Thirty-Thousand.org

I think the key is how you define "failure of the Legislature of such State." Reconsidering the only two options when a Vacancy might occur (i.e. either the State's Legislature is in session or not in session) and reconsidering the only two options for filling a Vacancy while the State's ...

For clarity's sake I'm addressing your second musing in a separate post: I agree with all of Pseudolus's observations regarding the benefits of fixed 6-year terms and whatnot, however. One thing I have mused on, though: perhaps in exchange for movement on increasing the size of the House, we could a...

Point 1: As far as I know, prior to the ratification of the 17th Amendment there were only two possible methods a Vacancy in the Senate could occur: 1) either a Vacancy in the State's representation unexpectedly occurred due to Resignation, illness, death, imprisonment, or otherwise, or 2) the State...

If we're going to address the issues with the election of senators, then address all of the issues. I don't like it that they serve 6-year terms. The world can really change in 6 years and we tend to forget what happened 6 years ago. The senators need to be accountable at all times in all things to...

The problem as I see it is that "repeal the 17th Amendment" is not a responsible proposal. The 17th Amendment was designed to address real problems, like legislative gridlock preventing anybody from being seated at all. As they say, the devil is in the details, and if I were a member of C...

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 ...

You've persuaded me on the 50,000 number (and I also changed "each" to "the"). Let the language of the proposed Apportionment Amendment be: There shall be a minimum of two Representatives for every State and no less than one Representative for every 50,000 Citizens enumerated by ...

...money entering an election process from foreign sources (outside constituencies) violates those citizen's right to equal representation. Such contributions are rightfully considered unconstitutional. They, in effect, take representation away from one citizen to give to another. I disagree wholeh...

Though, I still do question why the number 50,000 was chosen versus 40,000 or 60,000 or any other random number. What is the significance of 50,000? Actually, the language of the Senate's version was a little simpler and they proposed a district size of exactly 60,000 (once the total population rea...

Compelled by your persistence on this point, I'll suggest some additional concepts that could be incorporated into the amendment. See, whereas, now you've persuaded me that all we need in the Amendment is the original Madisonian language of "Article the First". Though, I still do question...

HouseSizeWonk wrote: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'?

Given my limited time, my focus must remain on getting more people to understand why it is essential that we increase the number of federal Representatives and, therefore, the number of single-member congressional districts. Unless more people support the cause of representational enlargement , a d...

I believe that your question, as posited, takes a legislature-centric view instead of a constituency-centric view, thereby inverting the chain of command and subverting the purpose of republican government. (I realize that you did not do that intentionally.) What I'm saying is that our focus should...

So you're basically saying that if a Representative doesn't have legislative pull or clout or likability outside of the debate room, then his/her ideas will never be brought to the table since open public debate will become a thing of the past. I hope you realize that is not what I’m saying. What I...

Pseudolus, I was trying to move that last thread but I accidently deleted it. I'm sorry! It just so happens that I didn't lose my reply to your last posting that I was working on (below). Of course, feel free to re-post any of your points. Again, my apologies. (I'm still on a learning curve with th...

Pseudolus, I would be grateful if you would carefully read "Taking Back Our Republic" which can be downloaded from this page . I did read it. It doesn't persuade me to increase membership as high as 6000, at least not without several steps between. This is why I've been begging you to sta...

The problem is keeping the House productive while appropriately representing the population level. Given today's social networking capabilities, it seems like one for every 250,000 (or roughly 1,200 Representatives) would be an appropriate number. As populations grow and technology changes, perhaps ...

Proposed language of a new amendment to repeal the 17th Amendment: 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 Senate happen by failure of the Legislature of such State,...

For example, let’s say your organization (hypothetically) focused on the repeal of the 17th and 16th amendments. Because there are people who are committed to the former but not the latter (or vice versa), you will not gain as much support as you would by focusing exclusively on either objective. T...

Speaking for myself, I don’t have the time to engage in discussion of other amendment proposals and, more importantly, I am not knowledgeable enough to take a firm position on most of them one way or the other. If you join The Liberty List on Facebook, you could participate in only the areas where ...

I'm of the opinion that, in order to protect the United States government from drifting into oligarchy, an Amendment Convention actually needs to ratify not only a simple Apportionment Amendment, but a complete short list of Amendments specifically designed to prevent oligarchy and protect individua...

Why isn't there a topic where we debate the wording and debate the realistic nature of jumping immediately from 435 to 6000+ Representatives? Now that you point that out, I hadn't thought about it because (from my perspective) that amendment has already been drafted! It was proposed by the House of...

Isn't the whole concern over a new Constitution being created from an Amendment Convention somewhat moot? It's a necessary risk and severely unlikely to result in a new Constitution getting passed by completing disregarding the rules of the former, despite the precedent of the Articles of Confederat...

I'm FOR the repeal of the 17th Amendment. Actually, it's repeal is part of my 3 step process to save America (another of the steps is obviously the ratification of "Article the First"). But, with regards to how Senators are appointed, I think it would have to be by the state legislatures a...

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...