In article , dpb wrote:


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...

But the actual number is still there and the courts tend to put much
more weight on what is there than what should be. You don't have to be a
terribly strict constructionist to acknowledge that the figure is there
in black and white with nothing saying otherwise about how well it is
supposed to work. Heck, wouldn't surprise me in the least that the
Founders put that in to MAKE it unweildy and hard to get things done.
(g).


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...
Nah, It is a constitutional number. At the absolute minimum, it
is an interpretation of two parts that seem to be in conflict (the
number vs the "as needed" clause). They'd HAVE to take it if anyone
complained.

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 (n or as far as I know has it ever
been _seriously_ raised as an issue...

Me neither. Like I said earlier this is probably like the fact nobody
has actually pressed to get a judgement on the War Powers Act. Everybody
is afraid they might lose and be worse off.
Interesting occassional debate, though doncha think.


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

--

And in a couple days we'll probably see how Phil Spector feels about
it, too (g).