See the post by CapitalistFool

A three part Amendment, all three parts necessary to pass as one amendment: (1) Repeal the Re-Apportionment Act of 1929 limiting the size of the district of a member of the House of Representatives rather than limiting the size of the House, (2) Repeal Amendment 17 returning Senatorial Election to State Legislatures, (3) Limit the federal legislature to part time, and limit their benefits.

The effect of limiting the size of the House instead of the size of a district is a LOSS of POPULAR REPRESENTATION, and the effect of Amendment 17 is a LOSS of STATE REPRESENTATION.

Article #1 of the Bill of Rights (Congress passed 12 articles, but the states only ratified 10) would have limited the number of citizens in a district to between 30,000 and 50,000, but it was poorly worded and confusing. Still, re-apportioning operated basically along these line for the first 150 years of the republic. Without the 1929 Act, the House membership would currently around 7000 members. Instead, the arbitrary 435 member limit on the size of the House, has gradually and increasingly violated the principle of localizing representation with each House member "representing" over 700,000 citizens. No matter what technology you have in place, no Congressman can effectively communicate with individuals in that large of a district, but with a district under 50,000 it is entirely possible. THIS IS THE PRIMARY CAUSE OF POLITICAL APATHY--YOU CAN'T REACH YOUR CONGESSMAN.

THE fundamental federalist provision of the constitution was the check and balance of state representation in the Senate. Federalism died with Amendment 17. If you are not sovereign, then you acquire you rights from the sovereign you serve. The founders rejected that, realizing your rights are endowed to you by virtue of the fact you are a sovereign. Through the original federal structure of our nation, specific aspects of our sovereignty were delegated to the states in which we vote. To preserve republican form of government, the lineage of sovereignty is likewise delegated to the federal government, or at least, it is supposed to be. Since ratification of Amendment 17, the delegation of our sovereignty has been confused. Since then, the only exercise of control over the federal notion of sovereignty has been through popular representation, which is essentially the democratic form of government unanimously rejected by those who ratified the original constitution. Think of states' rights as your delegation of your sovereign individual rights. With Amendment 17, states effectively lost sovereign representation of the rights you delegated.

When State representation is restored by repealing Amendment 17, restoring the senate to state representation, it will become even more necessary to restore popular representation at the same time. I propose a single Federal Representation Amendment to do both. Look up www.thirty-thousand.org for info on repealing the Re-apportionment Act of 1929.

I am working on unvailing this as the Federal Representation Amendment. Please help.

I believe a good amount of mischief would go away with a repeal of the 16th amendment.

I threw mine at vz!

Why weren't you carrying your own hammer??? :)

Yup. Twice. You can do that I hear.

Hit yourself with a hammer. It will snap you out of it right quick!

I would have if someone hadn't hit me with a hammer!

I believe you are confusing original application with original intent.

Indeed!

Wrong!

The original intent of Freedom of The Press was freedom of the dissemination of information, especially information which the government did not want reported.

But feel free to stick to your specious canned arguments and feel like you're scoring points.

More to the original point though, this is not a thread to discuss competing philosophies of the current US Constitution, but rather to how a new one might be formed.

So, look, victoriaz, you've got your Marxist Utopia, and we evil, evil monsters are finally making plans to go away and leave you to revel in it... so why don't you let us?

Oh yeah, that's right... you can't... all must submit.

Hello MrSelfish,
Lack of adherence to the document in part or in whole is the source of much discord. Were it otherwise there would probably not be such an exercise on this thread.
I believe the ninth and tenth, equally abused, work hand in hand... when they are observed.
Respectfully,
O.A.

Such as war, oppressive government, taxation with out representation? Get a clue, dearie, and when you do, maybe you will have something worth saying.

At the end of Atlas Shrugged, Judge Narragansett is writing an amendment; I can't do better than that!

Quite the contrary. By the logic of original intent Freedom of the Press only adheres to the Printing Press since that's the only form of media that existed at the time. Looking at the Constitution as a "living document" would allow for the change in media and apply to the internet.

The framers left slavery out of the Constitution because they knew they couldn't get the majority they needed by making it illegal or legal for that matter. Further more the framers disagreed on several issues so original intent differs from person to person. Especially when it comes to the Second Amendment and the even the First Amendment.

The biggest problem with original intent is that we try to apply ideas of the framers to situations they couldn't forsee.

Meeeeee neithah!

Dang...ya beat me!

sorry ben carson. I am not going to church in the gulch

I repeat, look to the 10th Amendment to restrict and restraint our representatives. Never trust in their integrity or knowledge.

And, ironically, listen to our English cousins - Paul and John - - -

'You say you'll change the constitution
Well, you know
We all want to change your head
You tell me it's the institution
Well, you know
You better free your mind instead'

What Euda said! I agree.

That would be too cool. I'd have to ask what his stance on the 2nd ammenment is.

Muy! Here we go again!