Discussion:
An alternate first amendment
(too old to reply)
t***@go.com
2018-02-26 20:48:38 UTC
Permalink
In our time line, soon after the U.S. Constitution came
into effect 12 amendments were proposed by Congress and
sent to the States for ratification.

10 of them were approved by a sufficient number of States
soon afterward and became known of as the 'U.S. Bill of
Rights'.

One of them was ratified in 1992 and is known of as the
27th Amendment.

One however was never ratified.

In our time line it reads:

'Article the first...After the first enumeration required by the first article of the Constitution, there shall be one Representative for every thirty thousand, until the number shall amount to one hundred, after which the proportion shall be so regulated by Congress, that there shall be not less than one hundred Representatives, nor less than one Representative for every forty thousand persons, until the number of Representatives shall amount to two hundred; after which the proportion shall be so regulated by Congress, that there shall not be less than two hundred Representatives, nor more than one Representative for every fifty thousand persons.'

This amendment is generally however moot. Effectively it says that
the House of Representatives can not have more than about 6500 members
in modern times.

Now the House of Representatives is not prohibited by the U.S. Constitution
today from having 7000 members, it is just not required to have them.

In the alternate time line one word of the last phrase is altered to read as
follows, and it is soon ratified.

The last line instead reads:

'nor less than one Representative for every fifty thousand persons.'

This would mean that in modern times the House of Representatives
would need a minimum of over 5000 members (6175 by`the 2010 census),
but the number would be different at different points in U.S. history.

In the alternate time line the other 10 or 11 amendments would also
be ratified, but this one would be called the first in the sequence.

How would this affect the history of the United States and the history
of the world?
Rich Rostrom
2018-02-28 19:22:01 UTC
Permalink
Post by t***@go.com
'Article the first...After the first enumeration
required by the first article of the Constitution,
there shall be one Representative for every thirty
thousand, until the number shall amount to one
hundred, after which the proportion shall be so
regulated by Congress, that there shall be not less
than one hundred Representatives, nor less than one
Representative for every forty thousand persons,
until the number of Representatives shall amount to
two hundred; after which the proportion shall be so
regulated by Congress, that there shall not be less
than two hundred Representatives, nor more than one
Representative for every fifty thousand persons.'
The problem with this proposal is that it hits an
internal contradiction.

When the population is 8,000,000, there must be at
least 200 representatives ("one... for every forty
thousand".

When there are 200 representatives, "there shall not
be less than two hundred...", but also "no more than
one... for every fifty thousand persons", which for
8,000,000 people is 160.

In short, at that point two different rules apply,
one is a floor, one is a ceiling, and the floor is
higher than the ceiling.
--
Nous sommes dans une pot de chambre, et nous y serons emmerdés.
--- General Auguste-Alexandre Ducrot at Sedan, 1870.
Graham Truesdale
2018-02-28 21:39:28 UTC
Permalink
Post by Rich Rostrom
Post by t***@go.com
'Article the first...After the first enumeration
required by the first article of the Constitution,
there shall be one Representative for every thirty
thousand, until the number shall amount to one
hundred, after which the proportion shall be so
regulated by Congress, that there shall be not less
than one hundred Representatives, nor less than one
Representative for every forty thousand persons,
until the number of Representatives shall amount to
two hundred; after which the proportion shall be so
regulated by Congress, that there shall not be less
than two hundred Representatives, nor more than one
Representative for every fifty thousand persons.'
The problem with this proposal is that it hits an
internal contradiction.
When the population is 8,000,000, there must be at
least 200 representatives ("one... for every forty
thousand".
When there are 200 representatives, "there shall not
be less than two hundred...", but also "no more than
one... for every fifty thousand persons", which for
8,000,000 people is 160.
In short, at that point two different rules apply,
one is a floor, one is a ceiling, and the floor is
higher than the ceiling.
--
http://www.thirty-thousand.org/documents/QHA-04.pdf
21/72 and 22/72
t***@go.com
2018-03-03 20:59:09 UTC
Permalink
Post by Graham Truesdale
Post by Rich Rostrom
Post by t***@go.com
'Article the first...After the first enumeration
required by the first article of the Constitution,
there shall be one Representative for every thirty
thousand, until the number shall amount to one
hundred, after which the proportion shall be so
regulated by Congress, that there shall be not less
than one hundred Representatives, nor less than one
Representative for every forty thousand persons,
until the number of Representatives shall amount to
two hundred; after which the proportion shall be so
regulated by Congress, that there shall not be less
than two hundred Representatives, nor more than one
Representative for every fifty thousand persons.'
The problem with this proposal is that it hits an
internal contradiction.
When the population is 8,000,000, there must be at
least 200 representatives ("one... for every forty
thousand".
When there are 200 representatives, "there shall not
be less than two hundred...", but also "no more than
one... for every fifty thousand persons", which for
8,000,000 people is 160.
In short, at that point two different rules apply,
one is a floor, one is a ceiling, and the floor is
higher than the ceiling.
--
http://www.thirty-thousand.org/documents/QHA-04.pdf
21/72 and 22/72
It is amazing how I missed that.

It is even more amazing that it does not seem obvious
who may or may not have missed it back then. It was
ultimately not ratified.

The first census itself of 1790 fell between 3 and 4
million and the census of 1820 fell between 8 and 10
million, so there were two decades when this matter
was not theoretical. The collecting and publication
of the first census may have been contemporaneous
with the proposal and ratification process.

In theory you could imagine that the House might
have been frozen at 100 or 200 during those decades
but it is very likely that it might have been the basis
for some disputes.

Loading...