Skip to main content

View Diary: Why do we have a 435-member House? (104 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  So we passed a law enabling us to (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    copymark, Aspe4

    circumvent the Constitution?

    How can the Reapportionment Act of 1929 be Constitutional if it essentially contradicts the Constitution?

    if necessary for years; if necessary, alone

    by SouthernLiberalinMD on Mon Apr 22, 2013 at 07:54:05 PM PDT

    [ Parent ]

    •  No more than one representative per 30,000 (0+ / 0-)

      would mean, wouldn't it, that there couldn't be 2 or 3 reps per 30,000 (or 200, for that matter), but the opposite would have to be worded that there would be no FEWER than one representative per 30,000, or more clearly, there must be one representative per 30,000.

      IANAL, however.  Could you imagine trying to govern with 11,000 Representatives?

      •  I think it would be better ... (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:

        Much harder for big-money lobbyists to access enough legislators and much easier for constituents to get representatives to care what they want.

        “What’s the use of having developed a science well enough to make predictions if, in the end, all we’re willing to do is stand around and wait for them to come true?” - Sherwood Rowland

        by jrooth on Wed Apr 24, 2013 at 05:25:20 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site