dpb wrote in :

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...

I agree.
But the solution is to not IGNORE the Constitution and do as you please,you
do it RIGHT and AMEND it.

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.

depends on the language of the amendment that gets proposed.



--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
kua.net