Super large House
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
April 19, 2024, 11:19:36 AM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion
  Election What-ifs? (Moderator: Dereich)
  Super large House
« previous next »
Pages: 1 [2]
Author Topic: Super large House  (Read 3996 times)
minionofmidas
Lewis Trondheim
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 58,206
India


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #25 on: May 30, 2005, 11:09:32 AM »

Exactly. Two[/b] candidates. The original text explicitly mentions that you can't cast your two votes for the same person, the amendment's text does not repeal or contradict that.
Logged
A18
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 23,794
Political Matrix
E: 9.23, S: -6.35

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #26 on: May 30, 2005, 11:44:09 AM »

Okay, I get what you mean now
Logged
King
intermoderate
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 29,356
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #27 on: May 30, 2005, 02:00:10 PM »


Cool, my neighborhood would have our own representative in Congress. Tongue

So would some city block in Manhattan.

That would actually be better because it is likely poorer neighborhoods would be represented by one of them instead of the rich guy that was gerrymandered in by the state so only millionaires could be in Congress.
Logged
jimrtex
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 11,828
Marshall Islands


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #28 on: May 30, 2005, 10:09:22 PM »

During the 1939 sesquicentennial of the Bill of Rights, this non-ratification was discovered, and several states belatedly ratified the Bill of Rights.  This also led to a rediscovery of the pending 1st and 2nd articles of amendment.   This was pointed out to enough legislatures, who eventually ratified it as the 27th Amendment.
I think you're confused, the bill of rights got ratified by 11 out of 14 states as of Dec 15th, 1791. The remaining of those 14 states, MA, GA, and CT ratified them in 1939.
Madison on June 8, 1789 proposed a number of changes to the Constitution.  They were not laid out as separate items, but specified at certain places in the text that changes be made. 

His version of the representation provision specified one representative per 30,000 until there were _____, and that then there should be between _____ and _____ members, and that each state should have at least 2 representatives.

On June 28, a select committee of the House reported a version that filled in the blanks with 100 and 175.  That is, the number of members would grow with the population until there were 100 members, and then be kept in the range of 100 to 175.  Each state was guaranteed one seat.

The version finally passed by the House on August 24, had converted the amendments to 17 Articles (along with the modern amendment numbering).
1. Representation (pending)
2. (27th)
3,4. (1st)
5. (2nd)
6. (3rd)
7. (4th)
8. (5th)
9, 10,(6th)
11,12 (7th)
13 (8th)
14.No State shall infringe on right to jury trial, conscience, freedom of speech, or press.
15. (9th)
16, 17 (10th)

The 1st Article was similar to the form sent to the States, except that it said "nor less than one Representative for every fifty thousand".  That is, it would have established the super large house.

The Senate on September 9 passed 12 articles, which provided one representative per 30,000 until there were 100; and then would add one per 40,000 until there were 200, and then would add one for every 60,000.  If this had been adopted, the House would have over 1000 fewer members than under the House version.

The final version agreed to by the two houses converted the floor into a cap.  Instead of requiring one representative for every 50 or 60 thousand, it restricted it so that there were not more than 60,000.

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.
In ratifying the amendments, the States would pass resolutions to the effect that they had ratifieded all the articles of amendment except the 2nd; or had ratified, 3rd, 4th, 5th, ..., 12th.   All 11 states that ratified in the early period did ratify 3 through 12.  NH, RI, NH, and PA did not ratify Article 2.  PA and DE did not ratify Article 1.

This left Article One pending with 9 of 14 states having ratified the floating cap on the number of Representatives.   The count is now 9 of 50.   So right now, Congress could increase the House size to 8700.  Ratification of the pending 1st Article from 1789 would reduce this cap to 5800 based on a population of 290 million.

Article Two was only ratified by 7 of 14 early ratifiers.  It was late ratifications that resulted in it becoming known as the 27th Amendment.

Soon after the early ratifications it became customary to number the amendments that were ratified as 1st to 10th.

The reason that there were ratifications of the Bill of Rights in 1939 was because it was the sesquicentennial of their being proposed in 1789. 

Massachusetts, et al could have ratified the other two proposed amendments in 1939.  They may not have known this or thought it a stupid idea.  Since it was a symbolic action, they might have presented it as ratifying the first 10 amendments. 

But out of the came an awareness that there were the other two pending amendments from 1789.  Someone began campaigning for ratification and convinced a few legislatures to ratify.  News articles of this time usually had some somebody in Congress declaring that the ratifications were invalid because, because, because, you can't.  But eventually it was realized that it was a popular idea with little actual consequence, and Congress passed a resolution recognizing the ratification.
Logged
○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└
jfern
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 53,708


Political Matrix
E: -7.38, S: -8.36

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #29 on: May 30, 2005, 10:11:53 PM »
« Edited: May 30, 2005, 10:14:15 PM by jfern »

The oriiginal states no longer had the power to make an amendment become law by 1939, as it requires a 3/4ths vote of the states at the time of ratification. Otherwise, the titles of nobility amendment would have become law in 1819. Sure they could have ratified it, but by that time it needed 36 of the 48 states.

Some other states have ratified amendments long after they became law. First instance, in 1995 Mississippi recently ratified the anti-slavery (the real 13th) amendment.

http://www.usconstitution.net/constamrat.html#Am13
Logged
jimrtex
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 11,828
Marshall Islands


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #30 on: May 30, 2005, 10:30:02 PM »

Of course Philip's point is valid. The "every state gets a member regardless" rule in the original constitution is not explicitly repealed by this amendment. Just as the "electors have to cast their two votes for two different people" rule is not explicitly repealed by the XIIth amendment, so the counting of the Electoral Votes in 2004 was done in an unconstitutional manner.
The amendment does nothing to the apportionment portion of Article I.  It sets certain size limits for the House in its entirety.

The version proposed by Madison actually increased the guarantee to 2 representatives per state.  This was reduced to 1, and then dropped entirely.

The 12th Amendment sets out an entirely new procedure for the electors.  It has similar restrictions to those of the original Constitution, but this does not mean that all the restrictions of the original apply.  Since Congress counted both Edwards votes, and no one objected, they must be presumed to be valid.
Logged
jimrtex
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 11,828
Marshall Islands


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #31 on: May 30, 2005, 10:37:17 PM »

Exactly. Two[/b] candidates. The original text explicitly mentions that you can't cast your two votes for the same person, the amendment's text does not repeal or contradict that.
XIIth specifies that two "distinct" ballots be cast.  The original specifies that two persons be named on one ballot.
Logged
○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└
jfern
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 53,708


Political Matrix
E: -7.38, S: -8.36

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #32 on: May 30, 2005, 10:39:59 PM »

Exactly. Two[/b] candidates. The original text explicitly mentions that you can't cast your two votes for the same person, the amendment's text does not repeal or contradict that.
XIIth specifies that two "distinct" ballots be cast.  The original specifies that two persons be named on one ballot.

I don't see any reason why they can't be for the same person, unless those are electors from that candidate's home state, in which case whatever relevant part of the constitution applies where they can't both be from their home state.
Logged
jimrtex
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 11,828
Marshall Islands


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #33 on: May 30, 2005, 10:50:05 PM »

The oriiginal states no longer had the power to make an amendment become law by 1939, as it requires a 3/4ths vote of the states at the time of ratification. Otherwise, the titles of nobility amendment would have become law in 1819. Sure they could have ratified it, but by that time it needed 36 of the 48 states.
No State can unilaterally make an amendment become part of the Constitution.  In 1939, Massachusetts could have ratified the 1st and 2nd Article proposed in 1789.  Its purported ratification of the 3rd through 12th Articles proposed in 1789 had no legal impact.

It has never been truly been resolved when an amendment becomes part of the Constitution.   There is nothing in the Constitution about the Congress or President making a declaration.  This is part of the reason for confusion with respect to the nobility amendment.  After a while, someone in Congress will request the executive to make inquiries to determine whether that amendment they proposed a while back was part of the Constitution.

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.
The legislature may have passed a resolution.  It is meaningless with respect to the Constitution.
Logged
jimrtex
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 11,828
Marshall Islands


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #34 on: May 30, 2005, 10:57:37 PM »

Exactly. Two[/b] candidates. The original text explicitly mentions that you can't cast your two votes for the same person, the amendment's text does not repeal or contradict that.
XIIth specifies that two "distinct" ballots be cast.  The original specifies that two persons be named on one ballot.
I don't see any reason why they can't be for the same person, unless those are electors from that candidate's home state, in which case whatever relevant part of the constitution applies where they can't both be from their home state.
Under the original Constitution they had to be two persons.  I disagree that one person can be two persons.  The 12th Amendment changed the voting procedure and the original requirement of voting for different persons no longer applied.  That is why the restriction of home state votes was restated.  Congress counted the both votes for Edwards.  No one objected, not even Senator Kerry, who was most affected by the vote.
Logged
minionofmidas
Lewis Trondheim
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 58,206
India


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #35 on: May 30, 2005, 11:58:11 PM »

I know they've established a precedent now. I wonder how long until somebody finds a tactical use for it.
Of course Kerry didn't object - it was totally irrelevant.
Logged
A18
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 23,794
Political Matrix
E: 9.23, S: -6.35

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #36 on: May 31, 2005, 10:57:21 AM »

The thing is, the way the 12th amendment is written, it looks like the block of text is supposed to be a total replacement for the old block of text. Thus, you might say it's okay to vote for the same person, but I don't know.
Logged
Pages: 1 [2]  
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.036 seconds with 12 queries.