dpb wrote in :

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.

What a lot of weaseling.
The Constitution was SPECIFIC.


That it should perhaps be repealed to be consonant w/ the letter is, I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

Obeying the Constitution is "hardly worth the trouble"?
If they do it there,they will do it elsewhere.Which they have.

(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.

That's the sort of permissive view that helps those who would disregard our
Constitution.

Undoubtedly you could make a name for
yourself by managing to make that happen...

--

IMO,people just don't want to open the door of amending the Constitution.
With the way people think these days,it IS a scary thought.

--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
kua.net