Find UFOs, The Apocalypse, New World Order, Political Analysis,
Alternative Health, Armageddon, Conspiracies, Prophecies,
Spirituality, Home Schooling, Home Mortgages and more, in:
Rumor Mill News Reading Room, Current Archive
KrisAnne Hall JD: Episode 994 A Majority of 232 Overthrowing the Constitution
The Constitution assigned the original apportionment of the Representatives between the different states based on population in 1787. These numbers remained in effect for the 1st and 2nd Congresses (1789–1793). Using five different methods over time, all with the aim of dividing representation among the states proportionately, Congress based subsequent apportionments on changes in state population as recorded in each decennial census since 1790. Up to and including the 13th Census in 1910, Congress enacted a law designating the specific changes in the actual number of Representatives as well as the increase in the representation ratio. In 1941, Congress permanently adopted the “Method of Equal Proportion” to determine apportionment. The U.S. Census Bureau provides more information on this method of computing apportionment.
In order to keep the House at a manageable number, Congress twice set the size of the House at 435 voting Members—the then-existing number of Representatives. In 1911, Congress designated the number of Representatives to be 433, with provisions made for two additional Members when Arizona and New Mexico were admitted to the Union (see Act of August 8, 1911, ch. 5, 37 Stat 13). The 63rd Congress (1913–1915) was the first to have 435 Members. The Permanent Apportionment Act of 1929 capped the Membership at that level, creating a procedure for reapportioning state delegations in the House under “the then existing number of Representatives” (see Act of June 18, 1929, ch. 28, 46 Stat 21).
The total membership of the House of Representatives is 441 Members. There are 435 Representatives from the 50 states. In addition, five, non-voting Delegates represent the District of Columbia and the U.S. territories of Guam, the U.S. Virgin Islands, the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, and American Samoa. A non-voting Resident Commissioner, serving a four-year term, represents the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico.
Footnotes
1No change was made after the 14th Census (1920), as Congress could not agree on a method for apportionment.
On this date, President William H. Taft signed legislation increasing the membership of the House from 391 to 433, with provisions to add two more Members when New Mexico and Arizona became states. The legislation took effect on March 3, 1913, during the 63rd Congress (1913–1915). Debate on the bill, however, raised concerns that the House was growing to an unwieldy size. “Members are . . . supposed to reflect the opinion and to stand for the wishes of their constituents,” declared Representative Edgar Crumpacker of Indiana, who chaired the House Committee on the Census. “If we make the ratio [of persons per Representative] too large the idea of representation becomes attenuated and less definite. The personal interest of the voter in his representative becomes less important to him, and we may lose something of the vital strength of our representative form of government.” In 1920, partly because of a fear of a large House, Congress failed to apportion the House for the first time after a decennial census. In 1929, the Permanent Apportionment Act capped House membership at 435, where it has remained, save a temporary increase to 437 Members from 1959 to 1963 after Alaska and Hawaii achieved statehood.
On this date, the House passed the Permanent Apportionment Act of 1929, fixing the number of Representatives at 435. The U.S. Constitution called for at least one Representative per state and that no more than one for every 30,000 persons. Thus, the size of a state’s House delegation depended on its population. But the founders were vague as to how large future Congresses should be and what method to use to reapportion the House after each federal census. These questions vexed Congress for much of its history as U.S. territories expanded and the population grew. Usually, the House reapportioned itself in a manner that increased, or at least preserved, the representation of most states. Gradually, however, the method for calculating apportionment caused smaller rural states to lose representation to larger urbanized states. A battle erupted between rural and urban factions, causing the House (for the only time in its history) to fail to reapportion itself following the 1920 Census. Signed into law on June 18, 1929, the Permanent Apportionment Act capped House Membership at the level established after the 1910 Census and created a procedure for automatically reapportioning House seats after every decennial census. Republican Majority Leader John Q. Tilson of Connecticut approvingly declared that the act dispelled the “danger of failing to reapportion after each decennial census as contemplated by the Constitution.” But opponents, such as William B. Bankhead of Alabama, who doubted its constitutionality, had earlier described the plan as “the abdication and surrender of the vital fundamental powers vested in the Congress of the United States by the Constitution itself.” In 1941, Congress adopted the current formula for reapportioning House seats.
~~~
Having a set number of reps, to carry the will of the population, through a voting scheme, will always result in a portion of the population disagreeing with a majority vote. Whether by district or popular.
Those people who are not part of the majority are dealing with mob rule. Doesn't matter if we have a representative form of government, that is or isn't working as designed. Its still mob rule. Having a single human being representing many human beings is like pouring a liquid into a funnel. The many voices are narrowed to one. This begs for manipulative influence to happen, doesn't it? Is it easier to influence, manipulate, harness, yoke, a single individual or thousands of individuals?
We either have a democratic pile of shit, or a republican pile of shit. Both smell like shit, because they are shit.
The constitution is not what makes the USA good. Its the independence minded individual. Its the freedom minded individual. Its the fruits of ones labor kept for oneself. It was the restraints on government, while it lasted.
The parasitical infestation has affected that. The dependent minded have affected that. Your performance has been degraded due to the extra burden you are carrying. Government employees, corporations doing business with the government, foreign entanglements, bribes, kickbacks, blackmail, military idiocy, the use of government as daddy, as a weapon against your neighbor, as a universal problem solver expanding government into every aspect of life, even between man, wife, and child.
Are you an idiot? Why would you create such a beast? Lazy? Greedy? Religious zealot? Control freak? Helpless and dependent?
Crabs in a bucket, pulling each other down...
RMN is an RA production.
The only pay your RMN moderators receive comes from ads.
If you're using an ad blocker, please consider putting RMN in your ad blocker's whitelist.
Serving Truth and Freedom
Worldwide since 1996
Politically Incorrect News
Stranger than Fiction
Usually True!
