Search found 38 matches

by HouseSizeWonk
Wed Mar 30, 2011 11:41 am
Forum: Section 10: Achieving the revolutionary vision
Topic: Senate too!
Replies: 7
Views: 7052

Re: Senate too!

The problem with this reasoning is that it takes for granted (it "bakes in") the amount of influence that the Senate has now (or the 2 "Senate votes" in the Electoral College anyway) is much higher than it has been at any prior point in U.S. history because of the way we've allow...
by HouseSizeWonk
Mon Dec 27, 2010 3:37 pm
Forum: Repealing the 17th Amendment: Pros and Cons
Topic: Was the 17th Amendment properly ratified?
Replies: 28
Views: 21615

Re: Was the 17th Amendment properly ratified?

However, let's pursue your worst case scenario: While a State's Legislature is in session , the Executive of that State makes a temporary Appointment to fill the Vacancy. And, rather than simply replacing the Executive's temporary Appointment, the Legislature opts to sue the Executive on the ground...
by HouseSizeWonk
Wed Dec 15, 2010 8:09 pm
Forum: Section 10: Achieving the revolutionary vision
Topic: Clemons v. Department of Commerce dismissed by Supreme Court
Replies: 1
Views: 5754

Re: Clemons v. Department of Commerce dismissed by Supreme C

The cause of representational enlargement is correct and just, initiated by our nation’s Founders, and fully supported by logic and facts. It will now be necessary to win this battle in the court of public opinion. This will be a sounder basis upon which to rest the victory anyway. Most court-order...
by HouseSizeWonk
Wed Dec 15, 2010 8:05 pm
Forum: Repealing the 17th Amendment: Pros and Cons
Topic: Was the 17th Amendment properly ratified?
Replies: 28
Views: 21615

Re: Was the 17th Amendment properly ratified?

Point 2: The Constitution is written in such a manner as to expect that the State's Legislature would always appoint a Senator prior to the seat's planned Vacancy or upon their first Meeting after the seat's unexpected Vacancy. The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from ...
by HouseSizeWonk
Mon Dec 06, 2010 3:37 pm
Forum: Repealing the 17th Amendment: Pros and Cons
Topic: Was the 17th Amendment properly ratified?
Replies: 28
Views: 21615

Re: Was the 17th Amendment properly ratified?

This is the very reason why I wrote a proposed Amendment which would repeal the 17th Amendment in the following manner: Section 1. The seventeenth article of amendment to the Constitution of the United States is hereby repealed. Section 2. If Vacancies in the representation of any State in the Sena...
by HouseSizeWonk
Wed Dec 01, 2010 11:57 pm
Forum: Repealing the 17th Amendment: Pros and Cons
Topic: Was the 17th Amendment properly ratified?
Replies: 28
Views: 21615

Re: Was the 17th Amendment properly ratified?

The "Devvy" piece suffers from the disadvantage of not making any sense... Thanks for the analysis. I didn't know what to make of that column. I appreciate your critical examination. Of course, it's wishful thinking that there is a easy way to overturn the 17th Amendment. I am frustrated ...
by HouseSizeWonk
Wed Nov 10, 2010 10:44 am
Forum: Take it outside!
Topic: Your House of Representatives
Replies: 11
Views: 15664

Re: Your House of Representatives

Paul wrote:I also think it is unlikely that so much power would ever be granted to so few people, specifically in the cases of the Speaker and the Committee Chairs.
This sort of power already belongs to the Speaker and the Committee Chairs. Not only is it wrong to say it's unlikely, it has already happened.
by HouseSizeWonk
Wed Nov 10, 2010 10:38 am
Forum: Take it outside!
Topic: Your House of Representatives
Replies: 11
Views: 15664

Re: Your House of Representatives

There are about 200 committee members. On what source do you base that claim? According to the House website, the only member of the House without at least one committee assignment is the one from Oregon 2. Even OR-2 has a committee assignment (Energy and Commerce), but he is on leave because he wa...
by HouseSizeWonk
Tue Nov 09, 2010 11:35 am
Forum: Take it outside!
Topic: Proportional Representation: a cure worse than the disease
Replies: 4
Views: 6839

Re: Proportional Representation: a cure worse than the disease

First, because the U.S. Constitution specifies single-member districts , implementing proportional representation would require a constitutional amendment. The Constitution does not require single-member districts. It says only: "The Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators a...
by HouseSizeWonk
Fri Nov 05, 2010 1:34 pm
Forum: Repealing the 17th Amendment: Pros and Cons
Topic: Was the 17th Amendment properly ratified?
Replies: 28
Views: 21615

Re: Was the 17th Amendment properly ratified?

The "Devvy" piece suffers from the disadvantage of not making any sense. I mean, there are the lame-brain factual errors which are neither here nor there, but detract from her credibility. (E.g., the First Continental Congress convened on September 5, 1774. The Congress of the Confederatio...
by HouseSizeWonk
Wed Aug 25, 2010 12:36 am
Forum: Section 10: Achieving the revolutionary vision
Topic: Article V Amendment Convention
Replies: 19
Views: 13432

Re: Amendment Convention

Isn't the whole concern over a new Constitution being created from an Amendment Convention somewhat moot? I understand your point, but here is why it's not moot: many people labor under the misconception that Article V of the Constitution authorizes some sort of "constitutional convention"...
by HouseSizeWonk
Tue Aug 24, 2010 11:52 pm
Forum: Section 10: Achieving the revolutionary vision
Topic: Apportionment.us: three judge panel to be convened!
Replies: 21
Views: 13922

Re: Apportionment.us: three judge panel to be convened!

Adam, I'll reply to some of your last post when time permits. In general, I'm not sure where you are coming from. A few of your arguments strike me as so specious that I don't know if you're opposing representational enlargement , or if you're simply playing devil's advocate. (Forgive me if you alr...
by HouseSizeWonk
Sat Aug 21, 2010 1:26 am
Forum: Section 10: Achieving the revolutionary vision
Topic: Apportionment.us: three judge panel to be convened!
Replies: 21
Views: 13922

Re: Apportionment.us: three judge panel to be convened!

A constitutional amendment or a recognition that the Reynolds line of cases was wrongly-decided, which is what I am arguing for. It is not unheard of for the Supreme Court to overrule itself. Reynolds and its ilk were wrongly-decided. Yet another example of Chief Justice Warren deciding that it was...
by HouseSizeWonk
Sat Aug 21, 2010 1:19 am
Forum: Section 10: Achieving the revolutionary vision
Topic: Apportionment.us: three judge panel to be convened!
Replies: 21
Views: 13922

Re: Apportionment.us: three judge panel to be convened!

Correct me if I'm wrong, because I'm sorting out my own logic as I go; but... The 14th Amendment, by its own terms, applies only to the States ("No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive...
by HouseSizeWonk
Sun Aug 15, 2010 5:37 pm
Forum: Section 10: Achieving the revolutionary vision
Topic: Apportionment.us: three judge panel to be convened!
Replies: 21
Views: 13922

Re: Apportionment.us: three judge panel to be convened!

Who is to say which system is more "democratic"? Who is to say which set of compromises strikes the appropriate balance? Certainly not the Supreme Court of the United States, IMO. Contrary to your opinion, though, the Supreme Court does indeed have the "say" on this and, barring...
by HouseSizeWonk
Thu Aug 12, 2010 5:37 pm
Forum: Section 10: Achieving the revolutionary vision
Topic: Apportionment.us: three judge panel to be convened!
Replies: 21
Views: 13922

Re: Apportionment.us: three judge panel to be convened!

It rests on "the constitutionally frail tautology that 'equal' means 'equal,'" as the younger Justice Harlan very appropriately noted. I still have no idea what Adam is talking about. Since when does 'equal' mean anything other than 'equal'? What is it to be treated "equally"? C...
by HouseSizeWonk
Mon Jul 26, 2010 8:26 pm
Forum: Section 10: Achieving the revolutionary vision
Topic: Apportionment.us: three judge panel to be convened!
Replies: 21
Views: 13922

Re: Apportionment.us: three judge panel to be convened!

Given that, the question is: Why should the U.S. House of Representatives be exempt from one person one vote when every other representative body in the U.S. must meet that requirement? (The federal Senate being the only exception as explicitly defined by the Constitution.) Let's focus on that simp...
by HouseSizeWonk
Thu Jul 22, 2010 3:11 pm
Forum: Section 10: Achieving the revolutionary vision
Topic: Transitioning to a larger House
Replies: 18
Views: 14139

Re: Transitioning to a larger House

I, for one, find a 6000-seat chamber unwise, and I think arguing for it hurts everybody who believes House expansion is necessary, because it makes people who support it look like goldbugs or something -- fringe types. The best thing they could do (IMO) would be very simple, and would be less arbitr...
by HouseSizeWonk
Thu Jul 22, 2010 2:09 pm
Forum: Section 10: Achieving the revolutionary vision
Topic: Apportionment.us: three judge panel to be convened!
Replies: 21
Views: 13922

Re: Apportionment.us: three judge panel to be convened!

In addition to the 6 States that the Supreme Court decided at length in 1964, it also quickly handled (via something called a memorandum opinion) a stack of additional cases -- perhaps because they felt that there were not enough factual dissimilarities to bother writing separate opinions. Still, if...
by HouseSizeWonk
Thu Jul 22, 2010 2:01 pm
Forum: Section 10: Achieving the revolutionary vision
Topic: Apportionment.us: three judge panel to be convened!
Replies: 21
Views: 13922

Re: Apportionment.us: three judge panel to be convened!

"One person one vote" -- at the national level -- is found within the Constitution as " Representatives ... shall be apportioned among the several states which may be included within this union, according to their respective numbers ". It is not possible to implement that nation...
by HouseSizeWonk
Wed Nov 18, 2009 1:53 pm
Forum: Section 10: Achieving the revolutionary vision
Topic: Article V Amendment Convention
Replies: 19
Views: 13432

Re: Amendment Convention

I'm no historian, but here's what I do know: state #10 was Virginia (June 25, 1788) and New York ratified one month later. Those two states were the silver backed gorillas in the collection of states and NOBODY could strong arm them into ratifying the Constitution! Had those two states refused, the...
by HouseSizeWonk
Sun Nov 15, 2009 10:02 pm
Forum: Section 10: Achieving the revolutionary vision
Topic: Article V Amendment Convention
Replies: 19
Views: 13432

Re: Amendment Convention

This seems like a spectacular assertion. In what way was the Philadelphia Convention not bound by the provisions of an existing constitution? The Articles of Confederation were the existing constitution! And they clearly provided: "[T]he Articles of this Confederation shall be inviolably obser...
by HouseSizeWonk
Tue Nov 10, 2009 11:38 pm
Forum: Section 10: Achieving the revolutionary vision
Topic: Article V Amendment Convention
Replies: 19
Views: 13432

Re: Amendment Convention

I realize that is the basis for the hobgoblin of a "constitutional convention", but that line of reasoning is absolutely specious! That would be like expressing concern that a rogue group of NFL employees could assemble somewhere and simply announce that they have established a new league...
by HouseSizeWonk
Mon Oct 26, 2009 11:24 am
Forum: Section 10: Achieving the revolutionary vision
Topic: Some Court Cases About The 435 Number
Replies: 16
Views: 12885

Re: Some Court Cases About The 435 Number

I think we can address this several ways- 1. This case was only about gerrymandering, not apportionment. If you look at the history of the Court, it has taken distinctions even slighter than the difference between gerrymandering and apportionment and come out in opposite ways-ways you never would h...
by HouseSizeWonk
Mon Oct 26, 2009 10:48 am
Forum: Take it outside!
Topic: The Census, Noncitizens and Apportionment
Replies: 6
Views: 6627

Re: The Census, Noncitizens and Apportionment

The apportionment figure must include illegal aliens and other noncitizens due to constitutional imperative. ... Are you saying that the only way to change this (so that only citizens are counted) would be through a constitutional amendment? So if Congress did enact such a law, SCOTUS may rule that...