Talk:Congressional Apportionment Amendment/Archive 2

TITLE CHANGE: Congressional Apportionment Amendment
In light of previous discussions documented on this Talk Page and the resulting consensus –with the exception of user:mikcob who does not concur– I have changed the article's title back to its original "Congressional Apportionment Amendment. Due to a hiccup with the histmerge when the article's title was changed this past April, the title of this talk page will need to be changed by an administrator. Drdpw (talk) 02:22, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Thank you, Drdpw. User:BD2412 is an admin and helped sort things out with this page a few months ago. BD, can you help?  --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 16:43, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
 * At this point, I think that any title change should be carried out by filing a request through the process outlined at Requested moves. bd2412  T 16:49, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Can you please clarify why you are suggesting this? Per WP:RM, users might resort that page because of 1) technical reasons that prevent them from performing the move themselves, or because of 2) a lack of consensus. In this case, (2) has been in operation in the past, but I would argue that the discussion has run its course and the consensus is clear. On the other hand, (1) is certainly in operation, as Drdpw has completed the move for the article but was not able to complete the move for the talk page, but isn't that something you could help with, without going to WP:RM? Thanks, --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 20:08, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I can't say that I see that consensus has been clearly established at this point. bd2412  T 23:08, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I am remiss in formalizing my objections to returning to a title of what I saw as a stub.


 * In its original form this article made no mention of the belated alteration of the single word that essentially destroyed the intent of the amendment. More importantly, that stub and title did not reflect the actual reason behind the consideration and development of the amendment. And to return to that title is to return to a misrepresentation of the factual history. While the revised article is a major and substantive improvement over what was "Article the First", my disagreement with the proposed return to the old name is based on the reality that the word "apportionment" does not adequately reflect what this amendment was about. When we google the word "apportionment" we find that it is descriptive of an allocation among participating members/organizations/individuals or whatever of a predefined quantity. The top rated results for the google search are about the apportionment of a fixed number of seats in the House of Representatives. This amendment was about REPRESENTATION. It was about how many people would have to share a vote in their House of Representatives, or, in other words, the size of the congressional districts. And again, google is our friend. We find that even the wikipedia defines "representation(politics)" as ONE'S ability to influence the political process.


 * I have no objection to changing the long lived title of "Article the First" to the title of "Article One of the United States Bill of Rights" if a redirect from "Article the First" is asserted. I feel the same treatment of "Congressional Apportionment Amendment" is the appropriate course of action. It is stated that there may be confusion with the "First Amendment" and I actually agree. Yet, an encyclopedia has a higher purpose to correct such confusion and to inform and educate as opposed to reinforcing dogma when such action is warranted. And the total revision of what was once "The Congressional Apportionment Amendment" would seem to provide proper basis. In the secondary source "The Great Rights of Mankind" Bernard Schwartz speaks of article the first as the representation amendment as opposed to an apportionment amendment (page 185). The title of "Congressional Apportionment Amendment" is no more appropriate now than it was when I changed it to "Article the First". And if the title must be actually descriptive of the reality then perhaps the name should be "The Congressional Representation Amendment". I do not insist on adopting such a title but I strenuously object to what I believe is a misleading title.The Trucker (talk) 20:03, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
 * We've been over all this before, it seems to me. The amendment concerns (1) how each state is allotted its number of representatives, with (2) the option that the total number of representatives might change. Your objection to the word "apportionment" seems to focus on the idea that it implies only (1) with no possibility of (2). I don't think any other users have been clearly convinced by this argument.
 * I do wish that there was better sourcing for one title or another, but we have to pick something. Effective arguments have been made that forms of "Article One" are too vague. Your suggestions of "Congressional Representation Amendment" is also too vague, as it could refer to many aspects of how states send representatives to Congress. --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 01:54, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes... We have been over this before. And your version of reality is just as incorrect this time as it was the last. This amendment had absolutely NOTHING to do with how the representatives were APPORTIONED among the states. The apportionment method was never at issue and never debated. What was at issue was the actual representation of the common people. I am frankly amazed that anyone could read the article and somehow conclude that apportionment was ever at issue. I have given you several references to what these simple English words mean, and yet you cling to your own definitions. I realize that we are not here to right wrongs, but the simple truth should be what we try to present. I am still at a loss to understand your objection to naming the article as you suggested in the first place and redirecting the INCORRECT title to the more correct one. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mikcob (talk • contribs) 01:54, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I believe Supreme Court Justice Joseph Story would disagree with you Mikcob. In writing about this proposed amendment and the Constitutional clause that it would modify, he wrote:
 * But it may be asked, what are the first steps to be taken in order to arrive at a constitutional apportionment? Plainly, by taking the aggregate of population in all the states, (according to the constitutional rule,) and then ascertain the relative proportion of the population of each state to the population of the whole. (http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/a1_2_3s22.html)
 * I too believe that this proposed amendment is indeed about how the apportionment of representatives is to be made. Drdpw (talk) 04:59, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
 * That's a great source, Drdpw! I don't think the issue is settled by the passage you quoted, because Story at that point does not mention whether the total number of representatives can change, which is the main issue in our case. However, in the surrounding paragraphs, Story is clearly considering the total number of representatives as to be determined by the process that he calls "apportionment" and that he states is the topic of the proposed amendment that is the subject of this WP article. --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 17:35, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
 * A primary problem with which you both must deal is the total lack of any consideration for 'adjusting the number of people sharing each representative' in the United States congressional apportionment article. That article clearly illustrates the meaning of "apportionment" as that term is used here in the United States. And there is no discussion in that article concerning how the representation of the people is to be addressed as the population grows. The subject is ignored in Federalist 55 through 58 as James Madison continually diverts attention from the question of representation (as raised by the anti-federalists) to discussion about the size of the congressional body and how it doesn't matter once the danger of a cabal is averted. And it is Madison that attempts to assure that an unwieldy house does not ensue by leaving the size of the body in the hands of the congress itself (substituting more for less). In Madison's designs there is no consideration for the actual voice of the people and their control over their representatives being lost as population grows. And that consideration was the actual subject that was to be addressed in Article One of the United States Bill of Rights. Why are we attempting name this article in such a way as to divert attention away from its history and content?The Trucker (talk) 18:25, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
 * "Apportionment" is better than "representation", for the reasons given above. For an example of where "representation" is better, see this rejected amendment. I also believe this talk page should be have the same title as the article (which currently would be "Talk:Congressional Apportionment Amendment").
 * "Is Isn't, Isn't is, and more baseless bickering. Facts, logic, history, and reality indicate that the name of the article should be "Article One of the United States Bill of Rights". The article name was correctly changed from "Article the First" to "Article One of the United States Bill of Rights" for good reason. But then a wikipedian decided it would be good to change it back to the original misleading name "Congressional Apportionment Amendment" and the lies of omission represented by that older name. And I will repeat here that if you want to change the name of the article and the talk page to "Congressional Apportionment Amendment" then you have a lot of work to do on the article named United States congressional apportionment.The Trucker (talk) 21:29, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
 * "Article One of the United States Bill of Rights" could easily be confused with the First Amendment. "Article the First" has the virtue of being the original name of this proposed amendment. "Congressional Apportionment Amendment" is a common name for this proposal. So this article should be named "Article the First" or "Congressional Apportionment Amendment". In either case, this talk page's name should be based on the article's name. SMP0328. (talk) 00:24, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Ratification theory
There is a claim that this proposed amendment was adopted. Does this claim belong in this article? If so, should it be labeled as a fringe theory? I would add it, but treat it as a similar claim is treated regarding the Titles of Nobility Amendment. SMP0328. (talk) 02:05, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
 * As the claims that TONA did become part of the US Constitution and that ERA is still active and viable are mentioned in their respective articles, I’m fine with including the Connecticut ratification claim in this article. Also, yes, IMO it is a ‘’fringe theory’’, as I can find no mention of it by independent reliable sources. Drdpw (talk) 19:22, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

Purpose and Priority of this Amendment
We seem to be having a disagreement over the purpose of this amendment and the priority placed upon in by the ratification conventions and the congressional committees that managed the package of 12 proposed amendments in that first congress. There seems to be an effort to claim a purpose and a priority other than that which is documented in the actual body of the Article itself and by secondary sources. This proposed amendment was called "Article the First" as admitted in the opening definition, but then it seems there is a desire to omit this FACT from the introductory paragraph. In the attempt to omit the relevant data, the opening sentence was made made grammatically incorrect. There is no reason to hide the FACT that this was the first of the 12 proposed amendments. So I have restored the proper description. AGAIN! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mikcob (talk • contribs) 00:04, 1 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Mikcob: There is a reference to this amendment being the first of the 12 proposed amendments located in the ratification paragraph ("Having been approved by Congress the twelve Bill of Rights amendments were sent to the states for ratification. Placed first among the twelve, this one was ratified by the legislatures of the following states") I have added wording to the introduction that reinforce this placement. Understand please, that there is no desire nor effort to hide the fact that this proposed amendment was #1 of #12 sent to the states by the 1st Congress. Drdpw (talk) 00:37, 1 March 2016 (UTC)


 * After reading this comment section, I feel that I should clarify some of the history regarding the order of the amendments given in the resolution proposing the Bill of Rights. When James Madison originally proposed his list of amendments in the first Congress he had wanted to add amendments to the text of the original seven articles. His amendments were listed in the order of where the amendments would alter the original text. However, Congress followed Roger Sherman's suggestion that amendments should be added following the original text. Madison's amendments were reworked into the original 12 proposed amendments but they retained Madison's original list order- where the Congressional Apportionment Amendment would've been added to Article I Section 2, what became the 27th Amendment would've been added to Article I Section 6, what became the 1st Amendment would've been added to Article I Section 9, and so forth. There is no special meaning in the exact order of amendments proposed in the Bill of Rights Libertybison (talk) 20:51, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

Three-Fifths Compromise
Should the article mention the Three-Fifths Compromise in regards to the size of Congressional districts and the balance of state representation in the House of Representatives? Since the amendment was proposed in that era, it seems that leaving it out misses out on part of the context of the amendment. Libertybison (talk) 16:45, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Was this proposed amendment meant to affect the TFC? While the TFC was part of the clause that would have been modified by this proposed amendment, the TFC would have been unaffected by it. At most, the article should refer to the TFC as being part of the clause that the proposed amendment while also saying that the TFC would not have been altered by the proposed amendment. SMP0328. (talk) 19:59, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
 * The amendment wouldn't have effected the TFC if ratified. Article One, Section 2:3 of the Constitution only set the minimum size of a congressional district at 30,000. An amendment that would ultimately set up the maximum size of a district at 50,000, which couldn't be increased, would be affected by the TFC. One Representative would be added to a state for every increase of 70,000 just over 83,300 of its slave population. Once the population size of all states grew where every district reached the 50,000 persons maximum size and all states were adding Representatives, the size of large slave state delegations in the House (and the proportion of their Electoral College vote) would increase much faster than smaller states. Admittedly, this possible scenario would have been decades in the future from the First Congress and may not have even entered their minds when debating the amendment. I'm also not advocating adding speculation like that into the article. My question is just whether to include a quick mention of the role of the Three-Fifths Compromise in setting district size and numbers of Representatives. Libertybison (talk) 23:57, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

LaVergne's theory/website
, why is an external link to LaVergne's website where he claims the CAA has already been raified is not allowed but the website is used as a source citation for the article? I'm not advocating a change, since you've made me aware of it; I'm just trying to understand the reasoning behind it and I don't see a reason mentioned in the Talk archive. (Btw, LaVergne's claims are false but I've been having trouble locating reliable secondary information about Connecticut and the Bill of Rights amendments to make any relevant edits to the article.) Libertybison (talk) 22:04, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
 * , this claim that Connecticut did indeed ratify the CAA has been in, then out, and then back in this article a few times over the past couple years. LaVergne's claim is a fringe theory and is uncorroborated by independent reliable sources. Mention of it belongs in the article, just as mention of a similar claim regarding the Titles of Nobility Amendment is included in that article. However, as far as external links go, LaVergne's website raises several flags (see: External links), as the site does not contain neutral and accurate material that is relevant to an encyclopedic understanding of the subject, seeks to mislead the reader by use of factually inaccurate material or unverifiable research, can be classified as a blog or personal web page, includes an online petition, and because the website is used as a reference in the body of the article. So, in short, while the website may be okay as an inline citation, it doesn't pass muster as an external link. Drdpw (talk) 23:29, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks for clarifying the policy, I'll keep it in mind the next time I consider adding an external link. Libertybison (talk) 21:56, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Strictly speaking, I don't see how Kyvig's book can be a rebuttal of LaVergne's theory, when the book was published in 1996 and LaVergne's discovery was in 2011? JerryRussell (talk) 04:12, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

Justiciability
In the last section the article refers to "standing" and "nonjusticiability" in regards to a lawsuit. In regards to "non-justiciability", does it mean to say a political question? I ask because standing is a justiciability concept and if it's only referring to standing by saying "non-justiciability", isn't the wording just repeating itself? Libertybison (talk) 22:34, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I read the court's opinion. The non-justiciability issues were standing and political question. I have the last section accordingly. SMP0328. (talk) 23:25, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

Mathematic discrepency section
Do you think the text "switch in definitions from lower bounds to upper bounds without a rewording of the amendment", would make sense to a reader who is new to the subject of the amendment? Especially since that section doesn't refer to the last minute change of the word "less" to "more" during the conference committee? Libertybison (talk) 22:56, 12 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Short answer - no. I've tweaked the wording a bit in an effort to clarify the issue. Cheers. Drdpw (talk) 16:10, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

Misleading number "6,489" regarding the "less" wording
The inclusion of the number "6,489" (in the hypothetical discussion about the result of leaving the word "less") is quite misleading; if it remains in this article, then an estimate of the result of the actual wording (with the word "more") should also be included.

Therefore, I have reverted the reversion that removed an estimate of the result of the actual wording (i.e. approximately 1500; I can show calculations to back up this estimate). If the actual-wording ("more") estimate is removed, then the hypothetical ("less") estimate should also be removed. Tripodics (talk) 14:03, 21 September 2018 (UTC)
 * There is no way to know what effect this proposed amendment would have had if adopted. The article should either include all such hypotheticals, provided they have reliable sourcing, or there should be no such hypotheticals included. SMP0328. (talk) 21:48, 21 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Tripodics' 1500 number can't be attached to any possibility of the amendment's final wording if it were adopted today. Either the "more" sets the minimum House size of 200 representatives with a minimum allowed size of a congressional district at 50,000 people per representative instead of the current 30,000 and the current House size is already constitutional; or the "more" sets a maximum size for a congressional district at 50,000 per Representative and a minimum House size of over 6,000. (The Vox article is wrong, the amendment would set today's House size based on the last (2010) census, not today's population.) I'm guessing the 1500 number comes from a logarithmic calculation if the representative district size increased by another 10,000 by each increase in House size by 100. (Off the top of my head I think it would be closer to 1,624 Representatives with a 190,000 maximum district size.) But that has nothing to do with the amendment's text. Libertybison (talk) 00:09, 22 September 2018 (UTC)

LaVergne's conviction
Should the article make a brief mention of LaVergne's 2014 conviction for stealing over $108,000 from one of his clients when he had been a lawyer (see this 07 Nov. 2018 article)? I ask because this happened during his legal career and explains why he is a "former attorney", but it also sort of confirms my initial impression of him as sort of a con man. Because of the WP:BLP issue involved, I thought I should ask for others' opinions on the matter before making an edits about it. Libertybison (talk) 23:36, 30 March 2019 (UTC)
 * seems like tangential information not worth mentioning. Drdpw (talk) 00:19, 31 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I agree it should stay out. It has nothing to do with the Congressional Apportionment Amendment. LaVergne's position and litigation on the CAA is worth noting; but nothing else about him is. The article is not about him. TJRC (talk) 21:17, 1 April 2019 (UTC)