• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Constitutionality - Apportionment Act of 1911

T

Tighe

New member
Joined
May 24, 2018
Messages
5
Reaction score
0
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Good Afternoon,

Wanted to throw a topic out there for consideration, and hopefully we have some lawyers who can help me out here. In 1911 the legislature passed the Apportionment Act (a constitutional mandate for them that renews every 10 years) that fixed the House of Reps at 435. This would seem to be a direct violation of Article 1 Section 2 "The number of representatives shall not exceed 1 for every 30,000" Is there a language ambiguity here that I am not seeing? In Wyoming, the population is almost 600,000 and they have only one representative. This seems to exceed the 1 in 30,000 statutory law. There are no constitutional provisions/amendments that have altered this.

Does anyone know the reasoning employed here from a legal sense?
 
Tighe said:
Good Afternoon,

Wanted to throw a topic out there for consideration, and hopefully we have some lawyers who can help me out here. In 1911 the legislature passed the Apportionment Act (a constitutional mandate for them that renews every 10 years) that fixed the House of Reps at 435. This would seem to be a direct violation of Article 1 Section 2 "The number of representatives shall not exceed 1 for every 30,000" Is there a language ambiguity here that I am not seeing? In Wyoming, the population is almost 600,000 and they have only one representative. This seems to exceed the 1 in 30,000 statutory law. There are no constitutional provisions/amendments that have altered this.

Does anyone know the reasoning employed here from a legal sense?
Click to expand...

It says the number of representatives shall not exceed one for every thirty thousand, not that the population shall not exceed 30,000 for every one representative.
 
Tighe said:
Good Afternoon,

Wanted to throw a topic out there for consideration, and hopefully we have some lawyers who can help me out here. In 1911 the legislature passed the Apportionment Act (a constitutional mandate for them that renews every 10 years) that fixed the House of Reps at 435. This would seem to be a direct violation of Article 1 Section 2 "The number of representatives shall not exceed 1 for every 30,000" Is there a language ambiguity here that I am not seeing? In Wyoming, the population is almost 600,000 and they have only one representative. This seems to exceed the 1 in 30,000 statutory law. There are no constitutional provisions/amendments that have altered this.

Does anyone know the reasoning employed here from a legal sense?
Click to expand...

1 for 600,000 is less than 1 for 30,000.
 
Harshaw said:
It says the number of representatives shall not exceed one for every thirty thousand, not that the population shall not exceed 30,000 for every one representative.
Click to expand...

That's interesting, and everyone I've asked in person has replied something similar. But I've always read that expression as a fixed rate, and not as a minimum. And even when I'm reading the Federalist 55 on the House of Reps, they say this "Within three years a census is to be taken, when the number may be augmented to one for every thirty thousand inhabitants; and within every successive period of ten years the census is to be renewed, and augmentations may continue to be made under the above limitation. It will not be thought an extravagant conjecture that the first census will, at the rate of one for every thirty thousand, raise the number of representatives to at least one hundred."

To me this indicates that they wanted to fix our representation in an effort to ensure voters are not disenfranchised by having a Rep that doesn't represent their desires or interests, and couldn't possibly because they represent so many. And even in principle, outside of statutory interpretation, I would say that is keeping with the desire for Republicanism.
 
Tighe said:
That's interesting, and everyone I've asked in person has replied something similar. But I've always read that expression as a fixed rate, and not as a minimum. And even when I'm reading the Federalist 55 on the House of Reps, they say this "Within three years a census is to be taken, when the number may be augmented to one for every thirty thousand inhabitants; and within every successive period of ten years the census is to be renewed, and augmentations may continue to be made under the above limitation. It will not be thought an extravagant conjecture that the first census will, at the rate of one for every thirty thousand, raise the number of representatives to at least one hundred."

To me this indicates that they wanted to fix our representation in an effort to ensure voters are not disenfranchised by having a Rep that doesn't represent their desires or interests, and couldn't possibly because they represent so many. And even in principle, outside of statutory interpretation, I would say that is keeping with the desire for Republicanism.
Click to expand...

I don't know what to tell you; you read it incorrectly.

The framers were seeking to limit the number of representatives a state could claim, so that states could not overrepresent themselves.
 
Last edited:
Tighe said:
Good Afternoon,

Wanted to throw a topic out there for consideration, and hopefully we have some lawyers who can help me out here. In 1911 the legislature passed the Apportionment Act (a constitutional mandate for them that renews every 10 years) that fixed the House of Reps at 435. This would seem to be a direct violation of Article 1 Section 2 "The number of representatives shall not exceed 1 for every 30,000" Is there a language ambiguity here that I am not seeing? In Wyoming, the population is almost 600,000 and they have only one representative. This seems to exceed the 1 in 30,000 statutory law. There are no constitutional provisions/amendments that have altered this.

Does anyone know the reasoning employed here from a legal sense?
Click to expand...

If they didn't limit it, the legislative body would grow and grow and grow. If we use the 30,000 per member model and apply it to China, they would need ~ 46,000 house seats. The FF's saw that coming...
 
the House would be not unlike the Galactic Senate LOL.

I don't know the answer to that one. But I do know the the bill of rights--it was actually TWELVE proposed amendments, not just 10--includes not only "rights" but an apportionment scheme. The amendment was never accepted however, although, there is no time limit on it.

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.

But of course the size is well over 200, as you have pointed out, so the time limit is irrelevant.
 
Last edited:
Harshaw said:
I don't know what to tell you; you read it incorrectly.

The framers were seeking to limit the number of representatives a state could claim, so that states could not overrepresent themselves.
Click to expand...

The framers created the Senate for that purpose, not the House of Reps. They limited the senate to only 2 each, so they wouldn't be over-represented. The House represents the people directly and not state interests, and I don't think there's any indication that the Framers wanted to limit the number the people send, as that is the compromise made between the states with large populations and the less populous states. A fixed rate, would prevent abuse of this representation, where a minimum amount could be an opening for the larger states to fix the amount of representatives while they have a majority.
 
chuckiechan said:
If they didn't limit it, the legislative body would grow and grow and grow. If we use the 30,000 per member model and apply it to China, they would need ~ 46,000 house seats. The FF's saw that coming...
Click to expand...

A good point, it could get out of hand! On the flip side, using the 1911 Apportionment model, China would see 1 representative for every 3,000,000 people. How any such person could be said to represent the interests of 3 million individuals, is beyond me. I assume it would breed a great deal of dissatisfaction with a Republican government.
 
Last edited:
JimHackerMP said:
the House would be not unlike the Galactic Senate LOL.

I don't know the answer to that one. But I do know the the bill of rights--it was actually TWELVE proposed amendments, not just 10--includes not only "rights" but an apportionment scheme. The amendment was never accepted however, although, there is no time limit on it.

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.

But of course the size is well over 200, as you have pointed out, so the time limit is irrelevant.
Click to expand...

Haha, and for some reason that Galactic Senate ends up being a totalitarian dictatorship... EVERY TIME. You wouldn't happen to have a good link for those forgotten amendments, do you?
 
Yes I do.

Here is the text of the whole bill of rights, including the first two proposed amendments ("article the third" is the first amendment, article the twelfth, the tenth amendment).

And actually, the second proposed amendment (article the second of the original bill of rights) is now the 27th amendment. There was no time limit on any of them, and in the 20th century, a bunch of states remembered it was "hanging out there" and ratified it. The last requisite state ratified the second proposed article in 1992.

https://www.archives.gov/founding-docs/bill-of-rights-transcript
 
chuckiechan said:
If they didn't limit it, the legislative body would grow and grow and grow. If we use the 30,000 per member model and apply it to China, they would need ~ 46,000 house seats. The FF's saw that coming...
Click to expand...

And jumped into a time machine to pass a law in 1911?

Hmmmm...
 
What do you mean by your sarcastic comment, JMaximus?

Personally I don't think the apportionment act was a bad idea. We don't want a legislative chamber as big as the Galactic Senate, as I put it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom