was discovered, and several states belatedly ratified the Bill of Rights.  This also led to a rediscovery of the pending 1st and 2nd articles of amendment.   This was pointed out to enough legislatures, who eventually ratified it as the 27th Amendment.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[/quote]

Madison proposed different details.  Congress changed these.  I think Madison's form would have produced a very large congress.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

During the 1939 sesquicentennial of the Bill of Rights, this non-ratification was discovered, and several states belatedly ratified the Bill of Rights.  This also led to a rediscovery of the pending 1st and 2nd articles of amendment.   This was pointed out to enough legislatures, who eventually ratified it as the 27th Amendment.

I think you're confused, the bill of rights got ratified by 11 out of 14 states as of Dec 15th, 1791. The remaining of those 14 states, MA, GA, and CT ratified them in 1939.
http://www.usconstitution.net/constamrat.html#Bor

The 27th amendemnt was ratified with the other bills of rights in 1789-1791 by MD, SC, NC, DE, VT, VA. Having only 6 out of 14 it lay dormant for 187 years except for Ohio's 1873 ratification. Finally WY passed it in 1978, followed by ME in 1983, CO in 1984, and then a whole bunch of states from 1985-1992. NJ and MI made it law by being the 37th and 38th states on May 7th, 1992. IL and CA shortly thereafter ratified it.  Nothing of note from around 1939.
http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html#Am27

[minionofmidas]

Yeah, IIRC it had an automatic progression:
30,000 per seat til one hundred
40,000 per seat til two hundred
50,000 per seat til three hundred
60,000 per seat til four hundred
And so on at infinitum
On those figures, congress would now have about 1600 Representatives.

Jfern, you fleshed out the details on Jim, but didn't contradict him.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Well, there was a 39 year delay before anyone ratified the 27th amendment.

Anyways, the House of Representatives amendment is one of 6 amendments that was passed by Congress but not ratified, and one of 4 that hasn't expired.

Here's the list

- The original first amendment - the House of Reps law - 1789
- Ban citizenship for nobels - 1810 (they actually thought it was the 13th amendment until someone realized it was one state short)
- Corwin amendment to allow slavery - 1861
- Child labor amendment - 1924
- ERA 1972 - expired 1982
- DC voting rights - 1978 - expired 1985

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_unsuccessful_attempts_to_amend_the_U.S._Constitution

[All aboard the Carney-val]

Okay. How are we going to fit 1,600 people in such a small room? Do we build something like the Galactic Senate Chamber in Star Wars, as Richius suggested?

[DanielX]

Madison got Congress to pass 12 amendments in 1789.
http://freebowen.bravepages.com/12billofrights.html

They were proposed Sept 25, 1789. Ten of them became the bill of rights on Dec 15, 1791. The ratification for one of them was a bit slow, it was finally ratified on May 7, 1992.  One of them was never ratified by the required 3/4ths majority of the states.

It would have been the first amendment if it was passed in a timely manner:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Lets assume this passed, and wasn't amended. It would require 1 representative for every 50,000 citizens. Let's assume Congress does that.

From the 2000 census we have the following number of reps.

http://www.govspot.com/lists/populousstates.htm

CA - 678
TX - 418
NY - 380
FL - 320
IL - 249
PA - 246
OH - 228
MI - 198
NJ - 169
GA - 164
NC - 161
VA - 142
MA - 127
IN - 122
WA - 118
TN - 114
MO - 112
WI  - 108
MD - 106
AZ - 103
MN - 99
LA - 90
AL - 89
CO - 87
KY - 81
SC - 81
OK - 70
OR - 69
CT - 69
IA - 59
MS - 57
KS - 54
AR - 54
UT - 45
NV - 40
NM - 37
WV - 37
NE - 35
ID - 26
ME - 26
NH - 25
HI - 25
RI - 21
MT - 19
DE - 16
SD - 16
ND - 13
AK - 13
VT - 13
WY - 10

This would make the 2 bonus electors per state be much more irrelevant. Clearly Gore would have officially won in 2000 with the states he won.

But... what if each congressional district had its own electoral vote? Things would be different then... not to mention weird.

[A18]

OK, my bad this would be irrelevant.  It wouldn't have made a difference since the 1912. It's possible that under the 1900 census, Nevada would not be entitled to a represenative since it had only 42,335 people.

http://txsdc.utsa.edu/txdata/apport/hist_a.php

Nevada was ineligible to be a state for a while...that also requires 50,000 people.

Of course Philip's point is valid. The "every state gets a member regardless" rule in the original constitution is not explicitly repealed by this amendment. Just as the "electors have to cast their two votes for two different people" rule is not explicitly repealed by the XIIth amendment, so the counting of the Electoral Votes in 2004 was done in an unconstitutional manner.

It's clear that the "every state gets a member regardless" was not intended to be repealed, whereas the "electors have to cast their two votes for two different people" rule was clearly replaced.

[minionofmidas]

No. It was not replaced. Where in the XIIth Amendment does it say that?
Also, note that in 1872, when the Dem Electoral vote widely splintered because the Dem candidate died before between the General and the Electoral vote, Electors either voted his running mate either for president or for vice president, but not both.
It is illegal to vote for only one candidate. The electoral count should be:
Bush 286 - Kerry 251 - invalid 1
Cheney 286 - Edwards 251 - invalid 1, rather than the officially certified
Bush 286 - Kerry 251 - Edwards 1
Cheney 286 - Edwards 252.

[A18]

The Electors shall meet in their respective states, and vote by ballot for President and Vice-President, one of whom, at least, shall not be an inhabitant of the same state with themselves; they shall name in their ballots the person voted for as President, and in distinct ballots the person voted for as Vice-President, and they shall make distinct lists of all persons voted for as President, and of all persons voted for as Vice-President, and of the number of votes for each, which lists they shall sign and certify, and transmit sealed to the seat of the government of the United States, directed to the President of the Senate;

You vote for two candidates, one for president, one for vice president.