Kurt Ullman wrote:
In article , dpb wrote:

Jim Yanik wrote:
dpb wrote in :



From a practical matter, it's unlikely the founders considered the
possibility of 300 million in population in the calculation of any
size growth and a consequent essentially unlimited growth in the size
of the House.
So,that's when you AMEND the Constitution,the PROPER way,not just pass laws
contrary to it.
It's not clear it is actually in contradiction...

--

Each House dude or dudette is current representing something like
650, 000 people (IIRC). The consitution sets it at 30,000 each. How can
that not be clear?

To me it's so patently related to population of the time that imo it is
irrelevant. Intent was clear to be made to balance representation.
There are also the passages that provide for the Congress to have the
ability to make such necessary rules and regulations, etc., that a far
better Constitutional scholar than we would have to work out the
implications.

That it should perhaps be repealed to be consonant w/ the letter is, I
suppose, arguable by pedants, but hardly worth the effort or trouble.
(Although, no second thought, if we could get them occupied on such
weighty matters, it might be good overall to minimize the collateral
damage they otherwise inflict... ).

In the pragmatic view I tend to adopt also, it's not unconstitutional
until the courts declare it so. Undoubtedly you could make a name for
yourself by managing to make that happen...

--