dpb wrote in :

Jim Yanik wrote:
...
The House grows according to population;seems proper.

The only constitutional rule relating to the size of the House says
"The Number of Representatives shall not exceed one for every thirty
Thousand."

Congress regularly increased the size of the House after the census to
account for growth but fixed the size of the House at 435 seats in
1911.

I believe you are wrong in that.

I find no Amendment near that date that modifies Article I,Section 2.3.
It was modified by the 14th Amendment(in 1868),but not in the manner you
cite.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Size_of...epresentatives
Cites Reapportionment Acts of 1929 and 1941,but since these are not proper
Constitutional amendments,IMO;the Reapportionment Acts are
*unconstitutional*. I don't see anything in the Constitution authorizing
Congress to alter what is set in the Constitution -without- amending it.

Interesting,the government is not following the Constitution.(no big
surprise there.)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reappor...nt_Act_of_1929 mentions an Act of
1911,but no link to it.

http://www.house.gov/fattah/features/faq.htm mentions 1913 for fixing the
number of Reps.(but no links)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_Law_62-5 mentions a change in 1911.
I don't see how this law is Constitutional,either.No Public Law can go
against what the Constitution authorizes,unless the Constitution is
amended,and there's a specific procedure for that.


While theoretically could revoke/revise that law, since then all that
has been done is to reapportion seats based on relative populations
after the official census.

--




--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
kua.net