Representation and a Constitutional US Congress

Common Sense

2007-09-05T09:13:00.000-05:00

#21
Everyone is talking, but no one is listening.

Hard to understand how we are going to correct our problems without building a House to represent all of us.

Two hundred and twenty years ago at this point in the Constitutional Convention, the founders in Philadelphia had settled on a simple ratio to be used to represent We the People. The ratio at this time, in early September 1787, was 1 Representative for every 40,000 inhabitants in a state (3/5 representation for slaves).

On 17 September, Washington and the others would make the change to 30,000 - but see how simple and straightforward numbers are? They de-politicize the most political issue - representing We the People in Congress.

And being simple in our rules of government can be a virtue - as it was to the founders. Thomas Paine, writing in 1776 at the very beginning of the cause of constitutional government - meaning one written for all to read - argued for simplicity in government in his pamphlet Common Sense -

"I draw my idea of the form of government from a principle in nature, which no art can overturn, viz. that the more simple any thing is, the less liable it is to be disordered, and the easier repaired when disordered."

We the People are in need of a simple solution - like a government organized according to its Constitution, which in our case is: "The Number of Representatives shall not exceed one for every thirty Thousand." (Article 1)

That is what it says, and of course we can amend it, but wouldn't it be interesting if we actually did what our Constitution said to do?

But hey? - Why bother representing We the People in Congress? How could that make a difference?

"according to some equitable ratio of representation"

2007-06-11T19:11:00.000-05:00

#20
220 years ago today the founders at the Constitutional Convention passed a resolution to represent We the People in the new government "according to some equitable ratio of representation." Without question, this was a revolutionary idea - and one they made constitutional.

Here is an excerpt from my book Article the first of the Bill of Rights on the story of the "equitable ratio of representation":
~~~
The gathering in Philadelphia took a turn that some thought too much: instead of working on “fixing” or reforming the current government – the Articles of Confederation – the mood and momentum turned toward a new form of government altogether. You can see this change in the records from the convention. The convention began on 25 May. By 11 June, the first major change was underway. That was when the founders first passed a resolution on changing from the old system, equal representation and one state, one vote, to a new system and the “ratio of representation”:

Resolved that the right of suffrage in the first branch of the national Legislature ought not to be according to the rule established in the articles of confederation; but according to some equitable ratio of representation.[1]

The resolution passed. Seven states were for the change, three against, and the Maryland delegation divided. (That accounts for 11 of the 13 votes – as Rhode Island and New Hampshire did not have delegates present on this day.) In less than three weeks, the convention had made a fundamental change in the distribution of power: the new government would be based on “some equitable ratio of representation.”

This was not the first time a ratio had been proposed in the colonies for representation. On 7 October 1777, the Continental Congress, discussing the terms of the Articles of Confederation, had voted against two proposed representation ratios. One proposed ratio was one representative for every 50,000 inhabitants; the other was one for every 30,000 inhabitants. On this day, the newly independent states agreed to a third proposal for representation – the one state, one vote compromise – with only Virginia in dissent.[2] So the concept of a ratio for representation was familiar to the founders in 1787.

Two other votes of interest that day included one on ‘who was to be counted and how?’ as well as ‘what to do with the second branch of the national legislature?’ On the first question – Who counted and how? – They passed a resolution stating, “that the right of suffrage in the first branch be according to the whole number of white and three fifths of the other inhabitants.” This passed with nine for and two against – the states voting against were Delaware and New Jersey. The “three fifths” concept was also familiar to the founders: it had appeared in the Second Continental Congress, 18 April 1783, in an act to amend the Articles of Confederation. They used the measure to tax slaves as property. In effect, they created a 40 percent exemption by allowing “two fifths” of a slave to not be taxed as property.[3]

At the time, the influential Elbridge Gerry of Massachusetts offered a clear criticism of counting slaves in representation. Many other northerners would do the same. The slave representation, until its removal by the Fourteenth Amendment, would play the pivotal role in the federal government. From the beginning, some saw the problem. Here Gerry was forthright:

The idea of property ought not to be the rule of representation. Blacks are property, and are used to the southward as horses and cattle to the northward; and why should their representation be increased to the southward on account of the number of slaves, than horses or oxen to the north?[4]

This is a concise critique: the convention did address slavery even if the word is absent from the final document. Gerry and others were openly critical of counting property, slaves, in representation. In terms of power, this was a clear benefit to the slave states. It added “three fifths”, or 60 percent, to their total state representation. In terms of representation, slaves meant more power.

After Gerry spoke, it was Madison’s turn: he deflected. Madison, a slave owner, as were many others in the room, said he was of the “opinion at present, to fix the standard of representation, and let the detail be the business of a subcommittee.”[5]

On the second question – How to represent the second branch? – They voted for a resolution making the right of suffrage in the second branch just like the first – based on an equitable ratio. It passed with a vote of six for and five against. The equitable ratio for the second branch, the future Senate, became the one we are familiar with – two Senators per each state in the Union.

[1] Farrand’s Records, 1:192. Italics added.
[2] See de Grazia, 84.
[3] Joseph Story, ed., Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States, (Boston: 1833; rev. ed. 1991,), 2:641. Available online on The Founders’ Constitution website: Philip B. Kurland and Ralph Lerner, eds., University of Chicago Press, 2000.
[4] Farrand’s Records, 1:205-206.
[5] Ibid.
~~

Happy 220 to you!

2007-05-25T09:35:00.000-05:00

#19
Two hundred and twenty years ago today, 25 May 1787, the founders began a meeting in Philadelphia that would forever alter America. The thirteen independent states began deliberations on how to fix their six-year-old government - The Articles of Confederation and Perpetual Union.

But, instead of recommending a few changes, those gathered that summer drew up plans for a new form of government -The Constitution of the United States of America.

From now until 17 September the delegates met and wrote our Constitution. As it concerns representing We the People and the ratio of representation (or Washington's Number), this is the summer of love so to speak - the summer when it was decided to represent We the People according to our numbers.

Below is some high-end commentary from The New York Review of Books - an exchange between two constitutional experts (Posner and Cole) on what "words" mean in our Constitution. I quote from David Cole to highlight why the founders didn't use just "words" to define representation - they used a number instead. Brilliant. Let's just refer to the representation ratio (one for every thirty Thousand) as "Washington's Number". He was the one who wished to see We the People better represented - and he put the 'thirty' in our constitutional number "thirty Thousand" on 17 September 1787 – but more on that as the summer progresses.

Happy 220 to you!
______________________________
'How to Skip the Constitution' - An Exchange
Judge Richard A. Posner and Professor David Cole, 11 January 2007

Cole: "There is a reason the framers of the Constitution did not simply say "the government may engage in any practice whose benefits outweigh its costs," as Judge Posner would have it, but instead struggled to articulate a limited number of fundamental principles and enshrine them above the everyday pragmatic judgments of politicians. They foresaw what modern history has shown to be all too true - that while democracy is an important antidote to tyranny, it can also facilitate a particular kind of tyranny - the tyranny of the majority. Constitutional principles protect those who are likely to be the targets of such tyranny, such as terror suspects, religious and racial minorities, criminal defendants, enemy combatants, foreign nationals, and, especially in this day and age, Arabs and Muslims. Relegating such individuals to the mercy of the legislature - whether it be Republican or Democratic - denies that threat. The Constitution is about more than efficiency, and more than democracy; it is a collective commitment to the equal worth and dignity of all human beings. To call that mere "rhetoric" is to miss the very point of constitutional law."
__________________________
Note: there is nothing rhetorical about Washington's Number and the constitutional principle of representing We the People according to our numbers (USC, Article 1, Section 2, Clause 3): "The Number of Representatives shall not exceed one for every thirty Thousand."

"Extend the sphere"

2007-03-29T09:35:00.000-05:00

#18
Senator and presidential candidate Barack Obama has been asking what can be done to engage the citizenry? Founder and President James Madison said we should "extend the sphere." That means enlarge the House of Representatives - and we haven't added representation in almost 100 years, so now would be a good time to do so.

Federalist #10, James Madison
"Extend the sphere, and you take in a greater variety of parties and interests; you make it less probable that a majority of the whole will have a common motive to invade the rights of other citizens; or if such a common motive exists, it will be more difficult for all who feel it to discover their own strength, and to act in unison with each other. Besides other impediments, it may be remarked that, where there is a consciousness of unjust or dishonorable purposes, communication is always checked by distrust in proportion to the number whose concurrence is necessary."

When in doubt, look to the Constitution - it shows how to engage the citizenry. (See Article 1, Section 2, Clause 3 of the US Constitution.)

The fixed history of 435 Representatives

2007-01-25T12:42:00.001-06:00

#17
The number "435" is not in the US Constitution. It was not selected by the founders as a method of representation. It was never ratified by the 50 states. Instead, it was created by an act of the 70th Congress in 1929. But how did we get to that point?

After George Washington’s veto of the first apportionment bill in April 1792, the House of Representatives voted to change the representation ratio to “thirty-three” thousand instead of the constitutional number of “thirty” thousand. This initial way of ignoring the Constitution and assigning representation by congressional act became known as the “fixed ratio” method.

Congress used the fixed ratio method until 1850. Then, under pressures built into the constitutional system because slaves were counted in representation, Congress began setting a limit for membership in the House of Representatives. In other words, Congress stopped using the ratio altogether. They called this method “fixed house size.”

After the census in 1920, Congress, for the first time, did not address House membership: they added no new members. This coincides with the Nineteenth Amendment to the US Constitution, women’s suffrage, and the obvious challenges women posed to institutional power.

But the big change came nine years later, in 1929. During that summer, only months before the great depression began and less than a year before the next census, the 70th Congress passed a law setting the number of Representatives at 435. This congressional (and not constitutional) law is known as 2 U.S.C. Sec. 2, Election of Senators and Representatives:

Section, act Aug. 8, 1911, ch. 5, Secs. 1, 2, 37 Stat. 13, 14, fixed composition of House of Representatives at 435 Members, to be apportioned to the States therein enumerated.

"Fixed composition" means constantly declining representation. That is where things stand. Our Constitution has never been amended to reflect this usurpation, this change in power. One Representative for every thirty thousand is the constitutional standard for We the People. Today's 435 Representatives for a nation of 300 million is the congressional standard based on the census of 1910 and the Congress of 1929.

It is time to update the US House of (un)Representatives.

The 110th Congress and Peace in the War on Drugs

2007-01-18T10:24:00.000-06:00

#16
Here's an argument: Build a constitutional Congress of We the People to make peace in the drug war. Read how in my article We the People, the 110th Congress, and Peace in the War on Drugs, featured in the DrugSense Weekly, Jan. 5, 2007 #481.

Ask yourself this: Will we continue to elect presidents who used illegal drugs and also wage war on those who still do? Or, is it time for a change in attitude and law?

Trenton

2006-12-26T07:53:00.000-06:00

#15
On 26 December 1776, George Washington and his band of revolutionaries won the battle of Trenton, New Jersey. With about 2,400 soldiers, their victory 230 years ago set the stage for our liberties.

As George was fond of saying, "Perseverance and spirit have done wonders in all ages."

The founders and the "ratio of representation"

2006-12-21T12:15:00.000-06:00

#14
Constitutional representation fueled the well-named Spirit of ‘76. One of the most popular slogans during the revolution was “No Taxation Without Representation.” Patrick Henry declared the common sentiment in simple terms – “Taxation without Representation is Tyranny.”

However, as the Constitutional Convention began in Philadelphia on 25 May 1787, such revolutionary slogans had fallen aside and into disuse. Instead there was an unease and even pessimism of revolutions. After winning one, the founders wanted things to calm down, and taxation without representation became a necessity - the country was too big for a true democracy, where all vote for all. What was needed was a new way.

This new way was developed at the Constitutional Convention. The gathering in Philadelphia took a turn that some thought too much. Instead of working on “fixing” or reforming the current government – The Articles of Confederation and Perpetual Union – the mood and momentum turned toward a new form of government altogether. You can see this change in the records from the meeting: it began on 25 May, and by 11 June the first major change was underway. That was when the founders first passed a resolution on changing from the old system, equal representation and one state, one vote, to a new system and the “ratio of representation”:

"Resolved that the right of suffrage in the first branch of the national Legislature ought not to be according to the rule established in the articles of confederation; but according to some equitable ratio of representation."[1]

The resolution passed. Seven states were for the change, three against, and the Maryland delegation divided. (That accounts for 11 of the 13 votes – as Rhode Island and New Hampshire did not have delegates present on this day.) In less than three weeks, the founders had made a fundamental change in the distribution of power: the new government would be based on “some equitable ratio of representation.” Today, this equitable ratio of representation is found in Article 1 of the US Constitution: "The Number of Representatives shall not exceed one for every thirty Thousand".

This was not the first time a ratio had been proposed in the colonies for representation. On 7 October 1777, the Continental Congress, discussing the terms of the Articles of Confederation, had voted against two proposed representation ratios. One proposed ratio was one representative for every 50,000 inhabitants; the other was one for every 30,000 inhabitants. At that time, the newly independent states agreed to a third proposal for representation – the one state, one vote compromise – with only Virginia in dissent.[2] So the concept of a ratio for representation was familiar to the founders by the time of the Constitutional Convention in 1787.

Two other votes of interest from 11 June 1787 included one on ‘who was to be counted and how?’ as well as ‘what to do with the second branch of the national legislature?’ On the first question – Who counted and how? – The founders passed a resolution stating, “that the right of suffrage in the first branch be according to the whole number of white and three fifths of the other inhabitants.” Thus, slavery and representation were paired together at the beginning.

On the second question – How to represent the second branch? – They voted for a resolution making the right of suffrage in the second branch just like the first – based on an equitable ratio. The equitable ratio for the second branch, the future Senate, became the one we are familiar with – two Senators per each state in the Union.

*Excerpt from chapter 2, Representation and our Constitution, in Article the first of the Bill of Rights (2006), by Bryan W. Brickner.

[1] Farrand’s Records, 1:192. Italics added.
[2] See Alfred de Grazia, Public and Republic: Political Representation in America (1951), p. 84.

Will the 110th Congress Obey George Washington's Constitutional Wish?

2006-12-15T09:44:00.000-06:00

#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.

Speak truth to power

2006-12-13T09:28:00.000-06:00

#12
"Speak truth to power" was featured in the DrugSense Weekly, Dec. 8, 2006 #478. In debating the DEA about the drug war, I realized how much constitutionalism (ie., following the words in Article 1 of the US Constitution), had in common with the war on citizens who use illegal drugs. If a House of Representatives based on the constitutional representation ratio would vote to continue the drug war, then that vote would be constitutionally valid: until then, it is not. A review of the debate is at DrugWarRant.com.

~ Speak truth to power
As I prepared to debate a representative of the DEA about ending the drug war, a friend said I should speak truth to power. “The truth,” he said, “is a way among many. Power, on the other hand, is just used to getting its way.”

The friend was correct.

When speaking truth to power, the immediate effect is usually not noticed. In debating William Otis, JD, Counselor to the Administrator of the DEA, nothing really happened at all. We were at the University of Illinois College of Law auditorium in a debate sponsored by the UIUC Federalist Society and the Coalition of Student-Professionals for Social Change. We talked and discussed the drug war for two hours. We both provided lots of information. But afterwards, when the debate was over, I realized nothing had really happened: citizens would still be arrested for violating the Controlled Substances Act and prohibition would drone on.

Ah, but here is another way of looking at the debate. Great moments, like the ending of the drug war, will perhaps be inaudible to us. In other words, we often do not sense the meaning of moments as they happen. That being the case, when speaking truth to power, one should watch for when “the spell” begins to break.

The spell? The spell is the spell of power. It begins to break when the appearance of the reasons for believing become unbelievable. In the case of the drug war, the reasons for fighting it no longer produce fear. Without the fear of the illegal drug user – in oneself and in others – power has only one remaining effect, that of force.

Here is an example from the debate. The new science clearly states that smoking cannabis does not cause lung cancer. Most recently, in May 2006, researcher Donald Tashkin, MD, of UCLA’s David Geffen School of Medicine, reported that even heavy cannabis smokers did not show an increased risk for lung cancer. But at the debate, Mr. Otis said, on several occasions, that smoking marijuana was considerably worse than smoking tobacco.

That is what power will do. Power will force its way. It is used to getting its way, so it first plays to our emotions and second to the use of force.

But truth, which generally works at a different pace, that is, slower, waits for the evidence to unfold. More importantly, as it concerns the ending of a war, the reasons for fighting the war (such as, smoking marijuana is considerably worse than smoking tobacco), no longer produce the intended effect.

Here is another example: illegal drugs and the people who use them were once the latest most-scary-thing facing our social order. President Nixon and our Congress responded to this supposed threat with a war on citizens who use illegal drugs. That war has failed. The truth is that a war on citizens who use illegal drugs causes more social disruption than illegal drug use.

The citizens of the United States were told we would win the drug war by fighting drugs at their source and by imprisoning drug traffickers. The truth is that staying the course in the drug war means accepting 1.5 million annual citizen casualties (or arrests) for drugs. That means we are willing to accept, as policy, 1.5 million annual drug violations. That also means, as policy, that we are willing to accept 1.5 million occurrences when a police officer could be spending his or her time improving other aspects of our social order.

Prohibition has proven to be an anti-liberty solution for a nation based on liberty. Nobel Prize recipient Friedrich Hayek, writing about true coercion in his book The Constitution of Liberty, did not advocate the power of government to coerce behavior (i.e., the drug war).

“True coercion,” Hayek wrote, “occurs when armed bands of conquerors make the subject people toil for them, when organized gangsters extort a levy for protection, when the knower of an evil secret blackmails his victim, and, of course when the state threatens to inflict punishment and employ physical force to make us obey its commands.” (1960:137)

Coercion is the truth of the war on illegal drug users – as punishment and force equal power.

When speaking truth to power, keep the focus on science and liberty – and look for when the spell begins to break.

Perfidy (a clerihew)

2006-12-08T08:35:00.000-06:00

#11
Perfidy
Uphold the Constitution, so help me God!
Bend it just a little, not a soul will nod.
Midterm elections, parties sad, turnout worse;
Mr. Brickner right? Check out "Article First!"

~ A poem by Robert B. Moreland for the first Article in our Constitution. A clerihew is a humorous quatrain (only four lines) about a subject. In most cases, the first line names a person, and the second line ends with something that rhymes with the name of the person. Isosyllabic, 11 syllables a line.

From Cato: term limits and a lottery

2006-12-06T18:18:00.000-06:00

#10
Edward H. Crane is the President of Cato, a libertarian think-tank. In the November/December 2006 issue of the Cato Policy Report, he writes about our "congresscritters," as he refers to them. Crane argues we should strive for term limits, "particularly in the House of Representatives." He also states that he would "prefer a lottery to the system we have now."

An interesting concept this lottery, although Crane doesn't say why a lottery of 435 for a nation of 300 million would be called representation. And the idea of a lottery, like term limits, is not found in the US Constitution. What is found in the Constitution concerning the US House of Representatives is a representation ratio that "shall not exceed one for every thirty Thousand." The lack of any discussion of the constitutional ratio or the number of Representatives should be noted.

Crane also makes this point: "Congress today ignores the Constitution, which should be the basis for our rule of law."

Yes - following the Constitution is the basis of our rule of law, and that can only begin with a constitutional House representing We the People. What is called for today, constitutionally speaking, is a new US House of Representatives based on the representation ratio found in the Constitution - "The Number of Representatives shall not exceed one for every thirty Thousand."

But hey - what are the chances of that?

(Bonus: if it were a lottery, why would randomness give us good representation? Didn't James Madison and the founders advocate virtue?)

A question

2006-12-05T19:45:00.000-06:00

#9
Why are there only 435 Representatives for a nation of 300 million people?

Four Options

2006-11-02T16:40:00.000-06:00

#8
As a citizen of the United States, do you feel represented by your federal Representative?

When the present can look to the old and find a way – a constitutional way – then an ongoing revolution can renew itself. We citizens of the United States are a rich people, but more than riches, we have some special words left to us by the likes of George Washington and James Madison. The words are in the ratified US Constitution and the unratified Article the first of the Bill of Rights.

There are three constitutional options concerning the right to representation in the House of Representatives. First, we could enforce the ratified representation ratio in the Constitution as it is: “The Number of Representatives shall not exceed one for every thirty Thousand.” Second, twenty-seven states could ratify Article the first of the Bill of Rights: these votes would complete the Bill of Rights, making Article the first the next amendment to our Constitution. Third, We the People could amend the Constitution with a new ratio: this would involve an act of Congress and ratification by thirty-eight states.

And I suppose there is a fourth option, the status quo: 435 Representatives for a nation of 300 million citizens.

300 Million Divided by 30,000 Equals 10,000

2006-10-17T10:24:00.000-05:00

#7
This blog poses and answers the question, “Where is our US Congress of 10,100 members?”

Our Congress, simply stated, is not built as the US Constitution dictates. The US Congress, by constitutional law, should have 100 US Senators (two per state) and 10,000 US Representatives. The words in Article 1 of the US Constitution are clear: “The Number of Representatives shall not exceed one for every thirty Thousand.” When you divide 300 million by 30,000 it equals 10,000 US Representatives.

So where is everyone?

The answer is We the People have forgotten a constitutional right, the right to representation. It is a right written into our Constitution in Article 1 and ratified by all 50 states. Simply stated, the right to representation is the right of groups to be included in We the People at the ratio of one Representative for every 30,000 people. Congress has taken, that is, usurped that right from We the People, but as the right remains in the Constitution, we just have to ask for it back.

Federalist 58 and the Right to Representation

2006-10-11T13:21:00.000-05:00

#6
The Federalist Papers were written in 1788 to persuade the citizens of New York to support the new constitution. Three founders - John Jay, Alexander Hamilton, and James Madison, drafted the 85 op-eds in just a few months. In them the founders addressed the constitutional questions and fears of the citizens of New York. One fear in particular was that Congress would not "augment", that is, add, members to the US House of Representatives.

Federalist 58 has a long but accurate title: "The Objection That The Number Of Members Will Not Be Augmented As The Progress Of Population Demands Considered.” In the essay it is argued that the constitutional process for augmenting Congress requires a census and has two "unequivocal objects":

"Within every successive term of ten years, a census of inhabitants is to be repeated. The unequivocal objects of these regulations are, first, to re-adjust from time to time the apportionment of representatives to the number of inhabitants; under the single exception that each State shall have one representative at least: Secondly, to augment the number of representatives at the same periods; under the sole limitation, that the whole number shall not exceed one for every thirty thousand inhabitants." (Federalist 58: 1788)

Madison claimed the ratio of 30,000 to be "the sole limitation," but this never happened as planned. The 2nd Congress made a mess of things in April 1792, and the right to representation and the ratio have never recovered their constitutional power. The words that guarantee our right to representation have never been changed - just ignored and forgotten. The ratio and the right to representation remain in our Constitution, just as Madison and the founders left them to us; we just haven't been using them.

Our Unrepresentative US Congress

2006-10-10T18:30:00.000-05:00

#5
The 2006 election is four weeks from today. The votes will be counted and preparations for the new Congress will begin. In that Congress, our 110th, there will be 435 Representatives and 100 Senators. The elected members will meet in January 2007 and take the oath of office. That is the moment when they swear to defend the Constitution. The point of the oath is not for taking a nice picture. The point of the oath is that words matter.

If an elected representative of the people takes the oath and does not support the words in the US Constitution, then they have broken their oath and are not fit for office.

What is a citizen to think? Constitutions are designed to be clear. The twelve words in Article 1, Section 2, and Clause 3 of the US Constitution, which read, "The Number of Representatives shall not exceed one for every thirty Thousand," are clear.

That leaves a simple question: Why is there not one elected representative willing to keep their word and support the constitutional representation of We the People? There is no other legal answer, constitutionally speaking, then to build the Congress as the US Constitution dictates. Anything else would be less than patriotic.

A Sovereignty of the People

2006-10-06T08:26:00.000-05:00

#4
The issue of sovereignty - who gets to make the laws - is why we have a constitution in the first place. When George Washington and his band of revolutionaries declared their rebellion, it was against the sovereignty of King George III of Great Britain. They broke the laws of Great Britain in their revolt, and they became something new: a citizen instead of the "subject" of a king.

Some of the more popular revolutionary slogans combined representation and sovereignty. For instance, Patrick Henry noted that "Taxation without Representation is Tyranny." Another one, and even more popular, was "No Taxation Without Representation." You will also find "the Right to Representation" well argued in the Declaration of Independence in 1776. In the declaration, representation of the people is the third in a long series of complaints about his majesty’s rule. The charge was tyranny because the king would not accommodate large districts of population – the colonies – with representation. The founders declared only a tyrant would do such a thing:

"HE [King George] has refused to pass other Laws for the Accommodation of large Districts of People, unless those People would relinquish the Right of Representation in the Legislature, a Right inestimable to them, and formidable to Tyrants only."

Our revolutionaries also signed the declaration with the phrase – “We, therefore, the Representatives of the United States of America . . . ”

There is no sovereignty of the people if the people are not constitutionally represented. Instead, Congress, just like King George, is refusing the people their "Right to Representation." In doing so, Congress is undermining the rule of law and the sovereignty of the people.

"bound by Oath or Affirmation"

2006-10-05T19:56:00.000-05:00

#3
James Madison, as founder, Representative, and President, believed in constitutionalism. Here I want to highlight a quote "Representative Madison" made in 1789 in the first House of Representatives of the First US Congress:

"My idea of the sovereignty of the people is, that the people can change the constitution if they please, but while the constitution exists, they must conform themselves to its dictates".

According to Madison, the other founders, and our Constitution, Congress is not sovereign. Our Constitution dictates a sovereignty of We the People. Congress is created by the Constitution, not the other way around. And, as the Constitution demands, every member of Congress is "bound by Oath or Affirmation" to support the words in our Constitution. (See Article VI of the US Constitution.) Supporting the words in a constitution is the definition of a constitutionalist.

The words "The Number of Representatives shall not exceed one for every thirty Thousand" are still in the US Constitution: Why are members of Congress ignoring their "Oath or Affirmation"?

We the People and our Right to Representation

2006-10-04T21:10:00.000-05:00

#2
I'll say it like this: it is generally agreed that what is in the US Constitution is the supreme law of the land. For example, our Constitution states that "No person but a natural born Citizen . . . shall be eligible for the Office of President." (See Article 2, Section 1, Clause 5)

The "natural born Citizen" rule has always been enforced. The words are clear and easy to understand - just like the words in Article 1 regarding Congress and the US House of Representatives: "The Number of Representatives shall not exceed one for every thirty Thousand."

Now, why is one set of words enforced and the others are not? The answer is there should be no difference. As Supreme Court Justice John Marshall argued long ago in Marbury vs. Madison, "The powers of the legislature are defined and limited; and that those limits may not be mistaken or forgotten, the constitution is written."

We have forgotten a constitutional right, the right to representation, but there it is written into our Constitution and ratified by all 50 states. Simply stated, the right to constitutional representation is the right of groups to be included in We the People at the ratio of one Representative for every 30,000 people.

Our Unconstitutional US Congress

2006-10-03T12:39:00.000-05:00

#1
This blog is about building a new Congress, just like the US Constitution dictates.

Today's post is on the words in our Constitution that define We the People. The founders were clear as to how Congress was to be formed. Each state was to have two senators and, in the House of Representatives, the people were to be represented by population - thus the census is taken every ten years.

Here are the twelve words that were ratified in the 18th century and have never been changed. They are still there today, in Article 1, Section 2, and Clause 3 of the US Constitution:

"The Number of Representatives shall not exceed
one for every thirty Thousand".

Those words are constitutional, and a Congress that ignores its founding document is no longer representative of the people. The citizens of the United States have an unconstitutional Congress.

George Washington's Constitutional Wish

2006-09-14T18:31:00.000-05:00

George Washington and the other founders did not invent constitutional representation, but constitutional representation did fuel the well-named Spirit of ‘76. Perhaps the most popular slogan during the revolution was “No Taxation Without Representation.”

However, as the Constitutional Convention began in Philadelphia in 1787, such revolutionary slogans had fallen aside and into disuse. The convention began in May and by early June the first major constitutional change was underway. That was when the founders first passed a resolution on changing from the old system where each state, regardless of the size in population, had one vote. The new system would be based in the first branch of the national legislature “according to some equitable ratio of representation.”

By August the convention had decided on an equitable ratio. The ratio for representation was to be “at the rate of one for every forty thousand.” That was the constitutional ratio for representation, one for every forty thousand, until the last day of the convention, at which time George Washington expressed a wish.

On 17 September 1787, the Constitution was complete. It was read to the convention. Benjamin Franklin then presented a speech that was also read aloud, asking for unanimous support for the new Constitution. After Franklin’s speech was read, something remarkable happened, though history has not given it much notice. Nathaniel Gorham, a delegate from Massachusetts, rose and made a proposal to change the rate of representation from “forty Thousand” to “thirty Thousand.” Then, without discussion, two other delegates seconded Gorham’s motion.

The next thing that happened is the remarkable moment: Washington addressed the Constitutional Convention, something he had not done all summer. Instead of just asking the delegates to vote, he spoke to them of his opinions regarding Gorham’s proposal and the representation ratio. Here is how James Madison recorded Washington’s comments and “his wish” concerning representation in the US House of Representatives:

"When the President rose, for the purpose of putting the question, he said that although his situation had hitherto restrained him from offering his sentiments on questions depending in the House, and it might be thought, ought now to impose silence on him, yet he could not forbear expressing his wish that the alteration proposed might take place. It was much to be desired that the objections to the plan recommended might be made as few as possible – The smallness of the proportion of Representatives had been considered by many members of the Convention, an insufficient security for the rights & interests of the people. He acknowledged that it had always appeared to himself among the exceptionable parts of the plan; and late as the present moment was for admitting amendments, he thought this of so much consequence that it would give much satisfaction to see it adopted."

This is not the first time Washington took advantage of big moments. From his years at war to the drafting of a new government, he acted in big moments. The motion to change the representation ratio to thirty thousand passed unanimously, with no debate recorded. Someone erased part of the word forty in Article 1 of the Constitution and replaced it with the word “thirty”. If you look closely at the original, the smudge from the erasure and new writing are still visible.

This is an interesting moment. The future first president of the United States, the one referred to as His Excellency, speaking on “his wish” to see We the People better represented. Given Washington’s skill for performing on a grand stage – in war and now in peace – this is no small moment for him and our country. And according to his sentiments, the representation ratio had always appeared to him as “among the exceptionable parts of the plan.”

Why are we ignoring his wish? Today each Representative represents more than 650,000 citizens, or 22 times greater than Washington’s wish. That means We the People are 22 times less represented than the Constitution mandates. His wish is still the constitutional ratio found in Article 1, Section 2, and Clause 3: “The Number of Representatives shall not exceed one for every thirty Thousand.” The words have never been changed or amended, just ignored and forgotten.

The constitutional question remains: Why is the current Congress not following the Constitution? Washington wished for the people to be better represented. Today's House of Representatives, with 435 Representatives for 300 million people, does not fulfill his wish. In fact, it is a system of under-representation of We the People, and that is not what Washington and the founders wanted.

The simple process put into place on 17 September 1787, the one premised on constitutional representation, has been forgotten by We the People.

~
Bryan W. Brickner is the author of Article the first of the Bill of Rights (2006) and The Promise Keepers: Politics and Promises (1999). He has also published a novel, hereafter (2006). He is an activist and writer in Chicago. www.lulu.com/bryanbrickner