Will the 110th Congress Obey George Washington's Constitutional Wish?
#13
On 4 January 2007, the new members of Congress will take the oath of office for the first time. In doing so, the new Representatives and Senators will swear to defend these twelve words from Article 1: "The Number of Representatives shall not exceed one for every thirty Thousand." The question is, will the new members, in the name of such founders as George Washington, work to enforce the twelve words from Article 1? And if they do not, why?
Congress has not obeyed the "representation ratio" in Article 1 since the Second Congress began ignoring it in April 1792. The last time Congress added new representation, that is, new seats in the House, was 1911 - or 95 years ago. Today, with only 435 Representatives for 300 million citizens, Congress is now a system of under-representation of We the People.
But on 4 January 2007, the 110th Congress will convene. In taking the oath for the first time, the new members should embrace the constitutional spirit of George Washington. His way was constitutionalism and he would remind them to enforce all the words in the Constitution, and in particular, the "representation ratio" in Article 1. Washington supported the ratio on three distinct occasions: first, the signing of the Constitution, 17 September 1787; second, in Article the first of the Bill of Rights, 25 September 1789; and third, the Executive's first veto, by President Washington, on 5 April 1792.
The 110th Congress is not organized as the Constitution demands because it does not represent We the People as Article 1 states. In the name of George Washington, will the new members of the 110th Congress work to represent We the People as the Constitution is written, "one for every thirty Thousand"?
We the People will soon find out.
posted by Bryan Brickner @ 9:44 AM
7 comments
7 Comments:
The requirement of the constitution is that "The Number of Representatives shall not exceed one for every thirty Thousand".
The use of the work exceed means that this phrase places an upper limit on the number of representatives. At the present population that upper limit is 10,000 members of the US House of Representative. I do not think that there is any danger that Congress will expand the size of the House from 435 to 10,000.
Your post ignores the word exceed.
Hi John,
I haven't ignored the word 'exceed' in our Constitution, but Congress has done so - beginning in April 1792. That was when George Washington used the nation's first veto to defend the constitutional phrase, "shall not exceed one for every thirty Thousand." He should know - he put it there!
The phrase is a "representation ratio", or a way to represent We the People. As the Constitution states, after each census, in the name of We the People, Congress is to add Representatives. The word 'exceed' means the representation ratio in Article 1 cannot be greater than 1 for every 30,000 citizens. In Washington's veto from 5 April 1792, you'll find his critique: the representation ratio used by Congress was greater than (exceeded) 1 for every 30,000, so Washington vetoed the bill. Today, if you calculate the ratio based on 435 Reps for 300,000,000 people, it equals an astounding (and unconstitutional) 1 for every 690,000 citizens.
You wrote that you didn't think there was any danger in Congress expanding the House: I disagree. The danger is in Congress not expanding the House. The number "435" is not in the Constitution, but the representation ratio is. The ratio was also so important to the founders that they put it in Article the first of the Bill of Rights.
thanks for your post,
Bryan
Bryan,
The phrase "The Number of Representatives shall not exceed one for every thirty Thousand" places an upper limit, not a lower limit, on the number of Representatives. Note that the rest of the clause, "but each State shall have at Least one Representative;" places a lower limit on the number of Representatives.
It is "The Number of Representatives", not a ratio, that "shall not exceed" the limit. The Constitution does not mention the term "representation ratio".
The Constitution does not state that Congress is to add Representatives, only that the Representatives "shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers".
At this time the Constitution requires that size of the House of Representatives be no fewer than 50 and no more than about 10,000 members. Congress is free to set the size of the House between the rather extreme limits; there is no requirement for size other than the upper and lower limits.
In Article I of the resolution proposing amendments to the Constitution (1 Annals of Congress 88, 913, 1 Stat. 97) Congress proposed language that, under the present population, would require that "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."
This amendment, of course, was not ratified by the required number of states. (If more states had ratified, it would likely have become the eleventh amendment, not the first and not considered to be part of the Bill of Rights). However, because the resolution was passed by two-thirds of each house shortly after the Constitution was adopted it can give some indication of the intent of the framers. The resolution clearly states that Congress shall regulate the size of the House of Representatives between a lower and upper limit.
The lower limit is obvious: 200. The upper limit would be population divided by 50,000. Currently that would be about 6,000 Representatives. The size of 435 certainly fits the limits currently in the Constitution as well as the limits proposed by Congress in 1789.
Regards,
John
This comment has been removed by the author.
John,
The way to represent We the People was clear to the founders. In George Washington's first veto concerning the first census, Washington wrote, "The Constitution has also provided, that the number of Representatives shall not exceed one for every thirty thousand; which restriction is, by the context, and by fair and obvious construction, to be applied to the separate and respective numbers of the States: And the bill has allotted to eight of the States more than one for every thirty thousand." (Journal of the House of Representatives, 1:563-564.)
Washington vetoed the bill because it was “more than one for every thirty thousand” for eight states.
Since the ratio is now more than 1 for every 690,000, I think Washington would also veto our current representation. We the People are in an unconstitutional situation as it concerns representation, and have been since 1792. The ratio is to be used by Congress in apportioning representation. They are to apportion, that is create the bill based on the Constitution and the command to not exceed one representative for every 30,000. The ratio could be 1 for every 29,000, or 1 for every 29,999, but it cannot be, constitutionally speaking, any number above 30,000.
The number "435" is a capped limit on representation, set by congressional law in 1929, and it is something the founders rejected. The unratified Article the first of the Bill of Rights, was the chosen solution by the founders: Congress was to follow a ratio and they were to add seats every 10 years - something Congress did until 1920.
Constitutionally speaking, according to the founders, the US House of Representatives should have a minimum of 10,000 members.
Thanks for the posts,
Bryan
Bryan,
I think that we both agree that there is a problem that Congress does not properly represent the people. That is a serious problem and needs to be addressed.
Our disagreement is only about what is limited by the phrase "shall not exceed". Apparently you argue that that phase limits some ratio of people to Representatives. Under that argument, when the population grows the number of Representatives must grow to avoid exceeding the ratio.
However, the text does not support that argument. In the Constitution it is the "Number of Representatives" that shall not exceed the limit. Likewise, the resolution adopted by Congress (but never ratified by the states) would require that "there shall not be less than two hundred representatives, nor more than one representative for every fifty thousand." Again, the text requires an upper limit on the number of representatives, not on the people to representative ratio. And in Washington's veto message he stated that "the number of Representatives shall not exceed one for every thirty thousand". Again, the limit is on the number of Representatives, not on the ratio.
The Constitution does not use the word ratio. However, the Constitution, as well as the Congressional resolution and Washington’s veto message, imply a ratio in terms of Representatives per person--the inverse of a population/Representatives ratio.
You state that "The ratio could be 1 for every 29,000, or 1 for every 29,999, but it cannot be, constitutionally speaking, any number above 30,000."
I disagree. The ratio, implied by the wording of the constitution, cannot exceed 1 to 30,000. That can be expressed as 1/30000, or 0.000033333. The current ratio of representatives to population is about 435 to 300,000,000 or 0.00000145.
Clearly 0.00000145 does not exceed 0.00003333. Therefore the constitutional requirement is met.
Regards,
John
Hi John,
No, the constitutional requirement left by the founders has not been met. Washington's veto is clear, as the House of 1792 could not override his veto. Instead, they passed a congressional law setting the ratio at 1 for every 33,000, but they never changed the Constitution. (See Journal of the House of Representatives, 1:570.) Then, every 10 years until 1920, they kept changing the ratio by congressional act. Then in 1920, they stopped adding new members – none of which is in the Constitution.
I've been using the representation ratio as the founders did: for instance, the Federalists Papers, #55-58; Alexander Hamilton and John Jay at the NY State Ratifying Convention, and Supreme Court Justice Joseph Story, author of Commentaries on the Constitution (1833).
Here is James Madison writing about this topic in Federalist 57: "The city of Philadelphia is supposed to contain between fifty and sixty thousand souls. It will therefore form nearly two districts for the choice of federal representatives."
Two Representatives for “between fifty and sixty thousand souls” sounds like representation shall not exceed one for every thirty thousand.
Thanks for your posts,
Bryan
Post a Comment
<< Home