General Discussion

Bettie

(19,892 posts)

66. That is a law, even if it has the word "permanent" in the title.

Tue Jan 25, 2022, 03:50 PM

Jan 2022

it should be changed, because our population then was 104 million.

The size of the House should be three times what it is and now, a lot of work can be done remotely.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

73 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Maybe they got it wrong in the 1700"s???? - [View all] packman Jan 2022 OP

That's why they invented constitutional amendments up to us now can't go on blaming the founders Walleye Jan 2022 #1

Which requires 2/3 of those states (including the red ones) to agree to them relayerbob Jan 2022 #2

A system designed to deny the majority their rights. paleotn Jan 2022 #11

That would be wrong, MarineCombatEngineer Jan 2022 #51

Thanks MCE DENVERPOPS Jan 2022 #55

Always a pleasure DENVERPOPS. MarineCombatEngineer Jan 2022 #60

Changing equal representation in the Senate requires *all* states to agree. sir pball Jan 2022 #70

Yes, that is absolutely correct, MarineCombatEngineer Jan 2022 #72

I don't think Madison and the other framers of the Constitution ever believed it would Poiuyt Jan 2022 #3

Sorry, but compared to the rest of the democratic West, they fucked up. paleotn Jan 2022 #10

It's still up to us to correct it somehow nobody else is gonna do it Walleye Jan 2022 #12

That deck is loaded too. paleotn Jan 2022 #15

We know that. I like to say my mom was born in a country where women didn't have the right to vote Walleye Jan 2022 #16

Jeffrsons greatest intellectual failure is that he did not conceive the industrial revolution that Volaris Jan 2022 #4

But was it conceivable to them then? treestar Jan 2022 #9

Massachusetts was already beginning to 'industrialize'...so in that sense, the ''northern states' Volaris Jan 2022 #13

We were shipping all our raw materials to England Voltaire2 Jan 2022 #18

They were not all slave owners treestar Jan 2022 #5

10 of the first 12 presidents were Voltaire2 Jan 2022 #20

The first 12 presidents did not treestar Jan 2022 #21

Oh quite a few years them did both. Voltaire2 Jan 2022 #24

My understanding is that it was 8 of the first 12 onenote Jan 2022 #23

You're missing two. Voltaire2 Jan 2022 #25

I stand corrected. onenote Jan 2022 #27

Reading that, though, shows that things are not treestar Jan 2022 #28

Owning another human is just wrong. Voltaire2 Jan 2022 #36

There would be "no excuses" today but then treestar Jan 2022 #38

No it was wrong then and there were many Voltaire2 Jan 2022 #39

Which I am not doing. treestar Jan 2022 #41

I've always thought that the Senate, as a concept, was a bad idea. Haggard Celine Jan 2022 #6

So you want a unicameral system? Cuthbert Allgood Jan 2022 #43

What I'd really rather have is a parliamentary system. Haggard Celine Jan 2022 #46

It's flawed... Zeitghost Jan 2022 #56

That's all true. Haggard Celine Jan 2022 #58

I live in the second smallest state in the Union.... paleotn Jan 2022 #7

This message was self-deleted by its author LudwigPastorius Jan 2022 #29

The point being that both population and states are involved in legislation. Cuthbert Allgood Jan 2022 #44

I think the bigger blunder was when they voted to cap the House at 435 Poiuyt Jan 2022 #8

1929 permanent reapportionment act. Voltaire2 Jan 2022 #22

That is a law, even if it has the word "permanent" in the title. Bettie Jan 2022 #66

Yup. Not only just a law, a really bad law. Voltaire2 Jan 2022 #69

Because it would dilute their individual power Bettie Jan 2022 #71

Amen LudwigPastorius Jan 2022 #30

Wish it was simple I_UndergroundPanther Jan 2022 #31

I'd like to see the SCOTUS expanded based on population. One Justice per X number of citizens. nt Progressive Jones Jan 2022 #48

At very least Bettie Jan 2022 #65

Great points. nt Progressive Jones Jan 2022 #67

I thought the concept was WhiteTara Jan 2022 #14

Smaller states thought they would be dominated treestar Jan 2022 #17

Unicameral systems have their own problems. Cuthbert Allgood Jan 2022 #45

Which are ? treestar Jan 2022 #61

Perhaps, but we are stuck with it now, it can't be changed. DetroitLegalBeagle Jan 2022 #19

We can't get rid of the Senate but maybe there's a way to limit its power FakeNoose Jan 2022 #26

More dramatically illustrated DENVERPOPS Jan 2022 #32

... Crepuscular Jan 2022 #40

Thanks for your explanation. DENVERPOPS Jan 2022 #42

... Crepuscular Jan 2022 #47

Okay DENVERPOPS Jan 2022 #49

... Crepuscular Jan 2022 #52

Thanks DENVERPOPS Jan 2022 #54

This message was self-deleted by its author Crepuscular Jan 2022 #53

It's not as though the Founding Fathers PoindexterOglethorpe Jan 2022 #33

Most of the other British colonies turned out pretty well IronLionZion Jan 2022 #34

As a thought experiment ymetca Jan 2022 #35

I agree. Voltaire2 Jan 2022 #37

But there is already enough for everyone, everywhere. Lurker Deluxe Jan 2022 #59

Good question! ymetca Jan 2022 #73

4/5 of the delegates to the Constitutional Convention did not own slaves Jose Garcia Jan 2022 #50

But the majority of states that passed & ratified the Const'n did allow it Bucky Jan 2022 #64

I can certainly see the reasons for a bicameral legislature ... Straw Man Jan 2022 #57

It was a clever solution for 1787. Bucky Jan 2022 #62

I don't know about the 1700s sarisataka Jan 2022 #63

No, they intended this result, to protect slaveholders. lagomorph777 Jan 2022 #68