dpb wrote in :

Jim Yanik wrote:
dpb wrote in :

Jim Yanik wrote:
dpb wrote in :

...
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.
...

But, you just agreed the "necessary and proper" action was to make a
rule as allowed...

learn to read;I said nothing of the sort.
I -agreed- that 10,000 Representatives would be unworkable and that
it would be necessary to limit the number,but I did NOT say in any
form that just passing a law would be a proper solution.
The sole proper solution is to amend the Constitution.(not "make a
rule") The "method" used was and is -not allowed- under the
Constitution.

so, I would argue it wasn't ignored at all, simply
another provision utilized rather than the other...

--


But it WAS ignored.
They failed to effect the change in the only legit manner allowed
them. Instrad,they enacted an unconstitutional law and "looked the
other way",IOW;IGNORING the Constitution's ONLY defined procedure for
changing itself.

You are just putting out excuses.

You're so much fun, though...

My reading is the rules give them the leeway to do what they did.

Meaning enact clearly unconstitutional laws and count on the
risk,difficulty and expense of challenging them.
(against a gov't system with unlimited time,resources,and funds.)

It's SO reassuring that you and so many others find that acceptable.


--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
kua.net