"In response to Anti-Federalist objections, Congress sent twelve amendments to the states for ratification, the first of which changed the method of calculating the number of Representatives. Instead of there being no more than one Representative for 30,000 people, the amendment would have required at least one Representative for 30,000, or later, 40,000 and 50,000 as the population grew. But the amendment failed to achieve ratification, the only one of the original twelve never to have been approved by the states. The Federalist vision of the Union prevailed.
"True to Madison's prediction, Congress dutifully increased the number of Representatives as the population grew. By 1833, Justice Joseph Story would write in his Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States that the dire predictions of the Anti-Federalists "have all vanished into air, into thin air." After the Civil War, Southern representation increased with the ending of slavery and the three-fifths rule. Congress, however, failed to enforce Section 2 of the Fourteenth Amendment, written to compel the Southern states to enfranchise blacks or lose representation. Finally, in 1929, after being unable to make a reapportionment after the census of 1920, Congress decided to cap the number of Representatives at 435.
Since 1790, Congress has applied five different methods of apportioning Representatives among the states. The present "Hill Method," with its complex formula determining when a state may gain or lose a seat, has been in use since 1940. It has been twice challenged before the Supreme Court. In Franklin v. Massachusetts (1992), the Court upheld the inclusion of federal military and civil personnel and their dependents in the apportioned populations. In United States Department of Commerce v. Montana (1992), the Court unanimously approved the "Hill Method" in the face of a challenge by Montana, which lost one seat in favor of Washington after the 1990 census."
http://www.heritage.org/constitution/#!/articles/1/essays/8/allocation-of-representatives
Friday, January 9, 2015
TIME FOR AN ENLARGED CONGRESS
EARLIER TODAY, IN A STATUS, I WONDERED WHY WE HAD ONLY 435 MEMBERS OF CONGRESS, AND WHETHER WE MIGHT NOT BE BETTER SERVED AS A NATION--AND AS BLACKS--BY MORE MEMBERS, GIVEN EXPONENTIAL TERRITORIAL AND POPULATION GROWTH, ALONG WITH PROFOUND DEMOGRAPHIC CHANGES RELATIVE TO VOTER ELIGIBILITY.
IT TURNS OUT THAT CERTAIN ASPECTS OF THIS QUERY WERE DEBATED PRIOR TO 1791, WHEN THE BILL OF RIGHTS WAS ADOPTED, AND WAS MADE SUBJECT TO LAW AS LATE AS 1929, WHEN 435 WAS FIXED UPON, VIZ:
"In response to Anti-Federalist objections, Congress sent twelve amendments to the states for ratification, the first of which changed the method of calculating the number of Representatives. Instead of there being no more than one Representative for 30,000 people, the amendment would have required at least one Representative for 30,000, or later, 40,000 and 50,000 as the population grew. But the amendment failed to achieve ratification, the only one of the original twelve never to have been approved by the states. The Federalist vision of the Union prevailed.
"True to Madison's prediction, Congress dutifully increased the number of Representatives as the population grew. By 1833, Justice Joseph Story would write in his Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States that the dire predictions of the Anti-Federalists "have all vanished into air, into thin air." After the Civil War, Southern representation increased with the ending of slavery and the three-fifths rule. Congress, however, failed to enforce Section 2 of the Fourteenth Amendment, written to compel the Southern states to enfranchise blacks or lose representation. Finally, in 1929, after being unable to make a reapportionment after the census of 1920, Congress decided to cap the number of Representatives at 435.
Since 1790, Congress has applied five different methods of apportioning Representatives among the states. The present "Hill Method," with its complex formula determining when a state may gain or lose a seat, has been in use since 1940. It has been twice challenged before the Supreme Court. In Franklin v. Massachusetts (1992), the Court upheld the inclusion of federal military and civil personnel and their dependents in the apportioned populations. In United States Department of Commerce v. Montana (1992), the Court unanimously approved the "Hill Method" in the face of a challenge by Montana, which lost one seat in favor of Washington after the 1990 census."
http://www.heritage.org/constitution/#!/articles/1/essays/8/allocation-of-representatives
"In response to Anti-Federalist objections, Congress sent twelve amendments to the states for ratification, the first of which changed the method of calculating the number of Representatives. Instead of there being no more than one Representative for 30,000 people, the amendment would have required at least one Representative for 30,000, or later, 40,000 and 50,000 as the population grew. But the amendment failed to achieve ratification, the only one of the original twelve never to have been approved by the states. The Federalist vision of the Union prevailed.
"True to Madison's prediction, Congress dutifully increased the number of Representatives as the population grew. By 1833, Justice Joseph Story would write in his Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States that the dire predictions of the Anti-Federalists "have all vanished into air, into thin air." After the Civil War, Southern representation increased with the ending of slavery and the three-fifths rule. Congress, however, failed to enforce Section 2 of the Fourteenth Amendment, written to compel the Southern states to enfranchise blacks or lose representation. Finally, in 1929, after being unable to make a reapportionment after the census of 1920, Congress decided to cap the number of Representatives at 435.
Since 1790, Congress has applied five different methods of apportioning Representatives among the states. The present "Hill Method," with its complex formula determining when a state may gain or lose a seat, has been in use since 1940. It has been twice challenged before the Supreme Court. In Franklin v. Massachusetts (1992), the Court upheld the inclusion of federal military and civil personnel and their dependents in the apportioned populations. In United States Department of Commerce v. Montana (1992), the Court unanimously approved the "Hill Method" in the face of a challenge by Montana, which lost one seat in favor of Washington after the 1990 census."
http://www.heritage.org/constitution/#!/articles/1/essays/8/allocation-of-representatives