internetworkers AT lists.ibiblio.org
Subject: Internetworkers: http://www.ibiblio.org/internetworkers/
List archive
Re: [internetworkers] Representation [was Candidate Match for Pres]
- From: Thomas Beckett <thomas AT tbeckett.com>
- To: "Internetworkers: http://www.ibiblio.org/internetworkers/" <internetworkers AT lists.ibiblio.org>
- Subject: Re: [internetworkers] Representation [was Candidate Match for Pres]
- Date: Thu, 12 Feb 2004 08:02:55 -0500
James Dasher wrote:
The problem stems from limiting the number of Representatives to the U.S. House; and both Senators and Representatives in the General Assembly.
IIRC, the Constitution originally mandated one Representative for every 60,000 people. Today, the number is capped at 435. Thus, each citizen matters less as the population grows. It ain't quite taxation without representation, but it's certainly taxation with less and less representation.
Article I, Section 2
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.
-
[internetworkers] [Fwd: Bush Supports Shift of Jobs Overseas],
Dan Smith, 02/10/2004
-
[internetworkers] Candidate Match for Pres,
Paul Jones, 02/10/2004
- Re: [internetworkers] Candidate Match for Pres, Phillip Rhodes, 02/10/2004
-
Re: [internetworkers] Candidate Match for Pres,
Ian Meyer, 02/10/2004
- Re: [internetworkers] Candidate Match for Pres, David R . Matusiak, 02/10/2004
-
Re: [internetworkers] Candidate Match for Pres,
Thomas Beckett, 02/11/2004
-
RE: [internetworkers] Candidate Match for Pres,
Shea Tisdale, 02/11/2004
-
[internetworkers] Representation [was Candidate Match for Pres],
James Dasher, 02/12/2004
- Re: [internetworkers] Representation [was Candidate Match for Pres], Thomas Beckett, 02/12/2004
-
Re: [internetworkers] Population [was Representation [was Candidate Match for Pres]],
Diana Duncan, 02/12/2004
- Re: [internetworkers] Population [was Representation [was Candidate Match for Pres]], K. Jo Garner, 02/12/2004
- Re: [internetworkers] Population [was Representation [was Candidate Match for Pres]], Ron Thigpen, 02/12/2004
- Re: [internetworkers] Population [was Representation [was Candidate Match for Pres]], James Z. Godwin, 02/12/2004
- Re: [internetworkers] Population [was Representation [was Candidate Match for Pres]], Thomas Beckett, 02/12/2004
- Re: [internetworkers] Population [was Representation [was Candidate Match for Pres]], Edward Wesolowski, 02/12/2004
- Re: [internetworkers] Population [was Representation [was Candidate Match for Pres]], Diana Duncan, 02/12/2004
- Re: [internetworkers] Population [was Representation [was Candidate Match for Pres]], James Dasher, 02/12/2004
-
[internetworkers] Representation [was Candidate Match for Pres],
James Dasher, 02/12/2004
-
RE: [internetworkers] Candidate Match for Pres,
Shea Tisdale, 02/11/2004
-
Re: [internetworkers] Candidate Match for Pres,
Tanner Lovelace, 02/12/2004
- Re: [internetworkers] Candidate Match for Pres, Diana Duncan, 02/12/2004
-
[internetworkers] Candidate Match for Pres,
Paul Jones, 02/10/2004
Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.