"Tony" wrote in news:4XBDi.6687$kI5.1962@trnddc08:


Well we are far away from socialistic system however we are on
the road to it.

you better reexamine the Federal government's spending then.
Over 50% goes towards social programs,I believe.



--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
kua.net

"Jim Yanik" wrote in message
What we need is TERM LIMITs,so that Congresscritters don't spend their
entire working lives there.

What we really need is a smarter voter.

dpb wrote in :

Jim Yanik wrote:
...
The House grows according to population;seems proper.

The only constitutional rule relating to the size of the House says
"The Number of Representatives shall not exceed one for every thirty
Thousand."

Congress regularly increased the size of the House after the census to
account for growth but fixed the size of the House at 435 seats in
1911.

I believe you are wrong in that.

I find no Amendment near that date that modifies Article I,Section 2.3.
It was modified by the 14th Amendment(in 1868),but not in the manner you
cite.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Size_of...epresentatives
Cites Reapportionment Acts of 1929 and 1941,but since these are not proper
Constitutional amendments,IMO;the Reapportionment Acts are
*unconstitutional*. I don't see anything in the Constitution authorizing
Congress to alter what is set in the Constitution -without- amending it.

Interesting,the government is not following the Constitution.(no big
surprise there.)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reappor...nt_Act_of_1929 mentions an Act of
1911,but no link to it.

http://www.house.gov/fattah/features/faq.htm mentions 1913 for fixing the
number of Reps.(but no links)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_Law_62-5 mentions a change in 1911.
I don't see how this law is Constitutional,either.No Public Law can go
against what the Constitution authorizes,unless the Constitution is
amended,and there's a specific procedure for that.


While theoretically could revoke/revise that law, since then all that
has been done is to reapportion seats based on relative populations
after the official census.

--




--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
kua.net

In article ,
Jim Yanik wrote:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_Law_62-5

My guess would probably be some sort of a nod to 1 S8 18 that says
Congress has the right to make all laws necessary and proper to carry
out their duties under constitution. ALthough I would suppose that the
Courts would say the specific trumps the nebulous. But I could be wrong.
Interestingly, I don't see any references to any court cases on these
subjects. Everybody seems to be studiously ignoring them.

"Tony" wrote in message
news:OtzDi.7043$3R5.5974@trnddc05...

"Kurt Ullman" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Phisherman wrote:


The USA has 90 firearms per 100 people, the highest ratio in the
world. Laws that are not enforced don't work, but that doesn't stop
Congress from making more laws.

Heck works well with Immigration (G&D&R). Studies show that those
areas with the most Draconian personal gun laws also have the highest
rates of gun-related violence. Of course, no one has yet answered my
questions about the other relationship, which is that they tend to be
big cities. More target-rich environments that many areas in Utah,
Colorado, etc.


I don't know all the laws in this country but it seems to me that Cities
that have laws making it illegal even to own the weapon of any kind
has most killing and largest crime and as I said I don't know all
the laws and rules but it sure don't make any sense to me

I'll dip my toe in this pointless discussion- a banned-gun island in the
middle of a non-banned area is close to meaningless. There are no border
controls around DC, Chicago, et al. All people (black-market gun resellers,
usually not end users) have to do is drive an hour, and drive home. Most
big-city violence is not done by educated people with marketable job skills-
it is done by people to whom the city (or their local neighborhood) is their
entire universe, who are incapable of even conceiving of living elsewhere,
and voting with their feet. There are parts of this medium-size city like
this- they have been undergoing 'revitilization' for 30-40 years, with 3rd
and 4th generation residents who keep asking 'why doesn't somebody do
something?'. All the while, there are stable and safe neighborhoods less
than a mile away. But they ain't 'home'.

Standard disclaimer- yeah, I own guns. But I wish there was a way to keep
stupid or intoxicated or drugged-up people from having them available when
their anger or desperation overpowers their common sense or fear of
punishment. (A five-minute time horizon tends to lead to doing stupid
things...)

aem sends...

"Edwin Pawlowski" wrote in news:OmJDi.1853$FO2.601
@newssvr14.news.prodigy.net:


"Jim Yanik" wrote in message
What we need is TERM LIMITs,so that Congresscritters don't spend their
entire working lives there.

What we really need is a smarter voter.

True dat. So why are voters dumb? Maybe it's because public
schools are not teaching civics anymore. But we will teach
Islamic studies. How about American studies? The founding
fathers were not racist pigs, they were truly brilliant men
with a vision for a nation that had never been conceived before.

Anyone that takes the time to study their work will be duly
impressed and gain an understanding of why America is great
and why it is worth defending.

But that would not advance the socialist agenda, stupid me.

Jim Yanik wrote:
dpb wrote in :

Jim Yanik wrote:
...
The House grows according to population;seems proper.
The only constitutional rule relating to the size of the House says
"The Number of Representatives shall not exceed one for every thirty
Thousand."

Congress regularly increased the size of the House after the census to
account for growth but fixed the size of the House at 435 seats in
1911.

I believe you are wrong in that.

I find no Amendment near that date that modifies Article I,Section 2.3.
It was modified by the 14th Amendment(in 1868),but not in the manner you
cite.
.....

What, specifically, do you think wrong?

I didn't say there was an Amendment. AFAIK, the number has been 435
since 1911 except for a short period after the addition of AK and HI to
which it then reverted. The fix of the number was, I believe by a
legislative act. It is possible it actually is a House Rule as opposed
to Federal law, I don't recall; I'm going on what I remember from HS
Government which is almost that long ago itself, by now.

The real point I was making is that the size of the House doesn't change
after every Census, only reapportionment as necessary.

Whichever mechanism it was, it hasn't been ruled unconstitutional by the
Supreme Court which is the arbitrating authority for such questions.
One would presume in the nearly 100 years subsequent if there were much
doubt of how a ruling would come down there would have been a case filed.

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.

--

In article , dpb wrote:


Whichever mechanism it was, it hasn't been ruled unconstitutional by the
Supreme Court which is the arbitrating authority for such questions.
One would presume in the nearly 100 years subsequent if there were much
doubt of how a ruling would come down there would have been a case filed.

I haven't been able to find any cases on that. Could be like the War
Powers Act, which hasn't been tested in court either, where my theory is
that nobody WANTS to know if it legal. One side in case it isn't and the
other side in case it is.



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.

Yeah. I doubt that the founders would have liked a 10,000 member
House.

On Sep 4, 3:52 pm, wrote:
In order to meet the demand to save energy the US government will be
adding a tax to the price of all lightbulbs, effective January 1,
2008. All bulbs will be charged one dollar per watt tax. Thus the
price of a 100 watt bulb will be about $101.00 (the one dollar is the
cost of the bulb itself). This tax will also be added to all
electrical appliances, tools, motors and other equipment. For
example, a toaster which generally draws 1250 watts will have a tax of
$1250 added to the price of the toaster. An electric range could cost
as much as $55,000. You will be required to pay this tax upon
purchase. As of 2010, all homes will be inspected and all remaining
and existing appliances and lights will also be taxed at the same rate
per watt.

Walter K.

Interesting troll?????

Heard something recently as part of an international radio broadcast
carried late at night by our local network that some European
countries are 'pulling back' on the requirement to to do away with non-
CF bulbs by mandating the use of CFLs.
..
Probably something of short term policy though; apparently the
availability of sufficient CF bulbs will be a problem.
Have previously read that Australia however is enacting or has enacted
legislation concerning the mandatory use of CF bulbs.

Personally am wondering about misplaced enthusiasm; everyone jumping
on the 'Use CFLs' bandwagon even though they have no concept of
wattage and electrical consumption versus longer term issues.

Our local municipality for example classifies dud CFLs as 'hazardous
waste', in the same category as those 48 inch fluorescent tubes and
instructs its trash collectors not to take them. Not that anyone would
notice one or two CFLs buried in bag of garbage! Also asked one of
the staff at the regional land fill who agreed that technically CFLs
and fluorescent tubes were hazardous and should treated accordingly;
but also commented that when a truck or dumpster comes in (every
minute or two) "We can't and don't monitor everything on it or in each
bag of garbage"!

But surely there a many other aspects of electrical use in our
societies that could be reviewed. Too many street lights, on all
night? Is it necessary to floodlight buildings at night? During WWII
for example it was amazing what savings/economies could effected.

Possibly CF lamps will have a one time effect/reduction in the amount
of electricity consumed, which will be hailed as a success and proof
that it's the right decision? But their manufacture may have heavier
than expected effects on the environment, due to the mercury they
contain, the electronic components used. At least they are supposed
to last some 5 times longer while using less electricity?

A neighbour has gone almost entirely CFL; installing them in locations
(at cost of several dollars each), where they will rarely be switched
on! For example a rarely used basement storeroom! And claims an
undefined saving in electricity; but this has been during recent
mainly non heating summer months. Be interesting once winter comes
since the neighbours have, like many homes here, electric heating
mainly generated by hydro.

It does makes sense to use CFLs in outdoor locations (although they
don't always work best in cold climates?) where the wasted heat will
not be recovered and some may be on for long periods overnight.
Conventional (incandescent) bulbs in this home contribute heat to our
residence which directly offsets the electric heating; so it is not
really wasted. Our bathroom is partially heated by the six 40 watt
conventional bulbs (cost 25 cents each) which are only switched on
when bathroom is in use. Most of the time the 500 watt baseboard
heater rarely comes on!

Have just installed a motion detector light using two 75 watt
conventional bulbs that come on virtually instantly, over where our
vehicle is parked. But it is of course a more complicated gadget and
will ultimately not last as long as a plain old switch while using
electricity for only the few minute periods it will be on. It comes on
maybe a couple of times a night, for about six-ten minutes if/when a
neighbour drops by.

Interesting discussion. I must fix that vintage oil lamp by installing
a new wick, just in case, by the way.

terry wrote:
....
Conventional (incandescent) bulbs in this home contribute heat to our
residence which directly offsets the electric heating; so it is not
really wasted. ...

Of course, those same incandescents add the same heat in the warm months
as well, so the benefit in the winter may be canceled by higher cooling
load in the summer...

--

Edwin Pawlowski wrote:
"Jim Yanik" wrote in message
What we need is TERM LIMITs,so that Congresscritters don't spend
their entire working lives there.

What we really need is a smarter voter.

Easier would be a monarchy. Then you only need one smart person.

aemeijers wrote:

I don't know all the laws in this country but it seems to me that
Cities that have laws making it illegal even to own the weapon of
any kind has most killing and largest crime and as I said I don't know
all
the laws and rules but it sure don't make any sense to me

I'll dip my toe in this pointless discussion- a banned-gun island in
the middle of a non-banned area is close to meaningless. There are no
border controls around DC, Chicago, et al. All people (black-market
gun resellers, usually not end users) have to do is drive an hour,
and drive home. Most big-city violence is not done by educated people
with marketable job skills- it is done by people to whom the city (or
their local neighborhood) is their entire universe, who are incapable
of even conceiving of living elsewhere, and voting with their feet.

Yep. Consider a New Orleans resident who was forcibly relocated to, say,
Salt Lake City. His immediate reaction: "Damn! You means all I has to do is
stand behind dis counter and make Slurpees and I's gets PAID? ****, man,
dats cool!"

It's a revelation to the fifth-generation poor.

Since, as you say, a banned-gun island is close to meaningless, wouldn't
that argue convincingly for abandoning the banned-gun island so that the
righteous folk there would have some way of defending themselves?

As for whackos getting guns, well, you can't build a house without making
sawdust.

Goblins getting guns is the price we have to pay so the rest of us can
protect ourselves from goblins getting guns. Wait...

"Edwin Pawlowski" wrote in
:


"Jim Yanik" wrote in message
What we need is TERM LIMITs,so that Congresscritters don't spend their
entire working lives there.

What we really need is a smarter voter.




And a more honest major media.
One that -reports- with much less slanting or favoring sides,keeps their
opinion separate from news reports.

--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
kua.net

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.

--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
kua.net

"aemeijers" wrote in
:


"Tony" wrote in message
news:OtzDi.7043$3R5.5974@trnddc05...

"Kurt Ullman" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Phisherman wrote:


The USA has 90 firearms per 100 people, the highest ratio in the
world. Laws that are not enforced don't work, but that doesn't
stop Congress from making more laws.

Heck works well with Immigration (G&D&R). Studies show that those
areas with the most Draconian personal gun laws also have the
highest rates of gun-related violence. Of course, no one has yet
answered my questions about the other relationship, which is that
they tend to be big cities. More target-rich environments that many
areas in Utah, Colorado, etc.


I don't know all the laws in this country but it seems to me that
Cities that have laws making it illegal even to own the weapon of any
kind has most killing and largest crime and as I said I don't know
all the laws and rules but it sure don't make any sense to me

I'll dip my toe in this pointless discussion- a banned-gun island in
the middle of a non-banned area is close to meaningless. There are no
border controls around DC, Chicago, et al. All people (black-market
gun resellers, usually not end users) have to do is drive an hour, and
drive home. Most big-city violence is not done by educated people with
marketable job skills- it is done by people to whom the city (or their
local neighborhood) is their entire universe, who are incapable of
even conceiving of living elsewhere, and voting with their feet. There
are parts of this medium-size city like this- they have been
undergoing 'revitilization' for 30-40 years, with 3rd and 4th
generation residents who keep asking 'why doesn't somebody do
something?'. All the while, there are stable and safe neighborhoods
less than a mile away. But they ain't 'home'.

Standard disclaimer- yeah, I own guns. But I wish there was a way to
keep stupid or intoxicated or drugged-up people from having them
available when their anger or desperation overpowers their common
sense or fear of punishment. (A five-minute time horizon tends to lead
to doing stupid things...)

aem sends...




Japan and England are islands with strict gun control,yet they still have
gun crimes.In this day and age,there's no such thing as a gun-free zone.

BTW,police and government lose firearms a lot.
Then there's smuggling and home manufacture of guns.
Australian police caught a guy making 100's of handguns illegally and he
had already sold many on the black market.

Even a "total" civilian gun ban would not keep guns out of the hands of
criminals.

All gun control does is make it safer for the criminals.

--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
kua.net

On Sep 5, 1:06 pm, Chris Friesen wrote:
RickH wrote:
I heard gun ownership is high there too, which would
certainly explain why it is a very low-crime country.

Correlation doesn't imply causation.

Maybe the fact that every male is militarily trained leads to both
reduced crime and increased gun ownership. Maybe reduced crime is due
to higher employment, population demographics, cultural bias, or
something else entirely.

Chris

Correct Chris: This is along way from light bulbs. CFL or otherwise.

The ownership, use of guns and gun violence is very much factor of the
culture and type of society; a childish remark, such as the one about
'Inspectors and bullets' would be unacceptable in most civilized
societies! Whereas in Iraq for example, it has been said every house
has an AK47 or the equivalent and if some hot head gets into an
argument with a neighbour .................... ! or doesn't like a
particular 'brand ' of religion!

Until age 22 I lived in a society where gun ownership was rarity. My
father who was in the over-age (Home Guard) defence force during WWII
did not retain any weapons and voluntarily surrendered his Colt 45
after the war to the local police, for disposal, after using it with
blanks, as a starter's pistol for school events for a couple of years.
There was never any suggestion of keeping it. Even then the blanks
were kept separately from the locked up revolver. Gun violence in that
country was and still is a rarity.

As a reservist in the mid-late 1950s I was trained in the use of at
least two military weapons (I was quite a good shot actually) and
would have served if called up. Gun safety was a paramount
requirement; no point shooting your own people!

Since then have also been fortunate to have lived in a society where
there is no need to own a gun at all; I could get a rifle or a shotgun
to go hunting; but have no need. And therefore no responsibility to
control it or its ammunition. Friends who occasionally may own a gun
(in this somewhat rural part of Canada) usually have an old ex-
military rifle that their deceased father used to own for occasional
moose or other hunting. And these are registered and kept securely
locked up. For example I have never seen a Lee Enfield that my good
neighbor is said to own and don't expect to!

We notice that many of our southern neighbours are questioning what
they feel are increasing restrictions on personal freedoms through
your systems of government; both federal, state and city. Also what
would appear to be the over-influence of industry lobbyists on elected
reps. and government employees. Rather than the wishes of 'ordinary
folk'. That's your business except as it occasionally affects us; your
biggest trading partner. Also the US passion for owning guns stemming
from having an armed militia back some couple of hundred years ago?
Rather like Switzerland's reservist army? Again that is your business
and none of ours to comment.

But gee! You do have a lot of guns that occasionally spill over the
border into Canada.

But it quite evident that fewer guns around leads to less gun
violence; criminals can always get and use guns, often illegally
imported from the USA. In Canada there are far fewer guns around in
private hands for them to steal/get their hands on. Also the illegal
(unregistered) possession of a gun, especially hand guns, is a crime
in itself. So for a criminal to use a gun at all in the commission of
crime becomes much clearer than "My neighbour was being an a**ole so I
waved my hand gun at him and unfortunately it went off!"; illegal gun
use is considered serious and carries a higher penalty.

We do have trouble spots in a couple of major cities mainly due to
gangs. But gun crime and related death rates overall are extremely
low.

All gun control does is make it safer for the criminals.

My high school English teacher hated bumper sticker wisdom,
claiming that a short, catchy phrase does not an argument make.

But I still think this says it all:

If you outlaw guns, then only outlaws will have guns.

duh...

If that has to be explained to someone, well, then they probably
should not be carrying a gun.

Well, there is that little thing called the SECOND AMENDMENT.

Oh, wait, you live in Canadia...nevermind.

On Sep 6, 1:16 pm, dpb wrote:
terry wrote:

...

Conventional (incandescent) bulbs in this home contribute heat to our
residence which directly offsets the electric heating; so it is not
really wasted. ...

Of course, those same incandescents add the same heat in the warm months
as well, so the benefit in the winter may be canceled by higher cooling
load in the summer...

--

Yes dpb; that could be true.

In the evenings which of course are longer in summer so lights go on
later and evening is when it's almost always cool here.

So very rarely does anyone here have or use AC units (unless it is one
of those reverse cycle heat pumps for heating the house in winter) and
doubt even then that they would keep changing back and forth between
heating and cooling modes?

Last few days of August (which we consider late summer) it's been
around 15 degrees Celsius (Approx mid 60s Fahrenheit) during the day.
Some 5 C, degrees cooler at night; or approx low 50s. F. No trouble
sleeping!
Lights go on later in summer/fall and do contribute slightly to home
heat. In fact only today, Sept 6th, is it cool enough to even consider
switching on any of the heating thermostats. It' s now past midday and
haven't done so yet.

So we don't have any cooling load at all. Do occasionally run a
dehumidifier in part of basement during the summer to keep down
dampness due to warmer more humid outside air seeping in there.

Otherwise our almost completely in ground basement stays at around
55-60 deg F. most of the time, except very coldest and windiest
weather when it may occasionally dip to around 50 deg. F.

You have to think in terms of a climate that never gets warm enough
(or only very rarely for a few days a year at most) to need any
cooling. Only a short distance from the North Atlantic this is
considered a 'maritime' climate; heat and cold being modified by the
mass of the ocean.

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...

--

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?

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.

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... ).

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...

--

terry wrote:
On Sep 6, 1:16 pm, dpb wrote:
terry wrote:

...

Conventional (incandescent) bulbs in this home contribute heat to our
residence which directly offsets the electric heating; so it is not
really wasted. ...
Of course, those same incandescents add the same heat in the warm months
as well, so the benefit in the winter may be canceled by higher cooling
load in the summer...

--

Yes dpb; that could be true.

....

So very rarely does anyone here have or use AC units (unless it is one
of those reverse cycle heat pumps for heating the house in winter) and
doubt even then that they would keep changing back and forth between
heating and cooling modes?
....

The point is it may work in your locale, but as an overall plan it may
not have much net effect on reducing consumption on a more global scale...

--

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



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.


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).

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...

--

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).

HeyBub wrote:
Edwin Pawlowski wrote:
"Jim Yanik" wrote in message
What we need is TERM LIMITs,so that Congresscritters don't spend
their entire working lives there.

What we really need is a smarter voter.

Easier would be a monarchy. Then you only need one smart person.

Too inconvenient. I'd have to give up a lot of hobbies.

--
If you really believe carbon dioxide causes global warming,
you should stop exhaling.

Kurt Ullman wrote:
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).

You allude to a point I intended to make...

One would have to go back and look at the historical record of how the
number actually got into the final document, but it would not surprise
me at all that it is there not in order to actually determine the
overall size of the body but to ensure against gerrymandering. If,
indeed such were the context, the actual magnitude of the number itself
could be argued to be valid on in a relative sense in even a (somewhat)
strict (as opposed to literal) interpretation.

The War Powers Act, while an interesting question, is irrelevant to this
one...

--

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

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

In article ,
Jim Yanik wrote:


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.

Wouldn't know why through the Congress. That opens up just one thing
at a time by definition. Now a new Convention would put everything back
up for grabs and I would have to agree with you there.

"kpg*" wrote in
20:

All gun control does is make it safer for the criminals.

My high school English teacher hated bumper sticker wisdom,
claiming that a short, catchy phrase does not an argument make.

But I still think this says it all:

If you outlaw guns, then only outlaws will have guns.

and worse,you can't keep your government in line.
that is the true reason for the 2nd Amendment.
(see Declaration of Independence..)


duh...

If that has to be explained to someone, well, then they probably
should not be carrying a gun.



People tend to overlook that criminals can carry OTHER items as weapons,and
the best defense for most people IS a handgun.
No other item is as effective,for the widest range of
people(elderly,handicapped,small,outnumbered),with as low a risk to
themselves.

--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
kua.net

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

--

terry wrote in
ups.com:

On Sep 5, 1:06 pm, Chris Friesen wrote:
RickH wrote:
I heard gun ownership is high there too, which would
certainly explain why it is a very low-crime country.

Correlation doesn't imply causation.

Maybe the fact that every male is militarily trained leads to both
reduced crime and increased gun ownership. Maybe reduced crime is due
to higher employment, population demographics, cultural bias, or
something else entirely.

Chris

Correct Chris: This is along way from light bulbs. CFL or otherwise.

The ownership, use of guns and gun violence is very much factor of the
culture and type of society; a childish remark, such as the one about
'Inspectors and bullets' would be unacceptable in most civilized
societies!

before 1968,when the US passed it's 1968 Gun Control Act,guns were MUCH
more easily available,could be mailordered,bought across state lines,no ID
needed,were sold at hardware stores,school kids brought them to school for
use at school gun clubs or on,the way home,virtually NO restrictions,yet
gun violence was low.
People didn't lock their doors.People were more moral and law-abiding.
enacting more and more gun control has not made things any safer.

Whereas in Iraq for example, it has been said every house
has an AK47 or the equivalent and if some hot head gets into an
argument with a neighbour .................... ! or doesn't like a
particular 'brand ' of religion!

Comparing a tribal society to Western,democratic society is not honest.
the two are NOT equivalent.


Until age 22 I lived in a society where gun ownership was rarity. My
father who was in the over-age (Home Guard) defence force during WWII
did not retain any weapons and voluntarily surrendered his Colt 45
after the war to the local police, for disposal, after using it with
blanks, as a starter's pistol for school events for a couple of years.
There was never any suggestion of keeping it. Even then the blanks
were kept separately from the locked up revolver. Gun violence in that
country was and still is a rarity.

Not because of a lack of guns,but because of cultural or other reasons.

As a reservist in the mid-late 1950s I was trained in the use of at
least two military weapons (I was quite a good shot actually) and
would have served if called up. Gun safety was a paramount
requirement; no point shooting your own people!

Since then have also been fortunate to have lived in a society where
there is no need to own a gun at all;

In YOUR opinion.Others have other situations.

I could get a rifle or a shotgun
to go hunting; but have no need.

No need for self-defense against criminals(or an enraged ex-
husband or a stalker)? Bull.
Only because you are isolated and rural.
But you would force others with a real need to go without.

And therefore no responsibility to
control it or its ammunition. Friends who occasionally may own a gun
(in this somewhat rural part of Canada) usually have an old ex-
military rifle that their deceased father used to own for occasional
moose or other hunting. And these are registered and kept securely
locked up. For example I have never seen a Lee Enfield that my good
neighbor is said to own and don't expect to!

the mere sight of a gun is no need for fear.


We notice that many of our southern neighbours are questioning what
they feel are increasing restrictions on personal freedoms through
your systems of government; both federal, state and city. Also what
would appear to be the over-influence of industry lobbyists on elected
reps. and government employees.

the influence they have is that of CITIZENS who vote.

Rather than the wishes of 'ordinary folk'.

You hardly know what "ODCs" are thinking.

That's your business except as it occasionally affects us; your
biggest trading partner. Also the US passion for owning guns stemming
from having an armed militia back some couple of hundred years ago?

Yes,they came in handy in overthrowing the incumbent oppressive
government;the British.
Without them,the job would have been near impossible.
Note the first thing the Brits tried was to DISARM the colonists.
(of course,they have benefitted greatly from the formation of the USofA.)

Rather like Switzerland's reservist army? Again that is your business
and none of ours to comment.

you are free to comment;that's part of a free society.


But gee! You do have a lot of guns that occasionally spill over the
border into Canada.

Gee,what a surprise....that criminals will smuggle in guns to areas with
tighter controls on them.

But it quite evident that fewer guns around leads to less gun
violence;

Usually with an increase in other crime,as people cannot defend themselves
and their property.Criminals know they are safe,don't have to fear their
prey.

criminals can always get and use guns, often illegally
imported from the USA. In Canada there are far fewer guns around in
private hands for them to steal/get their hands on. Also the illegal
(unregistered) possession of a gun, especially hand guns, is a crime
in itself.

LMAO.Since when do criminals care about something being a crime?

The FACT that Canadians are smuggling guns into Canada shows that there is
a criminal demand and use for them *in Canada*(presumably by CANADIANS).
BTW,a criminal does not have to FIRE a gun to use it in a crime.It greatly
aids them in dominating a victim,though.

Nor does a ODC(ordinary decent citizen) have to fire a gun to use it in
self-defense;often the crook chooses to flee when their victim produces a
gun,thus no shot need be fired,and in fact it is criminal to shoot a
fleeing crook that is no threat to you anymore.

So for a criminal to use a gun at all in the commission of
crime becomes much clearer than "My neighbour was being an a**ole so I
waved my hand gun at him and unfortunately it went off!"; illegal gun
use is considered serious and carries a higher penalty.

as it does here in the US.
Too bad judges often choose to NOT apply those stiffer penalties.
(appointed judges,not subject to elections)


We do have trouble spots in a couple of major cities mainly due to
gangs. But gun crime and related death rates overall are extremely
low.


Because the crooks can prey on people with other items like knives and
clubs.

--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
kua.net

clifto wrote in :

HeyBub wrote:
Edwin Pawlowski wrote:
"Jim Yanik" wrote in message
What we need is TERM LIMITs,so that Congresscritters don't spend
their entire working lives there.

What we really need is a smarter voter.

Not practically possible.
Term limits would be a practical,achievable solution.


Easier would be a monarchy. Then you only need one smart person.

Which rarely occurs.More often,you get a oppressive person.
A BIG gamble,too.


Too inconvenient. I'd have to give up a lot of hobbies.




--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
kua.net

Jim Yanik wrote:
dpb wrote in :

....

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.

If you feel so strongly that this is a concern, find a group and
challenge it.

As I noted elsewhere, one would have to look at the context of the
arguments made at the time the document was drafted, but it certainly is
well within my reading that the point wasn't at all to mandate the
absolute size of the body but to prevent jerrymandering and the
avoidance of any one district being underrepresented vis a vis another.
In that light, the sense of the document has been maintained inviolate.

--

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.

--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
kua.net

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. So
far, that hasn't been overturned.

But, since it hasn't been challenged in 100 years -- if you're so
incensed, draft an amendment, get your Congressman to sponsor it, and
see if it has legs...


--

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

Jim Yanik wrote:
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.

Thanks...

There's an essentially zero out-of-pocket cost approach way to approach
fixing it that I outlined previously.

I'm left wondering why if it is such a fundamentally egregious problem
someone hasn't raised the issue in the last 90 years or so???

--