Can you please tell me why nothing has been done and nothing is said about the unconstitutionality of the Congressional apportionment law setting a limit to the number of seats in the Federal House of Representatives to 435. As far as I can tell, there is nothing in the Constitution that allows such an apportionment. For Congress to apportion the seats constitutionality first requires and amendment to overthrow Article I, Section 2, citation 3, but there is not such an amendment, and let's hope that if an amendment is made, Congress will never be allowed by such an amendment to fix the number of House seats. It seems to me this an an issue that requires ACLU attention because one of WE, THE PEOPLE['s] most fundamental right to adequate representation has been denied especially since the so-called apportionment law of 1911, and the reapportionment laws of 1928 and 1945 apparently let Congress decide how many representatives can represent us in the House of Representatives.Thank you for this very important request and urgent need to do something about the unconstitutional apportionment law now reigning over us. Please inform me if I am mistaken. Thank you.
State/Country relating to Question: Virginia
I wrote a letter to Senators Webb and Warner. Only Senator Warner answered saying that he was busy working on the so-called Obama recovery programs to increase employment and reduce the deficit. Jim Webb apparently doesn't care any more as he is retiring from his senate seat this year. I also wrote to Congressman Gerry Conelly, but he did not answer my two letters, one written to him last in February.
The section of the Constitution you referred to was amended by Sections 2 and 5 of the Fourteenth Amendment, seehttp://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/amendmentxivI hope this information is helpful.
Thank you for accepting my answer.
I am sorry, but your answer was not satisfactory. Amendment XIV to the Constitution of the United States is just that: it changed certain things in Article I hat became outdated because of the civil war, and it did not change the entire Article I. The reference to apportionment in the Amendment is only to change the 3/5th status of black Americans to be counted as a full person leaving intact the rest of Article I including that the apportionment is based on the 1 to 30,000 inhabitants count of the ten-year censuses. The Amendment did not authorize Congress to determine the number of seats in Congress despite the section 5 enforcement clause.
Art I, Sec II ¶ 3 states: "The number of Representatives shall not exceed one for every thirty thousand,"You seem to be treating the text of the Constitution as if it says "The number of representatives shall not be LESS THAN one for every 30,000 people." If it said that, then you would indeed need 10,000 or so legislators for a population of 300 million.But it doesn't say that.I hope this clarifies the issue.
The answer about how I interpret Article I of the Constitution concerningapportionment and how the Expert interprets it is obviously the issue here.But one thing is certain: the number of representatives per 30,000inhabitants cannot be less than one. If the experts reads the proceedingsof the Constitutional Convention they will find that the Founders of theConstitution originally proposed that the number of "inhabitants" perrepresentative was to be 40,000. But XXXXX XXXXX requested that thenumber be reduced to 30,000, and that is the number Article I assigned.There can be no doubt that the Constitution requires that the number may beless than 30,000, but it cannot be greater than 30,000. And let's be sureabout one other thing. Article I nor Article 14 (Amendment 14) did not andnever should authorize Congress to apportion the seats because thatapportionment is based on the population counted in the 10 year census andon the ratio of 1Rep/30,000 inhabitants. The population figures should bemade known to each State of the Union which then determine, not Congress,the number of representatives each State should send for the next 10 yearsto Congress. This determination is then sent to the federal Secretary ofState who makes it official and authorizes it, not the Congress which mustaccept it. To change this the Constitution needs an amendment which clearlystates what the proportional representation should be and who shoulddetermine how many seats the HR should be "blessed" with. The number ofseats in the House can never be based on a law; it should be based on theConstitution and/or its amendment(s), but these should be clear that theyamend Article 1, Section 2, paragraph 3 in the manner prescribed. And thatprescription should never set a ceiling on the number of seats the Houseshould contain.
You wrotethe number of representatives per 30,000inhabitants cannot be less than one. Art I, Sec II ¶ 3 states: "The number of Representatives shall not exceed one for every thirty thousand,"I do not understand how you read "shall not exceed: 1 per 30,000 to mean "shall not be less than" 1 per 30,000.
What I meant by that was that a representative cannot be less than one---he always is at least one person, and that therefore the Article means to say that a representative cannot represent more than 30,000 inhabitants, but can represent less than 30,000 inhabitants because the Constitution foresaw that some of the 13 states and newly admitted States had or may have fewer than 30,000 inhabitants. That is why the Constitution guaranteed at least on representative each State.Well, you aparently seem to be satisfied with interpreting what ever the "Law" says about how many inhabitants can be represented by a representative. It now stands on average at more than 700,000. The Constitution has to be interpreted in terms of what it says. I cannot help but to interpret it to mean that currently a representative cannot represent more than 30,000 people. And that is what the framers of the Constitution had in mind. To interpret this otherwise, and say that Congress can pass a law saying that the number of representatives in the HR should be only 435 and then distribute that number among the several States (now 50) based on the population count of each State without first amending Article I, Sec II pargraph 3 is absurd. Article I of the matter in reference means that the number of representatives must follow the ratio of one to 30,000, not 2 or more to 30,000. Be this as it may the important interpretation of that part of the Article is that Congress cannot decide how many inhabitants each representative can claim to represent, contrary to what you claim. It is precisely your erroneous interpretation of Article I which has led to an HR that is so highly irresponsive and therfore undemocratic as this one, and I don't understand how you can defend such a quasi-dictatorship of only a "handful" of people deciding how to govern.
I am sorry, I have actually read through this thread and have to agree with your previous expert and that you are sticking words in where they do not exist. The Constitution says, "SHALL NOT EXCEED" and does not say, "SHALL NOT BE LESS THAN" they do mean two different things and your interpretation is just simply not legally correct because you are using words that do not exist in the Constitution. The problem is people keep saying the Constitution has to be interpreted, I beg to differ, the Constitution SAYS WHAT IT SAYS, it needs no interpretation at all and when people start interpreting the Constitution is where we start deviating from the Constitution. Sorry, but your previous expert was correct, but you are free to seek to start a movement to change the Constitution if you like as is every citizen of this country.
Forget the words you think I am "sticking words in where they do not exists." I understand exactly what the Constitution says,it says just that, namely THE NUMBER OF REPRESENTATIVES SHALL NOT EXCEED ONE FOR EVERY THIRTY THOUSAND. . . . What is not clear to me is what does that mean. You have not explained the meaning of of what that means. Does it mean that there cannot be 2 representatives or more to every 30,000, but only one. Please explain.I do appreciate your efforts to straighten out my interpretation of what that means, and I have been thinking a lot about it. I don't mean at all to interpret the Constitution, but I am trying to understand what the phrase means. Apparently you do, so please tell me what it means. What is the meaning of the 30,000. I don't want to put words in your mouth by going back to what the founding fathers meant; but they meant to say that the representation in the HR cannot exceed 30,000 inhabitants for one representative.
Yes, that is exactly what those who do not abide by the Constitution say, forget the words. You ARE indeed trying to put words in my mouth and the mouth of the other expert just like you are trying to put words into the Constitution that do not exist. It means that for 30,000 people you cannot have more than 1 representative, which means the same as "shall not exceed." It does not say that they cannot have 1 representative for 100,000 or even 500,000 people.
I did not receive a satisfactory answer to the question of constitutionality of the apportionment law now effect. We all know it is unconstitutional, but the Virginia ACLU lawyers seem to like the law and seem to agree that it is constitutional. That's too bad because the common We, The people, are completely ignored by the 435 rps assigned by an illegal law. The Virginia lawyers of the ACLU should remember that Thomas Jefferson, G. XXXXXXXXXX, XXXXX Madison, and many other Virginians,as well as the rest of the framers of the original Constitution, believed the the phrase: "representatives shall not exceed one for every 30,000..." meant that a rep shall not "represent more that 30,000 inhabitants, and that he may represent fewer than that number. And that makes sense because how can a Congress limit the number of itself in a legislative body? Only Virginia can think that this is right, and that makes sense ever since the end of the civil war. We need a Constitutional Amendment to change the number of inhabitants and set a higher number. But such an amendment should never allow Congress itself to fix the number, it should be based on the population counts of each state. We need an urgent reduction of the currently more than 700,000 set by the current unconstitutional law. You folks should be more loyal to the Constitution and not put words in its mouth.Thanks anyway, for trying. I suppose that will be the end of our discussion.
Well, we do wish you all of the best here, but we can no longer engage you in theoretical esoteric discussions as that is not part of our service. If you would like to engage in such discussions you are free to look up your local chapter of the Federalist Society and go to one of their meetings where they discuss the nuances of the Constitution and you are free to debate with them all you like, but that is not the point or purpose of this service.You have a great day.
DISCLAIMER: Answers from Experts on JustAnswer are not substitutes for the advice of an attorney. JustAnswer is a public forum and questions and responses are not private or confidential or protected by the attorney-client privilege. The Expert above is not your attorney, and the response above is not legal advice. You should not read this response to propose specific action or address specific circumstances, but only to give you a sense of general principles of law that might affect the situation you describe. Application of these general principles to particular circumstances must be done by a lawyer who has spoken with you in confidence, learned all relevant information, and explored various options. Before acting on these general principles, you should hire a lawyer licensed to practice law in the jurisdiction to which your question pertains.
The responses above are from individual Experts, not JustAnswer. The site and services are provided “as is”. To view the verified credential of an Expert, click on the “Verified” symbol in the Expert’s profile. This site is not for emergency questions which should be directed immediately by telephone or in-person to qualified professionals. Please carefully read the Terms of Service (last updated February 8, 2012).