Who's going to arrest them when they violate the act? No one. There is a reason why Sen Diane Feinstein CA-D is worth $500 million, likewise with Denny Rehberg R MT is worth $50 million...on making a mere $175,000 per year? Funny how Montana has some 960,000 people living in it and only 1 member in the House of Reps, yet Wyoming has 530,000 and only one member in the House of Reps yet Iowa gets 4 members and their districts are about 480,000---the solution add more members in the House. Funny, how the Republicans and Democrats agree--let's keep membership at 435...how many did John Adams expect by now 1,656 and Thomas Jefferson...6000. Research Article the First. What the Repubs and Dems don't want is more members in the House...why? It'll take away their POWER.
The 3/5fths meant for every 5 slaves they were to be counted as 3 free men. It was used so that Slave owners could not form their own congressional districts because a district back then was 30,000. Not until 1913 did the number become capped at 435. An average district is now 800,000. It seems the 3/5fths rule is still used.
Yes, Representative Pedro Pierlusi of Peurto Rico is a member of congress. The US Constitution says only a State can have a member in congress. Since Peurto Rico is not a State they cannot have a member in congress! But they do anyway.
Tom Fitton, you have no clue what you are talking about. Since 1913 there have been the same 435 fixed number of seats in the US House of Representatives. You should research Article the First and realize that the Madison version would allow 6000 seats in the US House of Reps while the Adams version would allow 1656 members in the US House of Reps both more than the 435. How come Montana with a population of 974,989 gets only 1 member in the House while Iowa gets 4 members but their districts average 482,980? Logically Montana should have 2. The founders stressed that there should be a minimum of 200 seats with each state having 5 members and since some states would have a larger population then others a district should not be less than 50,000 or 1 member of congress for every 50,000 inhabitants. You shouldn't assume that the US Census Bureau or the establishment in both parties are honest in the first place. There is nothing preventing the House from adding more seats. Do you know why the House doesn't add more seats? Because they will lose and an average citizen would win not multi-millionaires robbing us blind!
There is nothing stopping liberals from writing checks to the US Government or the State of California. Make no mistake the tax hikes are for the Middle Class. Please Brad Pitt you live in Malibu and Beverly Hills write a check for $10 million or how about you Oprah $500 million check will cover it I'm sure. Put your money where your mouth is! How about those Kardashian sisters? Let some poor homeless people into your warm beds. You don't have to sleep with them, just let them sleep in your bedrooms! Kim you can spare a few million c'mon don't be racist!
Nope, rulers make the rules, and it is just a thief robbing our Treasury. In fact, the US Senate was never designed to have direct elections. That was changed by progressives in 1913. 17th Amendment. Further, in the time of our founders none of them had a staff. They simple traveled to the House of Reps and voted or wrote the laws themselves. The House of Reps has also been the same size 435 since 1913. According to Jefferson and Madison Republicans with our population of 310 million the House of Reps is to be 6000, and according to Adams and the Federalists the House of Reps is to be 1,656 clearly more than the 435. Remember every 10 years with a census our rulers get to pick their districts, so they cannot lose. Determined5, you've got to get active and educated if you want to change it to the original intent. Not to mention it costs about 8 million to win a seat in the House of Reps, if districts were about 50,000 as proclaimed in Article the First it would cost a few hundred bucks to win and no need for lobbyists, but you'd have to have dinner with your constituents every night...hmmm that's what the founders used to do.
Here's another solution. If we want smaller goverment then we have to have smaller congressional districts. In fact, districts so small that the common American citizen will be the only ones able to be elected. That would mean us. Simply, put since 1913 the House of Representatives is the same 435 fixed elite membership. There is nothing preventing the House from increasing its size say to 1000 members. Why is it that Rhode Island has a population of 1 million and they get 2 members in the House of Reps, yet Montana has nearly the same number and they have only 1 member in the House of Reps? Further James Wilson signer of the Declaration of Independence and ratifier of the US Constitution said in 1787 "in a single century we will have a House of Reprsentatives consisting of more than 600 members." Even more puzzling 11 of the 12 Bills of Rights have been ratifed except for Article the First declaring a congressional district consiting of no less than 50,000 per 1 Representative. It is our government not theirs.
Maybe, but the Republican party with all its mix of conservatives, libertarians, and moderates must unite to defeat the Democrats.
I'd like to see Mitt Romney/Rand Paul ticket.
That would be nice, but most Americans don't understand or truly support the constitution in the first place. There are suppose to be 10,333 members in the House of Reps as of today with our population of 310 million. There are only 435 members and each has about 500,000 to 900,000 or more constituents in each district. A congressional district is to have 30,000 constituents. That's it. But "congress" changed the rules in 1929..."We don't need anymore corrupt politicians." The truth is we cannot vote most of them out. And most of them are all con-artists. If you truly want to change congress run for office yourself. Certainly volunteer to count the ballots. Get involved with your local Republican group and understand the constitution...read the Federalist papers.