They made a desert and called it peace...

"From this date I date the ruin of all my fortunes."
--George Washington

"The truth is an offense, but not a sin"
--Bob Marley


The United States is a corporation, which is one in the same as "government." Our purpose is to expose this and other corrupted facts. We believe in the Common Law, in the people's judiciary, in the municipalities' sovereignty over the Federal Departments, and in the individual's sovereignty above all other powers over Earth and under God. No rule of law has meaning. Rule of Precedent IS Law.

fellow bloggers who follow Thus Always To Tyrants

Thursday, December 6, 2007

Rule By Mob, Part 2

Rule By Mob, continued...
by FranG

The District of Columbia is not a state

Another progressive idea seems to be to treat Washington DC, the seat of the United States government, as a de facto state. This may seem reasonable, but it violates the rule of law. The 50 states of the Union had to apply for statehood, according to the guidelines set forth by the Northwest Ordinance, among which are the submittal of a state Constitution, and agreeing to be bound by the United States Constitution. (29) The area of land which comprises the District of Columbia is under the sole jurisdiction of the United States government, in a totally separate capacity than the 50 states of the Union, who are under the jurisdiction of law established by the United States Constitution. (30a) Washington DC is no different than any other territory owned by the United States government; those currently organized being 1) Guam, 2) Northern Mariana Islands, 3) Puerto Rico, and 4) United States Virgin Islands. (31a) If Washington DC has not officially acknowledged our Constitution, then why should it be allowed to actively participate in matters concerning it?

Well progressive thinking has managed yet another structural change with the ratification of the 23rd Amendment on March 29th, 1961. (32) This amendment assigns electoral votes to Washington DC for the purposes of electing the President of the United States. The Constitution was disrespected once again with the passage of the 23rd Amendment. As close as the last two presidential elections were, D.C.’s two (or three as in the 2004 election) electoral votes could prove critical in the upcoming 2008 election. In essence, their votes could elect a President who can be instrumental in further restructuring our Constitution, to which D.C. itself isn’t even bound. The question then becomes: what makes D.C. more important than the other territories listed above to warrant it preferential treatment?

As if this was not enough, there is now a push to treat Washington DC as a Congressional District for legislative purposes and officially convert its non-voting delegates in the House of Representatives into full voting members. The bill is known as the “District of Columbia Voting Rights Act of 2007.” (33a) This, all without official statehood status, or officially being subject to the limitations imposed on states in the first article to the Constitution. (3c)

The Desire of the Founding Fathers

The Founding Fathers first and foremost wanted limited government. By limited, I mean limited in its power and influence. The first governing document of the United States, and precursor to the United States Constitution, was the Articles of Confederation, ratified on March 1st, 1781. (34) As noted in Article 2, (35a) each state retains its “sovereignty, freedom, and independence.” Article 3 goes on to establish that the United States as a league of states united ". . . for their common defense, the security of their liberties, and their mutual and general welfare, binding themselves to assist each other, against all force offered to, or attacks made upon them . . . ." (35a) The framers of government were very weary of centralized government control, but deemed it a necessary evil for the general welfare of all. The Articles of Confederation authorized the Congress to only act according to the powers assigned to it by the governing document. The powers assigned the government were so few and decentralized, that the Articles failed as a legislative document. If this pact between the states were to work, they would have to give the government a little more control.

Reluctantly, in the wake of the failure of the Articles of Confederation, the Constitution was drafted and proposed to the states. The federal government had been assigned more powers at the expense of the states, and as a result, the Constitution almost failed ratification. Massachusetts, and other states, demanded that the Constitution be amended to further safeguard against potential abuses of power by the newly formed government. (8b) As a result, twelve amendments were proposed, the last ten becoming known as the “Bill of Rights,” and the second proposed amendment being ratified into the Twenty-seventh Amendment. (8c) Article the First, mentioned in the House of Representatives section above, is the last of the bills reflecting the initial fears of, and providing a safeguard against, the excessive accumulation of power by the federal government.

As mentioned, the Founding Fathers were vehemently opposed to a democracy, and established a republican form of government. The word democracy appears nowhere in the Constitution, but republic does. A Republic is the form of government guaranteed to the states by the Constitution. (30b) As illustrated in the passage below (emphasis added in bold), a democracy was feared by the Founding Fathers:

The Founding Fathers wanted a republicanism that would guarantee liberty, with opposing, limited powers offsetting one another. They thought change should occur slowly, as many were afraid that a "democracy"- by which they meant a direct democracy- would allow a majority of voters at any time to trample rights and liberties in the "heat of a moment". They believed the most formidable of these potential majorities was that of the poor against the rich. They thought democracy could take the form of mob rule that could be shaped on the spot by a demagogue. “ (36a)

One concern about representative government was that factions could develop with the potential for hijacking the government. James Madison explained in Federalist No. 10 that as the country increases in size, it becomes more difficult for these factions to materialize into a formidable threat to the Republic. (37a) This in large part assumes an optimal size for the size of Congressional Districts, as mentioned above in the House of Representatives section. Factions unfortunately developed as a result of progressivism, with the structural changes to the Constitution mentioned in the above sections, thus nullifying Madison’s logic. "Heat of a moment" decisions have caused the treatment of a non-member state of this union, in Washington DC, to have the privileges of statehood, without formally subjecting itself to the required duties of such. Factions have also led to one President in history, possibly the most socialist President ever, to perpetuate the office longer than the traditional two terms of four years each, and literally make a prophet out of Thomas Jefferson. (38) Below are Thomas Jefferson’s thoughts on perpetual presidency:

"if some termination to the services of the chief Magistrate be not fixed by the Constitution, or supplied by practice, his office, nominally four years, will in fact become for life." (39a)

To our government’s credit, the Twenty-second Amendment was passed to prevent such a thing from ever happening again. But with the progressive thinking that exists in this society, this is always subject to unraveling.

In the way of governments, in very simplistic terms, you can have a government based on absolute rule by a monarch. This form of government yields no involvement by the people. The other extreme is direct democracy, where you have 100% involvement by the people at all times. Neither of these forms of government are optimal, and representative government attempts to strike a balance between the two via the side of democracy. The question then becomes how many people should be represented per representative. Too little representation resembles direct democracy, and too few resemble aristocracy. This number is debatable, but it is clear that representative government is the desired end.

To illustrate the brilliant design of the government created, a system of checks and balances was established between the three branches of government. Most are familiar with the Separation of Powers of the three branches of government, but a second set of checks and balances were also established via the representational government scheme. The legislative branch consists of two houses which work against each other. The upper house consist of representatives of the state legislatures (not anymore though as explained in the United States Senate section), while the lower house consist of representatives of the people at large. The law making process is done cooperatively in both houses, neither by the people or the state legislatures but by their elected or appointed representatives.
The executive branch consists of a head of state, or President and is appointed by the state legislatures (not in practice however, as explained in the Electoral College section above) via Electors appointed by them. The people of the states are not directly involved in this process, it being less significant than the legislative process. The people of the states influence this process indirectly however via local politics. State legislatures are accountable to the people for the Electors chosen, and the manner in which they vote.
Finally the judicial branch consists of judges nominated by the executor. Neither the state legislatures, nor the people are directly involved in this process. However, the people become directly involved via the jury box, as they have the final say on all crimes. The state legislatures somewhat indirectly influence this process however, via the manner in which the case law develops. Because states are sovereign and have all the power that the Constitution does not delegate to the federal government, decisions that are contrary to their desires can influence legislation to be passed on the state level. All in all, you have a brilliant scheme resembling the paradox of the game rock, scissors, and paper, resulting in non-expedient, but qualitative advancement of the government that reflects the wishes of all its participants. People do not get everything they want, they get everything they need. This is a far cry from Progressivism, which tends to do the opposite.

Quite simply, the People are sovereign, with the states being next in line. The federal government is the created, and is at the bottom of this hierarchy. Interaction with the federal government on an individual level is done via his agents, or representatives. The individual was never meant to answer directly to the federal government. This extends to the election of government officials, with the exception of the House of Representatives, as this is deemed the People’s house. As for the Congress, the individual acts through his state (which in turn acts through its agents) when electing Senators, directly (only) with the House of Representatives. The link with the Executive branch is also done by the individual through his state, which in turn interfaces with the government through its agents, the appointed Electors of the Electoral College in electing the President. An alternative to this could be the people directly selecting the electors who in turn elect the President. The important point here is that the President is not being elected directly by the People, but by the Electors. The Elector in this scheme would serve in a similar fashion as Congressional Representatives, except their function would be electing the President as opposed to making laws on behalf of their constituents.

Lastly you have the federal courts, or the judicial branch. This is a little different, but as mentioned, the individual is sovereign and is not answerable to the federal government. (40) Furthermore, interaction with the judge, or other court officers being inferior to the sovereign individual, is done via an agent of the individual. (41) Again, no direct interaction is to be had with the federal government, unless of course the individual chooses to do so. Sadly we have chosen to interact, or have allowed the federal government to interact with us directly, thus making ourselves vulnerable to "heat of a moment." decisions. To use an analogy, consider receiving a supreme bargain on a new car you want, but the offer is only valid in the here and now. Here the temptation is very strong to make an impulsive decision without doing the necessary homework to make an informed decision. Your reasoning faculties become biased because you are emotionally invested, given that you really like the car. Direct involvement introduces personal biases toward an individual agenda, which makes vulnerable the rights of others at the expense of these biases. Just as an individual who represents himself in court subjects himself to emotional bias, he also does more to direct his action toward the election process on all levels of government. As mentioned earlier, the amount of interaction is up for debate, but a brilliant system of checks and balances, and a well structured layer of involvement between the individual and the government have been altered for the worse.

I’ll close this section with the words of the Founding Fathers themselves (emphasis in bold text). (42)

Remember democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts, and murders itself. There never was a democracy yet that did not commit suicide.

John Adams, letter to John Taylor, April 15, 1814

That, as a republic is the best of governments, so that particular arrangements of the powers of society, or, in other words, that form of government which is best contrived to secure an impartial and exact execution of the laws, is the best of republics.

John Adams, Thoughts on Government, 1776

I am for doing good to the poor, but I differ in opinion of the means. I think the best way of doing good to the poor, is not making them easy in poverty, but leading or driving them out of it. In my youth I traveled much, and I observed in different countries, that the more public provisions were made for the poor, the less they provided for themselves, and of course became poorer. And, on the contrary, the less was done for them, the more they did for themselves, and became richer.

Benjamin Franklin, On the Price of Corn and Management of the Poor, November 1766

All, too, will bear in mind this sacred principle, that though the will of the majority is in all cases to prevail, that will to be rightful must be reasonable; that the minority possess their equal rights, which equal law must protect, and to violate would be oppression.

Thomas Jefferson, First Inaugural Address, March 4, 1801

Were we directed from Washington when to sow, and when to reap, we should soon want bread.

Thomas Jefferson, Autobiography, 1821

A republic, by which I mean a government in which the scheme of representation takes place, opens a different prospect and promises the cure for which we are seeking.

James Madison, letter to William Hunter, March 11, 1790

There is no maxim in my opinion which is more liable to be misapplied, and which therefore needs elucidation than the current one that the interest of the majority is the political standard of right and wrong.... In fact it is only reestablishing under another name and a more specious form, force as the measure of right....

James Madison, letter to James Monroe, October 5, 1786

What Should We Do?

First and foremost, to restore the liberties the Founding Fathers envisioned when establishing this government, we have to stop thinking like socialists. (43) Quite literally the last two generations of Americans have been fully groomed into a system of progressivism from birth via the social culture, and the lack of education about the history and principles which form the basis for this government. We have evolved into a passive state, believing that entities outside ourselves are better equipped at deciding our fate than we are. We have fully delegated our thinking faculties and, if anything is to change, this has to be first.

Next the 17th Amendment needs to be repealed. This is a radical structural change of our original Constitution and it serves to allow for cunning and conniving individuals to play off the emotions of current public sentiment to seize control of the office of U.S. Senator. This in contrast to the more traditional, level headed method of allowing the state legislatures to decide who occupies this office on its behalf. The states are more versed in the law than the population at large, and so are less swayed by feel-good rhetoric and, as a result, capable of making better choices for this office which serve its interests. The people benefit indirectly when the state’s interest is served. This of course depends on the moral character of state legislature being just and it is up to the people to keep a close watch on them. After all, it is much easier to monitor what is being done at the local level than at the federal, and the sphere of influence of the individual is much greater than on a federal level. In regards to the 17th Amendment being repealed, we need to make this topic an agenda for any of our elected officials. As the President of the U.S. has the biggest platform in the country, candidates who market themselves as grassroots conservatives who support fundamental Constitutional principles, such as Congressman Ron Paul should be encouraged to publicly support such legislation which endorses its repeal. (44)

Next, the proposed “first” amendment included in the bill of rights package needs to be ratified. As it currently stands, the United States House of Representatives is fixed at 435 members, which results in a Congressional District size of roughly one representative for every seven hundred thousand citizens. This is a far cry from what the Founding Fathers intended. They intended Congressional District sizes to become no larger than one representative for every 60,000 citizens. This number would warrant the number of representatives in the House to increase to about 4,500. If the more radical number of one representative for every 30,000 citizens is considered, the number which appears in the Constitution, the increase would be double what it stands at now, Representatives have too large a constituency base and are out of touch with the needs of their entire district. Simple majority rule in electing representatives assures that the needs of all citizens are compromised for the majority. It also gives individuals less influence over their representative as larger districts water down their individual votes. But a larger size in the House, however, will curtail against collusion and susceptibility of the House as a whole to special interest groups. A larger number of representatives is also more reflective of the population, and it will serve as a bureaucracy to the volumes of legislation that is passed on a daily basis in Congress. I understand that such an increase in the number of representatives cannot happen overnight, but a reasonable plan to get to that number within the next one or two decades needs to be a priority on every politicians list. As both Houses of Congress have an incentive to not let the size of Representatives in the House increase, Presidential candidates should be prime targets for soliciting that such legislation be passed.

The Electoral College needs to be restored to its pre-twentieth century form as well. The “Every Vote Counts Amendment” needs to be opposed. This is an amendment where Congress is the more effective target, as the President benefits from this amendment. As a result, our local Senators and Representative should hear our concern that we do not support this amendment. And we will be monitoring how they vote on this bill. The same needs to be done at a local level with the “National Popular Vote Interstate Compact.” At the local level, all officials can be targeted since none benefit from this legislation directly. We need to inform our state legislatures that we do not want our sovereignty sold down the river based on the public sentiment in other states.

In restoring the Electoral College, we need to 1) either allow state legislatures to fully take control of this function, 2) have the people administer this function and have the electorates fully accountable to the people via the ballot box, since they are in fact public servants, or 3) adhere to the Maine and Nevada method of splitting the electoral votes for President based on how the districts vote within its state boundaries.
The last is the method allocated by activist organization (
45) As they point out, the number of electoral votes of a state can be as many as the representatives it has in Congress. Thus, as the number of representatives increases to thousands, the number of electoral votes will increase one for one as well. This dissection of votes throughout the whole of the country will essentially reduce any possibility for Presidential candidates to appeal to a large sector of the population based on demographic information, as has been done by past presidents, and by our current President.

Lastly, all voting rights need to be stripped from Washington DC and it is to be treated as any other territory of the United States. The 23rd Amendment is another that needs to be repealed, and also the recently proposed “District of Columbia Voting Rights Act of 2007.” Again the call needs to be made to Congressmen voicing our dissent over this gross deviation from the principles upon which this government was founded. Because DC is the seat of government, a conflict of interest exists, and will always exist over it’s becoming an official state. Citizens who reside in DC are actually citizens of the federal zone United States, and not belonging to any particular state. They need to be aware of this; that relocating to the District of Columbia is essentially a relinquishment of their rights under the Constitution.

With vigilance, resolve, and the necessary action which ensues, we can all enjoy the experience of living in a country full of the spirit of liberty. I believe we have all envisioned it, but until we do so “a posteriori” we only delude ourselves.

The End

Works Cited

The National Constitution Center
“A Republic if You Can Keep It” by By Richard R. Beeman, Ph.D.

“Progressivism in the United States”
“Early Progressivism”
(3) “Article One of the United States Constitution”
“Section 3 Clause 1- Composition; Election of Senators”
“Section 2 Clause 3 - Apportionment of Representatives and Taxes”
“Section 10 – Limits on the states”
“Seventeenth Amendment to the United States Constitution”
“Sixteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution”
“List of amendments to the United States Constitution”
“Ratified amendments”
“Public Law 62-5”
(8) “United States Bill of Rights”
“Text of the Bill of Rights – Preamble”
“Ratification and the Massachusetts Compromise”
“Proposed amendments not passed with Bill of Rights”
“Article the First”
“Text of the amendment”
(10) “US Constitution method”
“Philadelphia Convention”
“Reapportionment Act of 1929”
(14) “Article Two of the United States Constitution”
“Section 1 Clause 3 - Method of choosing electors”
(15) “United States Electoral College”
“Arguments for and against the current system”
“Losing the popular vote”
“Enhances status of minority groups”
“Help America Vote Act”
“Research and Development”
“National Popular Vote Interstate Compact”
“United States presidential election, 2000 (detail)”
“Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996”
(23) “United States Census, 2000”
“Changes in population – Figure 2”
(24) “United States presidential election, 2004”
“Electoral College changes from 2000”
(30) “Article Four of the United States Constitution”
“Section 3 Clause 2 - Federal property and the Territorial Clause”
“Section 4 Clause 1 - Republican government”
(31) “Territories of the United States”
“Unincorporated organized territories”
“Twenty-third Amendment to the United States Constitution”
(33) “District of Columbia vote in the United States House of Representatives”
“District of Columbia House Voting Rights Act of 2007”
(35) “Articles of Confederation”
“Article summaries”
(36) “Republicanism in the United States”
“New Nation: The Constitution”
(37) “Federalist No. 10”
“Publius' argument”
“Franklin D. Roosevelt”
(39) “Twenty-second Amendment to the United States Constitution”
“Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution”
“Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution”
“New Deal”
(11) “A Brief History of Apportionment”
“Apportionment Milestones”
“The Electoral College”

The Boston Globe
“A growing Hispanic vote still favors GOP” by Dario Moreno

The U.S. Census Bureau
“The Hispanic Population – Census 2000 Brief”

CBS News
“Hispanics Now Largest U.S. Minority - Census: Now 37 Million Latinos In U.S., Versus 36 Million Blacks”

“Illegal immigration into US up sharply since 2000: DHS report by Jaime Jansen

“Bush seeks legal status for illegal immigrants - Plan could help GOP with Latinos” article contributors: NBC’s David Gregory and Tracie Potts, The Associated Press and Reuters

The American Conservative
“Real Message of The Bush Amnesty” by Pat Buchanan

USA Today
“Bush nephew campaigns in Mexico”

The U.S. Department of State
“The Northwest Ordinance (1787)”
“Federal Grants to State and Local Governments: A Brief History”

The U.S. Constitution Online
“The Articles of Confederation”

Mark’s Quotes
“Founding Fathers Quotes”

Oregonian Opinion
“Socialism in America” by John Bowman
“Repeal the Seventeenth Amendment” by Thomas J. DiLorenzo

Monday, December 3, 2007

Rule By Mob, Part 1

Rule By Mob
a treatise, by FranG

What does it mean to “rule by mob?” Merriam Webster defines a mob as “a large or disorderly crowd.” In a governmental setting, this term implies that the will of the masses is what drives the rule of law and social order. Anyone who has been involved in a team setting of any nature, regarding any issue, and where consolidation of ideas is essential to the goals of the team, can attest to the extreme difficulty in reaching those goals as the size of the team increases over a certain critical mass. Government is such a team and is subject to the same general rule that affects other organizations where cooperation is required for success.

The Founding Fathers of the American government were quite aware of this principle. As a result, the form of government they deemed the most effective in ensuring freedom, liberty, and equal protection under the law for all was not a purely Democratic form of government. But because the will of the people truly should be the ultimate end of the function of government, the type of government envisioned to best achieve this goal, while at the same time protecting individuals who did not share popular opinion was a Constitutional-Republic form of government. Unlike many governments, this particular form depends on the vigilance of the governed for it to truly work as designed. It has the unique ability to allow itself to be destroyed peacefully by the will of its people. Benjamin Franklin alludes to this difficulty when asked by a group of citizens of the newly formed American government what type had been established. Franklin replied "A republic, if you can keep it." (1)
The question we should all ask ourselves is: have we kept the republic? I will attempt to show below we have not kept the Republic, but in fact have voluntarily given it away.


What is progressivism? Merriam Webster defines a progressive as “one believing in moderate political change and especially social improvement by governmental action.” (emphasis added in bold) (link) Progressivism is the manifestation of this idea. The Progressive Era is a period of time generally associated with the end of the second industrial revolution, or about the turn of the 20th century in the United States. (2) In reality however, the progressive movement is still very alive in this country today and manifests itself at different periods in history, usually in response to major social events.

The Progressive Movement entailed a political left-wing response to the problems envisioned by the masses as a result of the modernization and urbanization of the country due to the industrial revolution. Industrialization paved the way for efficiencies and economies of scale in the production process and, as a result, companies were able to get larger and profit considerably from innovative ideas, products, etc. that could be sold on the open market. The individuals who headed these companies were obviously immensely wealthy.

As companies swelled in size, the production process became centralized. As a result, many people fled the farms to move near the companies in an attempt to become rich, as the corporate heads were. But wealth comes to those who work for it, and is not a birthright... So, needless to say, many people who came to the ever-growing cities did not accomplish their dreams of becoming rich, and in many cases were actually better off in their previous farm life. Urbanization brought about problems of poor working conditions, poverty, crime, and political corruption. (2a) This, combined with the fact that a class system was starting to develop in America fueled the fire for the Progressive Movement to take off. “Robber barons” were perceived as having an unfair advantage in society, pillaging all of its wealth to the detriment of the common man. But the fuel for this Progressivism came from none other than the masses. People looked to government to establish and maintain a social equitable order based on the will of the people; and they wanted direct participation in the process.

The United States Senate

The first target of the Progressives was the United States Senate. Historically, the process of electing Senators was chosen by the legislatures of the several States. (3a) Although the election of Senators was a function of government, local government was deemed incapable of remedying the new found problems of society. The people looked to the federal government to provide the solution, in accordance to their wishes and desires. And, as mentioned above, they wanted direct participation in the process. They wanted to elect to office their personal candidate of choice, not that of their local state government, who was deemed incapable of acting in the best interest of the people.

In direct response to the demands of the people, the 62nd Congress proposed the 17th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution to the State legislatures on May 13, 1912. (4) This was no ordinary amendment. Most amendments add to the existing structure, but this served to alter or rearrange the structure. In short, the proposed 17th Amendment provided for the direct election of Senators by the People, as opposed to the State legislatures. As this would transfer powers from the states to the people, what incentive would the states have to agree to such a proposal? Well the states had in their possession yet another amendment which offered structural change to the Constitution. A proposal offered by the 61st Congress on July 12, 1909 (5), which would become known as the 16th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, posited a direct tax on the income (labor) of the American people.

But why, you ask? Well, the states were under massive pressure from their constituents to not impede on the process of social change (or “progress” ). The pressure was for the people to take control in the election process and vote for Senators directly. The states agreed, in short, because they would be compensated for their troubles. With the ratification of the 16th Amendment, the states could essentially enjoy the tax revenue of its citizens via direct grants from the federal government for their various state programs and agendas. (46) The states would reap the benefits of taxation while still enjoying political favor with the constituency by not raising the tax levy upon them. The ratifying of the 17th Amendment was deemed a fair enough trade off for the increase in revenues to be enjoyed by income taxes. After all, the people wanted government to become an active force in transforming society into an oasis for the common man, and were willing to pay for this security. As a result, the states sold out its people for a buck, as ratification of both amendments were completed within months of each other. (6a)

The United States House of Representatives

The 62nd Congress targeted the House of Representatives as well. The assault came in the form of limiting the people’s representation in the House. The flip side of limiting one’s power is to increase another’s. In this case, the House sought to increase its power by not increasing the number of representatives, as was traditionally done. This was done with the enactment of Public Law 62-5, also known as the “Apportionment Act of 1911” on Aug. 8th, 1911. (7) Every ten years after the decennial Census of the United States, Congress is required by law to reapportion the House in accordance to the population shifts that have occurred over the last ten years. (3b) Up until the passing of Public Law 62-5, the number of Representatives increased, nearly one for one with population growth, in addition to reapportionment.

Although an increase in the number of Representatives was done virtually with every subsequent house, the Constitution did not require an increase. In fact, language in the Constitution suggests that only one representative per state is sufficient for government with the use of the following language: “The Number of Representatives shall not exceed one for every thirty Thousand, but each State shall have at Least one Representative…” (3b) The choice of language used here by the Founding Fathers is tricky, but what's being done here is they are putting a cap on the number of representatives each state may have. The language fails to establish a minimum, other than each state will have at least one representative.

The Founding Fathers having realized this loophole, among others, proposed what is now known as the Bill of Rights, the first ten amendments to the Constitution. (6) Their purpose of clearing loopholes, or misunderstandings and interpretations to the Constitution are expressed in the Preamble to the Bill of Rights. (8a) One such proposed amendment to the states was in regard to the number of representatives allowed for each state in the House of Representatives. This amendment unfortunately failed ratification by one vote, and as such has been forgotten in history. This forgotten amendment is commonly referred to as “Article the First,” or the “Congressional Apportionment Amendment,” and is actually the very first amendment proposed in the Bill of Rights package; still currently awaiting ratification. (9)

The language of Article the First sought to place a minimum size on the number of representatives allowed, as opposed to the maximum established in Article I of the Constitution. The text of Article the First is as follows:

Article the first...After the first enumeration required by the first article of the Constitution, there shall be one Representative for every thirty thousand, until the number shall amount to one hundred, after which the proportion shall be so regulated by Congress, that there shall be not less than one hundred Representatives, nor less than one Representative for every forty thousand persons, until the number of Representatives shall amount to two hundred; after which the proportion shall be so regulated by Congress, that there shall not be less than two hundred Representatives, nor more than one Representative for every fifty thousand persons.(emphasis added).” (9a)

This amendment serves to ensure that the size of Congressional Districts would not become too large. An increase in the size of the districts equals a decrease in the number of representatives, and thus reduced representation per citizen as a single representative has to satisfy the needs of a larger constituency. Large Congressional districts are not what the Founding Fathers intended as it sets the stage for oligarchic representation on the part of Congress which is supposed to be the voice of the people. In short, the smaller the district size, the more involvement of government you have at the local community level.

So why did such a promising amendment fail ratification? Well if you read the text carefully, you’ll see that a paradox exists. The very last sentence of the amendment uses the word "more" instead of "less", as used in the previous sentences. The use of the word renders the entire text void as it states both a minimum and maximum condition in the wording. This is sophistry at its finest. What happened was the House proposed a minimum of one representative for every 50,000 citizens while the Senate wanted a minimum of one for every 60,000 citizens. As the two houses could not agree, a joint House Senate committee was assigned the task of reconciling the differences. But it was this subset of Congress which actually killed the amendment with its cleverly hidden abnormality within the text. The disagreement of Congress on the size of Congressional Districts for the House is minor compared to the situation we face now. As it stands now, with the United States Census for the year 2000 reporting a total population of just under 250 million people, and a House of Representative size of 435 members, the average Congressional District size is just under 700,000 (Population divided by Number of Representatives). At worst, Congress intended the size of the district to be no more than 60,000 per citizen. (10a) We have ten times this amount currently.

Fast forward to 1921, the year of the next apportionment act of Congress and you will find that one does not exist. (11a) This is a direct violation of the Constitution as apportionment is supposed to be performed every ten years, whether or not the size of the House of representatives changes or not. Also, per Public Law 62-5, the size of the House had not increased since 1911. In 1929, as we neared another decennial census, the Congress passed “the Reapportionment Act of 1929,” also known as “the Permanent Act of 1929,” officially fixing the number of representatives in the House to 435, the number it had been since 1911. (12) This was done just months before the Stock Market Crash of 1929, which sparked the Great Depression and led to a new wave of progressivism by the people, administered by none other than President Franklin Roosevelt, arguably the most progressive President in U.S. history. (47)
Some of the arguments sold to the people for fixing the number of representatives at 435 were:
1) too many politicians would exist if there were no cap,
2) all the politicians could not fit into one building, and
3) the increase in the cost of the additional politicians would eat away at the congressional budget. (
If you’ll remember from above, people had turned to the government and trusted it to fulfill the social aims of the masses. Also, the size of thousands of politicians on its face does not look good and so this line of reasoning was easily used against the people due to their lack of vigilance. For the current apportionment laws, see
2 U.S.C. Sec 2.

The Electoral College

The United States Electoral College is the system established by the Constitution for electing the President of the United States. Per the Constitution, the State legislatures are to elect individuals who will in turn cast votes for their choice of President of the United States. (14a) The total number of electors allowed a state is equal to the number of representatives and senators it has in Congress. Amongst other things (15a), the Electoral College serves to provide a voice for citizens from every part of the country by giving them a say in who is to become President. Also, with the assigning of two additional electors for each Senator, over representation bias is afforded to smaller states at the expense of larger states. But as mentioned above, the Progressive Movement provided the sentiment for direct participation in the Presidential process by the masses. The President was to be elected according to the popular vote, as this best reflected the will of the people.

Once again, the states heard the cries of the people and obliged their wishes. The states, in response, adopted the practice of assigning all their state’s electoral votes for President to the candidate who received the majority of votes. Click here for an example of the ballot submitted to the federal government in my home state of Illinois for the 2000 Presidential election. Notice how Al Gore receives all of the electoral votes, while the other candidates receive none. Also notice the Electors names who actually cast the ballots for Al Gore. Many don’t know, but the actual vote for President is done by the Electors over a month after the general public casts their vote for President. Also, many people are unaware that when they cast their ballots; they are not really voting for a candidate, but are in fact voting for an Elector. It is the Elector who is doing the voting, the people only think they are voting. Although the system is in place for the states to deviate from current practice, they have all but insured that the Electors of their state will casts their votes for President based on the will of the people.

All but two states, Maine and Nebraska split their electoral votes for President and assign to the Presidential candidate only the districts won in their states. This method is in fact more according to the will of the people than the current winner take all method used by the other 48 states. If a state has one district which disagrees with the popular sentiment of the state as a whole, that district should not be forced to give their electoral votes to the party not of their choice.

As bad as this may sound, the Electoral College as it is currently operated by the states today, is still at least a state controlled function. New legislation is being proposed at federal level to yet again alter the structure of our Constitution. Two joint resolutions have been prepared and proposed to the states that would eliminate the Electoral College system in lieu of the national popular vote as determining who is elected President. The first bill is H.J. Res 4, known as the “Every Vote Counts Amendment” sponsored by Rep. Gene Green of Texas. The second is H.J. Res 36 by Rep. Jesse Jackson Jr. of Illinois. Both of these proposals were made at the beginning of 2007.

But will the states once again give up power to the federal government? Well, the “Help America Vote Act” (HAVA) of 2002 establishes federal election standards, among them upgrading to electronic voting machines. (16) In assuring that its goal is implemented, HAVA provides grants for states to aid in the process of improving their election process. (16a) In addition, various amendments have been introduced to improve HAVA measures and to again provide for additional grant funding. With the grant funding, states can, among other things, improve the election process which by default benefits their local elections as well. Time will only tell if the states once again sell out its people for federal funding.

Interestingly though, some states have proposed entering into a compact to assign their state’s electoral votes to the winner of the national popular vote, regardless of the popular vote winner in their respective state. This is right in line with the amendments mentioned above to do away with the Electoral College. The agreement is known as the “National Popular Vote Interstate Compact.” (17) The compact would go into affect when a majority of states sign on to it. This has been introduced in most states and fortunately has not been lifted off the ground. So far it has only been passed into law by the State of Maryland, and in Illinois it has passed both houses and awaits approval by the Governor. Click here for the text of the compact. It is mind-boggling that states would agree to such action without any stated benefits from the federal government. It is likely that this is a backup measure by the states in the event the proposed amendment is not ratified. The amendment would require 75% approval by the states while the compact only needs 50%. The compact in short hijacks the Electoral College, similar to a hostile corporate takeover via majority stock acquisition, and would serve to force states that would oppose the national popular vote to play along for their own benefit.

President Bush and the Electoral College

President Bush can thank the current manner of winner-take-all in the states for his successful Presidential bid in 2000. In nearly all cases, the popular vote is reflective of the electoral vote winner and, thus the winner of the Presidential race. The 2000 election marked only the fourth time in this nation’s history that the popular vote winner did not win the bid for President. (15b) The 2000 election illustrates the flaw in the current winner-take-all method for assigning a state’s electoral votes to a candidate. Or not so much a flaw, as it is perfectly legal for the states to assign their electoral votes in whatever manner they see fit under the Constitution. (14a) But if the intent is truly to reflect the will of the people, then winner take all is in fact flawed. As mentioned above, the winner take all method makes swings votes of certain groups or organizations of people to have a major influence in tipping the balance in favor of a specific candidate. (15c) This was evidenced in Florida with Bush winning the overall Hispanic vote in Florida-the state which ultimately decided the Presidential winner. Bush won the popular vote among Hispanics by a few hundred thousand, (18) but won the entire state of Florida by less than one thousand votes. (19) If the winner-take-all method of assigning electoral votes was not employed, then Florida’s 25 electoral votes would have been split evenly among the two candidates, and Al Gore would have easily won the Presidency.

Bush’s Hispanic vote may have had something to do with his campaign platform of being a "compassionate conservative." This, combined with the fact that the Clinton administration (which Al Gore was part of) passed tough immigration legislation in 1996. (20) More importantly however, is the drastic increase in the Hispanic population throughout the 1990s, and the resulting reapportionment shifts which took effect in the 2004 election based on the 2000 United States Census. The Hispanic population in the U.S. increased by 57.9%, compared to the national average of 13.2% (21) This is a huge increase, and Hispanics now represent the largest minority group in the United States. (22) Of the nation’s Hispanic population, 58% are Mexican, 43.5% lived in the West, and 32.8% lived in the South. Of the 8 states with over 1 million in population growth throughout the 1990s, (23a) all in the South and West, Bush won 6, resulting in an additional 10 votes due to reapportionment based on the 2000 Census. (24a)

So what’s the significance of all this you ask? Well if you consider that illegal immigration has risen sharply under President Bush’s Presidency, (25) combined with the amnesty plan Bush advocated in the months leading up to the 2004 Presidential election, (26) then it all makes sense. Bush was ensuring his success in the 2004 election since he took office in 2000, by actively shifting the electorate in his favor at the expense of the nation. (27) The icing on the 2004 Presidential campaign cake was Bush’s Hispanic nephew campaigning for him. (28) The current winner-take-all method of assigning electoral votes has been fully exploited by President Bush and has played a great deal in his being in the White House.

{end, part one-stay tuned for part two...}

thus always to tyrants authors

Brandon Dean (splitbabyniblet)


Joshua Berry (tattoogeek)

you see what happens?

"I, like the arch-fiend, bore a hell within me, and finding myself unsympathized with, wished to tear up the trees, spread havoc and destruction around me, and then to have sat down and enjoyed the ruin." --Mary Shelley, from Frankenstein