Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Bush-The Mastermind behind 9/11? -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Sidney Reilly who wrote (7405)	7/18/2004 1:36:45 AM
From: Lazarus_Long	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 20039

What the wording means, as shown plainly by the first and subsequent Congresses, is that 1 rep for 15,000 population would be unconstitutional, whereas 1 for 660,000 is not. When the first Congress met in 1789, there were 59 representatives in the House of Representatives. bensguide.gpo.gov Now this could be a problem: A law passed in 1911 fixed the size of the House of Representatives at 435 members. IF there had to be 1 rep for 30,000 population. Since that is NOT the case, there is no problem. There can be 1 rep for a million or 2 million or 5 million. What there can't be is 1 rep for 29,000 population. As mentioned before, Following the establishment of the new constitutional order, the U.S. population increased from 3.9 million in 1790 bartleby.com