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 (7415)	7/18/2004 2:21:20 PM
From: Lazarus_Long	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 20039

The clause, dear fellow is The Number of Representatives shall not exceed one for every thirty Thousand, THERE IS NOTHING IN THAT CLAUSE ABOUT WHITE LANDOWNING MALE CITIZENS! IN FACT, it was understand that NON-WHITE, NON-LANDING NON-CITIZENS would be "represented"! The whole clause looks like this: Article I. Section 2. Clause 3: Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons. The actual Enumeration shall be made within three Years after the first Meeting of the Congress of the United States, and within every subsequent Term of ten Years, in such Manner as they shall by Law direct. The Number of Representatives shall not exceed one for every thirty Thousand, but each State shall have at Least one Representative; and until such enumeration shall be made, the State of New Hampshire shall be entitled to chuse three, Massachusetts eight, Rhode-Island and Providence Plantations one, Connecticut five, New-York six, New Jersey four, Pennsylvania eight, Delaware one, Maryland six, Virginia ten, North Carolina five, South Carolina five, and Georgia three. QUITE CLEARLY, they intended to include the ENTIRE POPULATION, excluding Indians, in the count, with slaves counting as 3/5 of a person. THERE IS NOTHING IN THAT CLAUSE ABOUT LAND OWNING OR WHITE. Read it. And read the whole thing as written. And do it quickly. I am rapidly tiring of arguing with a ignoramus determined to keep his badge of dishonor. <edit> Blacks could actually vote (1867) long before women could vote (1918). But as we all know much effort was put into barring blacks from voting in general elections. Edit: BLACKS could not vote until the passage of the 14th amendment on July 28, 1868. Not 1867. 1868 was when 3/4 od the state legislatures had approved it and it became an amendment. And, at the time of passage of that amendment, blacks were counted as whole persons, not 3/5 of a person. The Constitution DOES NOT require a rep per 30,000 persons. It prohibits having a rep for less than 30,000 persons, unless a state as a whole has a population less than that. It DOES NOT prohibit having 1 rep for some number of persons greater than 30,000. The Union started with PRECISELY that situation- -one rep for greater than 30,000 persons. And the passage of that law in 1911 limiting the House of Representatives to 435 members GUARANTEES that in fact a rep will from now on represent more than 30,000 persons. Get used to it. Were that law unconstitutional, it would already have been challenged, been to the USSC, and been thrown out. It has not. And were your interpretation correct, the House in the the first US Congress would not have had 59 members; it would have had more. That your interpretation is wrong is shown by the fact that the very men who wrote the Constitution were in that Congress and saw nothing wrong with the situation. The first census was in 1790. AT THAT TIME, it was known for certain that the 1 rep to 30,000 persons ratio was not being met. If those men had intended that clause to be interpreted that way, don't you think they would have done something?