This is a "Deep Research" report created by Google’s Gemini AI on March 31, 2025.
Gemini created this in response to this question: “Are you familiar with the story of "Article the first" of the Bill of Rights as explained here on this webpage https://thirty-thousand.org/article-the ... of-rights/ ?” Gemini's report is reproduced below, in its entirety, unedited. The footnotes are provided at the bottom.
The United States Bill of Rights, comprising the first ten amendments to the Constitution, stands as a cornerstone of American civil liberties, ratified in 1791.1 However, the initial proposal to the states included twelve amendments. Among these, the first two failed to garner the necessary ratification at the time.2 This report delves into the history, content, and fate of the first proposed amendment, known as "Article the first," which aimed to establish a permanent mechanism for proportional representation in the U.S. House of Representatives. Examining the details of this unratified article, the reasons for its failure, and its potential significance offers valuable insights into the early debates surrounding the structure of American government and its enduring relevance to contemporary discussions about representation.
The genesis of the Bill of Rights lies in the debates surrounding the ratification of the Constitution itself.3 While Federalists championed the new framework of government, Anti-Federalists voiced concerns over the absence of explicit protections for individual liberties.3 Figures like Alexander Hamilton initially argued against the necessity of a bill of rights.5 However, to secure the support of the Anti-Federalists and ensure the Constitution's widespread acceptance, James Madison, who initially held reservations about the need for such a list of rights, took on the task of drafting proposed amendments.2 In 1789, the First Congress proposed twelve articles of amendment to the Constitution.2 Ultimately, the third through twelfth of these proposals were ratified and became the first ten amendments, forming the Bill of Rights. Notably, the second proposed article eventually gained ratification much later, becoming the Twenty-seventh Amendment.2 The first proposed amendment, "Article the first," along with the second, differed in their focus from the subsequent ten. Instead of directly guaranteeing rights to citizens, these initial two articles aimed to place limitations on the structure and operation of the government itself.2 This suggests that the early consideration of constitutional amendments prioritized not only safeguarding individual freedoms but also establishing a fundamental framework for the legislative branch.
The main objective of "Article the first" was to ensure that the number of representatives in the U.S. House would consistently increase in proportion to the nation's growing population.2 The webpage detailing this proposed amendment reveals that many at the time believed the success of the new republic hinged on maintaining this proportional relationship.2 While the Constitution set a maximum ratio of one representative for every 30,000 people, it lacked a specified minimum requirement, a deficiency that drew criticism.2 James Madison considered this absence a significant flaw and proposed "Article the first" to address it.2 The intended design of this amendment employed a three-tiered system to establish a minimum size for the House based on different population levels.2 The first tier stated, "After the first enumeration there shall be one Representative for every thirty thousand, until the number shall amount to one hundred." The second tier stipulated, "After which the proportion shall be so regulated by Congress, that there shall be not less than one hundred Representatives, nor less than one for every forty thousand persons, until the number shall amount to two hundred." Finally, the third tier proposed, "After which the proportion shall be so regulated by Congress, that there shall not be less than two hundred Representatives, nor less than one Representative for every fifty thousand persons." This structure intended to create a floor for the size of the House, ensuring it would grow alongside the population while respecting the constitutional ceiling.2 Madison's advocacy for this amendment underscores the importance he placed on a representative legislature that could effectively reflect the will of the people in a growing nation.
However, the version of "Article the first" that was actually sent to the states for ratification contained a critical error that ultimately doomed its prospects.2 In the third tier of the proposed amendment, the word "less" was mistakenly replaced with "more".2 This seemingly minor alteration had a profound impact, fundamentally changing the meaning and rendering the amendment impractical.2 The intended minimum House size for populations exceeding a certain threshold was transformed into a maximum size. Instead of ensuring at least one representative for every 50,000 people after the population reached a certain point, the flawed version implied that there should not be more than one representative for every 50,000 people once the population surpassed eight million. This contradicted the Constitution's existing framework and created a scenario where the maximum size of the House could fall below the established minimum of 200 representatives for certain population ranges.2 The error essentially turned the amendment on its head, making it illogical and counterproductive to its original aim of guaranteeing proportional representation through a growing House. It is believed that this defect likely resulted from a hasty and unnoticed change during the process of drafting and transmitting the proposed amendments.2
Despite initial ratification by a number of states, who likely assumed they were endorsing the intended version, the critical error in "Article the first" was eventually discovered.2 Once the flaw became apparent, the amendment's viability evaporated, leading to its abandonment and ultimate failure to be ratified.2 This stands in contrast to the other proposed amendments, including those that became the Bill of Rights, which did not suffer from such fundamental textual errors.2 The non-ratification of "Article the first" was thus not a rejection of the principle of proportional representation itself, but rather a consequence of a significant and irreconcilable flaw in the proposed language.
Several significant figures played key roles in the story of "Article the first." James Madison, often hailed as the "Father of the Constitution," was central to its conception and proposal.2 His concern over the lack of a minimum size for the House of Representatives motivated him to include this amendment among the initial twelve proposed to the states.2 Madison believed that a proportionally sized House was essential for a well-functioning republic.2 The debates during the Constitutional Convention of 1787 also provide crucial context.8 Figures like Roger Sherman, Gouverneur Morris, William Paterson, John Rutledge, and Rufus King engaged in vigorous discussions about the appropriate basis for representation, the number of representatives, and the balance between state and popular representation.8 These earlier debates highlight the enduring importance and complexity of ensuring fair and effective representation in a legislative body. Madison's efforts with "Article the first" can be seen as a continuation of this fundamental discussion, aiming to establish a more concrete and enduring framework for proportional representation in the House.
The debates surrounding representation in the House of Representatives during the Constitutional Convention in 1787 were extensive and reflected fundamental disagreements about the nature of the new government.8 One of the central points of contention was whether representation should be proportional to population or based on equal representation for each state.9 Proponents of proportional representation, largely Federalists, argued that it aligned with republican principles and ensured fair representation based on the number of people in each state.9 They believed this system was more democratic and appropriate for a nation where the government derived its power from the people.9 Conversely, Anti-Federalists, particularly those from smaller states, feared that proportional representation would lead to domination by larger states and diminish the voice of less populous states.9 They advocated for equal state representation to protect the sovereignty and interests of individual states.9 The issue of whether enslaved populations should be counted towards representation also sparked intense debate, with southern states favoring their inclusion to increase their representation, while others opposed it on moral and political grounds.8 The eventual compromise resulted in a bicameral legislature with proportional representation in the House and equal representation in the Senate.12 "Article the first" can be understood as an additional attempt to refine the principle of proportional representation in the House, suggesting that some believed the initial constitutional provisions still needed further strengthening or clarification.
The webpage from thirty-thousand.org posits that the intended version of "Article the first," had it been ratified, would likely have yielded significant benefits for the republic.2 This assertion resonates with modern discussions and debates concerning the size of the House of Representatives.12 Since 1913, the number of voting representatives in the House has been fixed by law at 435, despite a substantial increase in the U.S. population. This has led to a dramatic rise in the population-to-representative ratio, from approximately one representative for every 57,000 people in the first Congress to over 747,000 today.4 Current arguments for increasing the size of the House often echo the principles behind the intended "Article the first," emphasizing the need for improved representation, increased accessibility of representatives to their constituents, and a reduction in the workload of individual members.3 Proposals like the "Wyoming Rule" and the REAL House Act aim to address this issue by increasing the number of House seats.4 However, concerns exist regarding the potential for a larger House to become less efficient and the logistical challenges of accommodating more members.6 Public opinion on expanding the House is also divided.4 While the specific ratios outlined in the intended "Article the first" might not be sufficient for today's population 12, the underlying principle of linking the size of the House to population growth remains a central theme in contemporary discussions about the representativeness of the American government. The failure to ratify the intended "Article the first" can be viewed as a missed opportunity to establish a more dynamic and population-responsive structure for the House, an issue that continues to be debated more than two centuries later.
In conclusion, "Article the first" of the proposed Bill of Rights represents a fascinating, albeit ultimately unsuccessful, attempt to enshrine the principle of proportional representation in the U.S. House of Representatives through a mechanism tied to population growth. The critical error in its wording, which inverted its intended meaning, led to its non-ratification, despite initial support from several states. The story of this unratified amendment underscores the meticulous nature required in constitutional drafting and the potential consequences of even seemingly minor mistakes. Moreover, it highlights the enduring importance of the debate surrounding representation in American governance, a debate that continues to this day. The principles that underpinned the intended "Article the first" – ensuring that the legislative body responsible for representing the people grows alongside the population – remain relevant in contemporary discussions about the size and representativeness of the House of Representatives. While the specific formula proposed in 1789 might not be applicable to the vastly larger population of the 21st century, the fundamental idea of maintaining a proportional link between the electorate and their representation in the "People's House" remains a crucial consideration for the health and legitimacy of American democracy.
Works cited
- The Bill of Rights: What Does it Say? - National Archives, accessed March 31, 2025, https://www.archives.gov/founding-docs/ ... oes-it-say
- Section Two: Article The First of The Bill of Rights, accessed March 31, 2025, https://thirty-thousand.org/article-the ... of-rights/
- The Bill of Rights: A Brief History | American Civil Liberties Union, accessed March 31, 2025, https://www.aclu.org/documents/bill-rig ... ef-history
- Bill of Rights | The First Amendment Encyclopedia - Free Speech Center, accessed March 31, 2025, https://firstamendment.mtsu.edu/article/bill-of-rights/
- James Madison Creation of Bill of Rights, accessed March 31, 2025, https://billofrightsinstitute.org/essay ... -of-rights
- Understanding the Bill of Rights - Jack Miller Center, accessed March 31, 2025, https://www.jackmillercenter.org/articl ... -of-rights
- Constitutional Amendments - Amendment 1 – “The Freedom of Speech” | Ronald Reagan, accessed March 31, 2025, https://www.reaganlibrary.gov/constitut ... dom-speech
- July 9, 1787: Power and Representation (U.S. National Park Service), accessed March 31, 2025, https://www.nps.gov/articles/000/consti ... -july9.htm
- The Debate Over the House of Representatives – Center for the ..., accessed March 31, 2025, https://csac.history.wisc.edu/document- ... entatives/
- Madison Debates - June 11 - Avalon Project, accessed March 31, 2025, https://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_centur ... es_611.asp
- Milestones: 1776-1783: Articles of Confederation, 1777-1781 - Office of the Historian, accessed March 31, 2025, https://history.state.gov/milestones/1776-1783/articles
- The House Explained | house.gov, accessed March 31, 2025, https://www.house.gov/the-house-explained
- 10. How Americans view proposals to change the political system - Pew Research Center, accessed March 31, 2025, https://www.pewresearch.org/politics/20 ... al-system/
- Enlarging the House | American Academy of Arts and Sciences, accessed March 31, 2025, https://www.amacad.org/ourcommonpurpose ... sentatives
- US population is growing, but House of Representatives is stuck at ..., accessed March 31, 2025, https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads ... -taft-era/
- Pros and Cons of Expanding the House | American Academy of Arts ..., accessed March 31, 2025, https://www.amacad.org/news/pros-and-co ... ding-house