At the dawn of the country, the Founding Fathers proposed twelve amendments to the Constitution. Ten of them became the Bill of Rights, one became the 27th Amendment in 1992, and the other - about Congressional representation in the House - wasn't ratified. Or was it? Recently uncovered documents suggest it might have been.
Article the First was an amendment proposal that defined how the House would be apportioned. The text is:
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 less than one Representative for every fifty thousand persons.
Due to confusion, copies of the amendment that went to the states said "more" rather than "less" where it's bold.
The Supreme Court recently declined to hear the appeal of LaVergne vs Bryson, which was dismissed by a lower court for lack of standing.
The case started when misplaced documents were found in Connecticut. It seems that it was actually ratified in 1789 and 1790 over two different legislative sessions. That means the 75% threshold for ratification was crossed - and it should have become law. There should be a Representative for every 50,000 persons.
Eek! That raises the House of Representatives from 435 to around 6200! But that also conveniently fixes most of our gerrymandering problem, now doesn't it?
In 1992, the 27th Amendment became law when the Archivist of the United States accepted it.
In certifying that the amendment had been validly ratified, the Archivist of the United States had acted under statutory authority granted to his office by the Congress under Title 1, section 106b of the United States Code, which states:
Whenever official notice is received at the National Archives and Records Administration that any amendment proposed to the Constitution of the United States has been adopted, according to the provisions of the Constitution, the Archivist of the United States shall forthwith cause the amendment to be published, with his certificate, specifying the States by which the same may have been adopted, and that the same has become valid, to all intents and purposes, as a part of the Constitution of the United States.
And that's the only part that's missing right now. It was passed by the federal government and ratified by 3/4 of the states in 1789. If the Archivist, David Ferriero, recognizes it, the Reapportionment Act of 1929 is unconstitutional and we'll need to buy a lot of chairs.
Now, most of the info on this, ironically, is on Tea Party sites, which is amusing since it would certainly give us Speaker Pelosi back, but I have to scrub my brain out with bleach now. It certainly would be a delightful way to fix the House though, and dramatically alter the red/blue power balance.