User:Mikcob/Article

Article The First was and is the very first proposed amendment to the United States Constitution though it has not yet been ratified. It was the first of twelve amendments offered by the 1st Congress on September 25, 1789, to the state legislatures for ratification pursuant to Article V of the Constitution.

Text of the amendment
Article the First reads as follows: 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)

Purpose of the amendment
This amendment was engendered when concerned and enlightened people of good character noticed that there was no assured MINIMUM representation for the common people in the proposed United States Constitution. In the very first Congress, amendments properly addressing the issue were produced by both the House and the Senate, each providing for a minimum representation based on the expanding population of the nation. But a joint House Senate committee, assigned the duty of compromising between the two versions, substituted the word 'MORE' (as emphasised in the text of the Amendment above) for the word 'LESS' perhaps crippling, if not reversing the intent of the amendment after the membership of the House was raised to a level of 200

Why Article the First has been renamed as "The Congressional Apportionment Amendment" is a pretty fair question in that this Amendment has nothing to do with apportionment as that term is used in The United States Constitution. Article I Section2 quite specifically defines the apportionment of the seats in the House of Representatives among the states as "Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers", and this amendment does not altered one word of it. Nor does this Amendment in any way alter the Constitutional mandate that “each state shall have at least one representative”.

What was not defined in Aticle I section 2 and is still undefined is a Constitutional means by which representation of the common man in the United States House representatives can be preseved so as to prevent the perfection of an oligarchy. But for the weak “apportionment” clause, it is possible to interpret the Constitution in such a way as to say that there need be only one representative for each state for a total of fifty House members. While the current apportionment language allows a House membership of up to ten thousand representatives based on current national population, the legislature is in no way Constitutionaly bound to increase the membership 'of the House in order to preserve even a modicum of representation for the common people. Article the First was not about apportionment of power among the states. It was about essential Representation.

Background and history
The original drive for this amendment was aimed at contoling the size of electoral districts. It was correctly predicted that an oligarchy would form as overly large electoral districts gave too much favor to aristocrats and demagogs. The Federalists attemted and largely succeeded in diffusing the issue through their aquiessance to amendments beginning with the Massachusettes ratification convention. But a veriosn of Article the First was prominently among the very first of over twenty amendments that were defined by the various ratifying conventions. And the assurance that these amendments would be addressed in the very first congress was essential to the ratification of the new Consitutional government.

"By January 9, 1788, five states of the nine necessary for ratification had approved the Constitution--Delaware, Pennsylvania, New Jersey, Georgia, and Connecticut. But the eventual outcome remained uncertain in pivotal states such as Massachusetts, New York, and Virginia. On February 6, withFederalists agreeing to recommend a list of amendments amounting to a bill of rights, Massachusetts ratified by a vote of 187 to 168

....

In the next 2 months, thanks largely to the efforts of Madison and Hamilton in their own states, Virginia and New York both ratified while adding their own amendments. The margin for the Federalists in both states, however, was extremely close. Hamilton figured that the majority of the people in New York actually opposed the Constitution, and it is probable that a majority of people in the entire country opposed it. Only the promise of amendments had ensured a Federalist victory. .

The original object of broader representation was compromised in the ratifying conventions in order to set forth a more concise request for amendment and, perhaps at the same time, to weaken it. Article the First was requested even ahead of a demand for what ultimately became the Bill of Rights. The people were quite concerned about both the the size of electoral districts and the term of office in their House of Representatives. They wanted these districts to remain small and the term of office to remain brief, to better enable them to quickly remove representatives that did not act in such a way as the people desired. The people of the nation were already averse to constituencies (representative districts) as large as thirty thousand and there was much controversy over the issue during the ratification process. As a what would be Artricle the First and other amendments were called for by James Madison in the House on June 8, 1789. Madison's proposed text of the amendment was as follows:

“ After the first actual enumeration, there shall be one Representative for every thirty thousand, until the number amounts to [first blank], after which the proportion shall be so regulated by Congress, that the number shall be not less than [second blank], nor more than [third blank], but each state shall after the first enumeration, have at least two representatives .”

What emerged as the final House version of the amendment was as follows: "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 'LESS' than one Representative for every fifty thousand persons" .

Such language would have created a membership in today's House of  either 1600 members or 6000 members. That text (with the word “LESS”) stands as the official house version of the amendment.

The Senate took up the measure on September 2, 1789 and were resolved as to the following: “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, to which number one representative shall be added for every subsequent increase of forty thousand, until representatives shall amount to two hundred, to which one representative shall be added for every subsequent increase of sixty thousand"

This language would have set the membership of today's House at either 800 or 5000.

There is much speculation as to why the amendment was altered as it was when neither the House or Senate versions of the amendment had such a limitation.

By 1791, the legislatures of a sufficient number of states had ratified the last ten of the twelve proposed amendments, which became the Bill of Rights, but not the first two.

The second of the twelve amendments, which concerned Congressional compensation, was finally ratified more than two centuries later in 1992 and belatedly became the 27th Amendment.

Article the First, however, was ratified by the legislatures of only the following eleven state&mdash;just shy of the thirteen required during the late 1700s:


 * 1) New Jersey on November 20, 1789
 * 2) Maryland on December 19, 1789
 * 3) North Carolina on December 22, 1789
 * 4) South Carolina on January 19, 1790
 * 5) New Hampshire on January 25, 1790
 * 6) New York on March 27, 1790
 * 7) Rhode Island on June 15, 1790
 * 8) Pennsylvania on September 21, 1791 (after rejecting it on March 10, 1790)
 * 9) Virginia on October 25, 1791 (a few weeks prior to the date on which Virginia ratified what is today the 27th Amendment as well as those ten amendments that became the Bill of Rights on December 15 of that year)
 * 10) Vermont on November 3, 1791 and
 * 11) Kentucky on June 24, 1792
 * 12) Connecticut on June 20, 1790 and gives us enough states to ratify. This was discovered in 2011.

Although the act, on the part of state legislatures, of "rejecting" a proposed constitutional amendment has no legal recognition, such action does have political implications&mdash;the Congressional Apportionment Amendment was rejected by lawmakers in Delaware on January 28, 1790.

No action is known to have occurred with regard to this particular Amendment by legislators in Connecticut, Georgia or Massachusetts.

According to the Supreme Court's ruling in the 1939 case of Coleman v. Miller, because there is no deadline for its ratification, the Congressional Apportionment Amendment is technically still pending before state lawmakers. Today, with 50 states in the Union, the legislatures of 27 more states, for a total of 38, would have to ratify the Amendment in order for it to become part of the federal Constitution. Based on the current U.S. population and the traditions governing the size of the House of Representatives, it is unlikely, however, that the legislatures of any additional states will approve it.

Currently, there are 435 members of the House of Representatives and six non-voting Delegates from the District of Columbia and the Territories that do not possess statehood status. The 435 figure is set by statute (2 U.S.C. 2a & 2b) and the allocation of seats among the 50 states is calculated by using what is quite conveniently called the "method of equal proportions." In reality, our aristocratic Congress has simply grandfathered in the TwoParty, locked the door, and threw away the key.

depending on interpreteation
Did the amandment define a mathematical progression in the House version such as 30@100, 40@200, 50@300, 60@400, and on, and in the Senate version 30@100, 40@200, 60@300, 100@400, 180@500, 340@600, and so on. If so than the House and Senate versions would have produced a house of 1600 and 800 respectively today.

Amendments Requested
Massachusetts Ratifying Convention Ratification in New York

Madison on Constituency Size
" Should Experience or public opinion require an equal and universal suffrage for each branch of the Government such as prevails generally in the U.S., (then) a resource favorable to the rights of landed and other property, when its possessors become the Minority, may be found in the enlargement of the Election Districts for ONE branch of the Legislature and a prolongation of its period of service. Large districts are manifestly favorable to the election of persons of general respectability, and of probable attachment to the rights of property, over competitors depending on the personal solicitations practicable on a contracted theater. And although an ambitious candidate, of personal distinction, might occasionally recommend himself to popular choice by espousing a popular though unjust object, it might rarely happen to many districts at the same time. The tendency of a longer period of service would be, to render the Body more stable in its policy, and more capable of stemming popular currents taking a wrong direction, till reason and justice could regain their ascendancy.

Should even such a modification as the last be deemed inadmissible, and universal suffrage and very short periods of elections within contracted spheres be required for each branch of the Government, the security for the holders of property when the minority, can only be derived from the ordinary influence possessed by property, and the superior information incident to its holders; from the popular sense of justice enlarged and by a diffusive education; and from the difficulty of combining and effectuating unjust purposes throughout an extensive country; a difficulty essentially distinguishing the U.S. and even most of the individual States, from the small communities where a mistaken interest or contagious passion, could readily unite a majority of the whole under a factious leader in trampling on the rights of the Minor party".