The Mystery of the Bill of Rights' First Amendment

This forum explores and elaborates on “Article the first” of the Bill of Rights. Be sure to first read about Article the first at:
http://enlargethehouse.blogtownhall.com
Forum rules
This forum focuses on “Article the first” of the Bill of Rights. Unrelated discussion threads will be moved or deleted.

The Mystery of the Bill of Rights' First Amendment

Postby JEQuidam » Sun May 03, 2009 8:07 am

This is the contents of a TTO press release dated 11-October-2007. Links to supporting resources are provided in the text below.

Why the very first amendment proposed in the Bill of Rights was never ratified and how that failure put the U.S. House of Representatives on the path to oligarchy.

THE TWELVE BILLS OF RIGHTS

Very few people know that the Bill of Rights document drafted in 1789 contains twelve articles of amendment (not ten). Of those twelve, only the last ten were ratified to the U.S. Constitution prior to 1791. As a result, our Constitution's First Amendment had originally been proposed as “Article the third,” and the Second Amendment was originally “Article the fourth," and so forth. And, to further confuse matters, the Bill of Rights' “Article the second” was not ratified until 200 years later -- as the 27th Amendment -- which finally limited Congress' ability to increase its own compensation.

However, Article the first -- the very first amendment proposed in the Bill of Rights -- was never ratified. A new report from Thirty-Thousand.org solves the mystery of this forgotten amendment: it was intended to ensure a much larger -- and truly representative -- House of Representatives.

ARTICLE THE FIRST...

The intended purpose of Article the first was to require a minimum number of Representatives proportionate to the nation's total population. Our Constitution does not prescribe such a minimum (other than one Representative per state); referring to this omission, James Madison stated that he had “always thought this part of the constitution defective." He also believed that an amendment establishing a minimum number of Representatives -- in proportion to the total population -- was necessary "to secure the great objects of representation.

In the absence of such an amendment there is nothing to prevent Congress from permanently freezing the number of Representatives or even making the House much smaller than it is now. “It is clear from the historical record that a majority of the framers of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights wished to prevent the establishment of an oligarchy in our House of Representatives,” said Jeff Quidam, Thirty-Thousand.org's founder, “so perhaps that is why this amendment was the first of twelve in the Bill of Rights.”

Though the National Archives' web site provides an image of the original Bill of Rights document showing all twelve articles, its “transcript” inexplicably omits (as of this writing) any reference to its first two amendments. However, they can be seen by downloading the high-resolution .jpg from their site and magnifying that image.*

MOVING TOWARDS OLIGARCHY

From 1790 to 1910, the size of the House was usually increased every ten years as a result of population growth -- as was intended by the framers. The last permanent increase occurred when the number of Representatives was increased to 435 after the 1910 census.

After the next census, in 1920, Congress failed to reapportion the House (in violation of the Constitution); so the size remained at 435. Having become comfortable with that number, Congress passed an act in 1929 which made 435 the permanent size of the House. During the debates preceding the passage of that act, Missouri Representative Ralph Lozier stated that “The bill seeks to prescribe a national policy under which the membership of the House shall never exceed 435 ... I am unalterably opposed to limiting the membership of the House to the arbitrary number of 435. Why 435? Why not 400? Why not 300? Why not 250, 450, 535, or 600? Why is this number 435 sacred? What merit is there in having a membership of 435 that we would not have if the membership were 335 or 535? There is no sanctity in the number 435 ... There is absolutely no reason, philosophy, or common sense in arbitrarily fixing the membership of the House at 435 or at any other number.

WHY 435?

Is 435 the right size? If so, why? If not, should the House of Representatives be larger or smaller? If 435 was thought to be the appropriate size when the population was 91 million (per the 1910 census), should it be increased to reflect the fact that the total population has since more than tripled?

Thirty-Thousand.org believes that Americans would be better served by substantially increasing our number of federal Representatives; chief among the reasons for doing so is the need to achieve one-person-one-vote parity nationwide as well as the need to better reflect the diversity of the citizenry in the legislative branch.

Historical support for this position is provided by Article the first which, though generally overlooked by scholars, is both historically significant and quite interesting. This would-be first amendment was intended to establish a minimum number of Representatives proportionate to the total population; however, it was effectively sabotaged by an ostensibly minor modification made at the last minute by a joint House-Senate committee. In fact, this modification not only subverted the amendment's purpose, but it also introduced a mathematical defect which would have later rendered it inexecutable.

Largely because this subtle modification was generally unnoticed initially, Article the first was affirmed by every state except Delaware. Had the proposed amendment not been crippled then it might have eventually been ratified (as originally worded) and, as a result, we would now have approximately 6,000 Representatives!

Should there be 6,000 Representatives? Consider this: the population size of congressional districts in the U.S. varies widely with some districts nearly twice as large as others. As a result, the House is in egregious violation of the Constitutional principle of one-person-one-vote. In order to reduce the population difference below 5% -- between the smallest and largest districts nationwide -- the number of Representatives would have to be increased to over 6,300.

Surprisingly, no scholarly books or articles about Article the first have been published. Perhaps an unratified amendment is not worthy of scholarly attention even though it was affirmed by every state except one. Or perhaps it has been completely overlooked for other reasons.

THIRTY-THOUSAND.ORG

* The Bills of Rights' image and text.
User avatar
JEQuidam    
 
Posts: 193
Joined: Sun Apr 26, 2009 8:45 pm
Location: Dunwoody, Georgia
Stance: Pro-Enlargement

Re: The Mystery of the Bill of Rights' First Amendment

Postby Pseudolus » Wed Jun 30, 2010 7:03 am

JEQuidam wrote:This would-be first amendment was intended to establish a minimum number of Representatives proportionate to the total population; however, it was effectively sabotaged by an ostensibly minor modification made at the last minute by a joint House-Senate committee. In fact, this modification not only subverted the amendment's purpose, but it also introduced a mathematical defect which would have later rendered it inexecutable.


I'm pretty good at math, but I honestly don't see the mathematical defect in the language of "Article the First" which reads:

Bill of Rights wrote:Article the first... After the first enumeration required by the first article of the Constitution, there shall be one Representative for every thirty thousand, until the number shall amount to one hundred, after which the proportion shall be so regulated by Congress, that there shall be not less than one hundred Representatives, nor less than one Representative for every forty thousand persons, until the number of Representatives shall amount to two hundred; after which 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 persons. (emphasis added)


It seems to me that after the House reached 200 Representatives, there would always be one Representative for every fifty thousand persons. Am I reading it wrongly?

Questions:
    1. What was the original language?
    2. What was the ostensibly minor modification?
    3. How did the modification subvert the amendment's purpose?
    4. What is the mathematical defect that would have later rendered it inexecutable?
Pseudolus    
 
Posts: 50
Joined: Wed Jun 30, 2010 6:34 am
Location: New York, NY and New Orleans, LA
Stance: Pro-Enlargement

Re: The Mystery of the Bill of Rights' First Amendment

Postby JEQuidam » Wed Jun 30, 2010 9:56 pm

Pseudolus wrote:Questions:
    1. What was the original language?
    2. What was the ostensibly minor modification?
    3. How did the modification subvert the amendment's purpose?
    4. What is the mathematical defect that would have later rendered it inexecutable?
For the sake of expediency, allow me to direct you to other materials that will answer all of your questions. Now that you've asked about this, I hope you will take the time to read this information carefully as this is a truly fascinating subject (and long overlooked).

Please read section 3 of "Taking Back Our Republic", a pamphlet (pdf) which can be downloaded from this page. That section, which is only two pages long, provides a good overview.

For a very thorough analysis of "Article the first", reference the footnotes on page 7 of the pamphlet, in particular the reference to "The Minimum and Maximum Size of the U. S. House of Representatives". That report provides a detailed explanation of how the defect rendered the proposed amendment meaningless in the "second tier" and, moreover, sabotaged its intent in the "third tier" (none of which will make sense until you read the report).
User avatar
JEQuidam    
 
Posts: 193
Joined: Sun Apr 26, 2009 8:45 pm
Location: Dunwoody, Georgia
Stance: Pro-Enlargement

Re: The Mystery of the Bill of Rights' First Amendment

Postby HankW501 » Sat Oct 05, 2013 7:51 pm

Pseudolus wrote:I'm pretty good at math, but I honestly don't see the mathematical defect in the language of "Article the First" which reads:

Bill of Rights wrote:Article the first... After the first enumeration required by the first article of the Constitution, there shall be one Representative for every thirty thousand, until the number shall amount to one hundred, after which the proportion shall be so regulated by Congress, that there shall be not less than one hundred Representatives, nor less than one Representative for every forty thousand persons, until the number of Representatives shall amount to two hundred; after which 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 persons. (emphasis added)


The mathematical impossibility is that a maximum of 30,000 per district is incompatible with the existing constitutional minimum of 30,000 per district (Article I, Section 2, Clause 3). However, because the 1790 census formula resulted in a number greater than 3,000,000, the error was a moot point from the start.

Pseudolus wrote:It seems to me that after the House reached 200 Representatives, there would always be one Representative for every fifty thousand persons. Am I reading it wrongly?


You are almost right. There would have been a minimum of 100 Representatives after the 1790 census, a maximum of 40,000 per district after the 1800 & 1810 censuses, a minimum of 200 Representatives after the 1820 census, and a maximum of 50,000 per district after the 1830 through 2010 censuses. While the 1820 census total was high enough that the House would have reached 200 Representatives, it was still lower than (200 x 50,000).
HankW501    
 
Posts: 10
Joined: Thu Aug 01, 2013 11:44 pm
Stance: Pro-Enlargement

Re: The Mystery of the Bill of Rights' First Amendment

Postby HankW501 » Tue Oct 15, 2013 2:09 pm

HankW501 wrote:The mathematical impossibility is that a maximum of 30,000 per district is incompatible with the existing constitutional minimum of 30,000 per district (Article I, Section 2, Clause 3). However, because the 1790 census formula resulted in a number greater than 3,000,000, the error was a moot point from the start.


While what I stated would have been an issue if Article the 1st were ratified as is and if there were ever a time when fewer than three million were counted in a U.S. Census, it is not THE mathematical impossibility to which many refer. Unlike what I presented earlier, both of the statements that contradict each other are within Article the 1st:

After the number of Representatives reaches 200, which would be when more than eight million people are counted for the first time in a U.S. Census, Congress is supposed to make sure that the number of Representatives never drops below 200 nor more than one per 50,000 residents. So if those two conditions were applied to the 1820 U.S. Census, which totaled 9,388,281, stated another way, the Article would be telling us to make sure that the number of Representatives is never less than 200 AND never more than 187!
HankW501    
 
Posts: 10
Joined: Thu Aug 01, 2013 11:44 pm
Stance: Pro-Enlargement

Re: The Mystery of the Bill of Rights' First Amendment

Postby Epicurus » Sat Jul 19, 2014 8:05 pm

Kudos to Jeff Quidam for his outstanding scholarship on this subject. A political science professor friend, co-author of a widely used American history textbook, knew nothing about it.

There is a lot of American history that I refer to as unknown history because it isn't taught. This is a prime example.
Epicurus    
 
Posts: 21
Joined: Wed Jul 16, 2014 12:48 pm
Stance: Pro-Enlargement


Return to The Bill of Rights' "Article the first"

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

cron