Kurt Ullman wrote:
In article , dpb wrote:

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.
True. But in those areas where two constitutional provisions
overlap, the courts generally go with the specific as opposed to the
general. Even the ability to make rules, etc., states that they are only
those necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing
powers. One of which really specifically is the 30,000 per rule.

But, by any reasonable interpretation, a body of 10,000 would be so
unworkable as to make it "necessary and proper" to limit the number in
order to effectively be able to execute the powers...

It would get REAL interesting if anyone wanted to push it.

I really doubt it would cause much of a ripple at all as it is simply
too mundane a change. While not a judicial scholar I have a hard time
conceiving that the Court would consider it significant enough of a
question to even docket it. Then again, they've taken on some other
things that seemed pretty mundane at times, too...

That it should perhaps be repealed to be consonant w/ the letter is, I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... ).

Of course it is worth the trouble if it violates the constitutional
provisions (unless you really want something like 10,000 Congress
critters running around causing all sorts of mischief). The constitution
shouldn't be something that you can pick and choose when there is a set
standard.

Well, it doesn't appear there have been very many that think it worth
the trouble given they've had almost 100 years to have done something
about it and it hasn't happened yet (nor as far as I know has it ever
been _seriously_ raised as an issue...

While in general I'm more for stricter interpretation than opposed, some
things simply are so mundane as to be unworthy of the effort to
"correct". This is one imo. The only rational change is to simply
delete the clause and the effect can be obtained far more easily under
the present rules as has been done...

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...

Can't argue there. Heck I can be found standing over the dead body
of someone, with the knife and three guns in my hand saying I told you I
was gonna off your skinny little behind, and I am still not guilty until
a court says otherwise. (g).

OJ's really happy over that minor point, too...

--