The Lost But Ratified Amendments
Is it History or Humor? No it's news to me but so far checks out. Our 435 member house is short biy 6,515 by law.
What is the Congressional Apportionment Amendment (CAA) from the Bill of Rights and can we prove it's ratified?
The amendment says we are to have one Representative in the U.S. House of Representatives for every 50,000 people in the USA per district per state. Article the First of the Bill of Rights is below, voted and created by our Congress to go out to the states:
After the first enumeration required by the first article of the Constitution, there shall be one Representative for every thirty thousand, until the number shall amount to one hundred, after which the proportion shall be so regulated by Congress, that there shall be not less than one hundred Representatives, nor More than one Representative for every forty thousand persons, until the number of Representatives shall amount to two hundred; after which the proportion shall be so regulated by Congress, that there shall not be less than two hundred Representatives, nor Less than one Representative for every fifty thousand persons.
There are 12 amendments in the Bill of Rights, not 10 and enough states voted to ratify this amendment. It now needs to be followed and as soon as possible.
We bet you didn't know there was an amendment from the Bill of Rights called the Congressional Apportionment Amendment. More importantly, the amendment was ratified in 1792 with 80% of the states voting yes and we can prove it. The Congressional Apportionment Amendment or Article the First of the Bill of Rights is the first of the 12 amendments that the colonies voted on when our "more perfect union" was formed. We'd like to show you an interesting historical fact. That the Congressional Apportionment Amendment or Article the First of the Bill of Rights was ratified by a vote of 78.6% by 1791 and then 80% of the states by 1792 when Kentucky became our 15th state and voted Yes for all of the amendments of the Bill of Rights.
With the ratification of the Bill of Rights by Kentucky and the discovery in Connecticut's archives in 2011 that Connecticut voted "Yes" to this amendment in 1790, (We are told historically that they voted no for some reason2), caused this amendment to automatically become ratified into constitutional law regardless of the states notifying Congress of their votes.
The Archivist of the United States now needs to accept the fact that this is a ratified amendment. It's up to you to make sure it's placed in our Constitution by demanding that the Department of Commerce and/or the Archivist of the United States, David Ferriero do their job and accept as ratified, the Congressional Apportionment Amendment. The Congressional Apportionment Amendment says we should have One Representative in the House for every 50,000 People per district once the country reached 8,000,000 people.
Interesting point: Why should one elected Representative in the House of Representatives represent around one million peoples votes and another represent around 500,000 peoples votes? Quite simply, they shouldn't. Your voice and votes were diluted when Congress voted to lock the House of Representatives at 435 members in 1911. The ratified Congressional Apportionment Amendment isn't being followed and doesn't allow for this type of Apportionment of Representatives, but this was one of the reasons the amendment was created. To always give a voice to the People on a level field for all people.
We can fix that. We want to put the country back on track for fair representation and do it constitutionally. No new amendment is needed. The United States already voted yes for this Congressional Apportionment Amendment. It's been done. It is constitutional law.
Now, one more thing needs to be done so that Congress will follow this amendment. The Department of Commerce and the Archivist of the United States are delegated with the task of accepting this amendment and presenting it to Congress.
The Archivist of the United States is David Ferriero. Aside from being the Archivist, it is the role of the Archivist to accept this amendment and present it to Congress as our 28th amendment once he knew it is ratified. He found out in 2011 when he was presented with all the needed facts in the lawsuit "Eugene M. LaVergne v. Rebecca Blank, Acting Secretary of Commerce, el al, No. 12-778". This suit gives all the votes of the states including a certified copy of Connecticuts voting record from 1790 on this amendment. That copy was certified by the Archivist of Connecticut. David Ferriero was one of the defendants in this suit.
Luckly, there is talk on the Beltway that David Ferriero is considering accepting this amendment as ratified and making it our 28th amendment but the longer we wait for this to happen, the greater the damage to our country.
Is it really the job of the Department of Commerce and Archivist David Ferriero to present a ratified Amendment to Congress?
We point to the role of Don Wilson. Who is Don Wilson? In 1992, Don Wilson, then the Archivist of the United States, did his job when it was found that Article the 2nd from the Bill of Rights (and commonly called the Watson Amendment) had enough states voting YES to be ratified. David Ferriero has been served in many lawsuits requesting he do his oath of office. Since David Ferriero has refused up to this point, (Not like the honorable Don Wilson), the lawsuit requested that the Supreme Court require him to do just that. The Supreme Court has declined that offer saying it's a political matter. Take a read in our lawsuit for all the proof you need to show we have a ratified amendment, why the Government of the United States has agreed that we have a ratified amendment, but says this is the job of the Archivist of the United States to accept. Since David Ferriero is the Archivist, David Ferriero needs to do his job. Mr. Ferriero has a twitter account at https://twitter.com/dferriero. Lets all tweet to him and ask him when he'll be accepting the CAA now that he knows enough states have ratified it into Constitutional history.
Eugene M. LaVergne v. Rebecca Blank, Acting Secretary of Commerce, et al., No. 12-778 is our PDF filing for the Federal Lawsuit to have the Apportionment Amendment recognized by the Supreme Court as Constitutional Law and require Congress to start seating the correct number of Congressmen and Women from each state. This lawsuit was filed with the Supreme Court in December 2012, after being denied a review in the 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals on "Political Grounds" and was again denied without comment on 02/15/13 by the Supreme Court. Denying a suit without comment isn't the same as saying it's wrong.It's like saying "I take the Fifth". The suit clearly outlines all the proof you need. There are other options and we are working on them. Read our News section for updates.
You'll have to educate yourself and see why we are correct in what we are presenting to you. See below for the first four articles of the Bill of Rights as voted on by the states. All are now passed. You'll notice Article the 3rd is the Free Speech amendment and isn't the first of the amendments to be voted on. It doesn't make it any less important but it corrects a common historical inaccuracy that we only had 10 amendments in the Bill of Rights.
1Interestingly enough, two mistakes wer continued in comment 1
What is the Congressional Apportionment Amendment (CAA) from the Bill of Rights and can we prove it's ratified?
The amendment says we are to have one Representative in the U.S. House of Representatives for every 50,000 people in the USA per district per state. Article the First of the Bill of Rights is below, voted and created by our Congress to go out to the states:
After the first enumeration required by the first article of the Constitution, there shall be one Representative for every thirty thousand, until the number shall amount to one hundred, after which the proportion shall be so regulated by Congress, that there shall be not less than one hundred Representatives, nor More than one Representative for every forty thousand persons, until the number of Representatives shall amount to two hundred; after which the proportion shall be so regulated by Congress, that there shall not be less than two hundred Representatives, nor Less than one Representative for every fifty thousand persons.
There are 12 amendments in the Bill of Rights, not 10 and enough states voted to ratify this amendment. It now needs to be followed and as soon as possible.
We bet you didn't know there was an amendment from the Bill of Rights called the Congressional Apportionment Amendment. More importantly, the amendment was ratified in 1792 with 80% of the states voting yes and we can prove it. The Congressional Apportionment Amendment or Article the First of the Bill of Rights is the first of the 12 amendments that the colonies voted on when our "more perfect union" was formed. We'd like to show you an interesting historical fact. That the Congressional Apportionment Amendment or Article the First of the Bill of Rights was ratified by a vote of 78.6% by 1791 and then 80% of the states by 1792 when Kentucky became our 15th state and voted Yes for all of the amendments of the Bill of Rights.
With the ratification of the Bill of Rights by Kentucky and the discovery in Connecticut's archives in 2011 that Connecticut voted "Yes" to this amendment in 1790, (We are told historically that they voted no for some reason2), caused this amendment to automatically become ratified into constitutional law regardless of the states notifying Congress of their votes.
The Archivist of the United States now needs to accept the fact that this is a ratified amendment. It's up to you to make sure it's placed in our Constitution by demanding that the Department of Commerce and/or the Archivist of the United States, David Ferriero do their job and accept as ratified, the Congressional Apportionment Amendment. The Congressional Apportionment Amendment says we should have One Representative in the House for every 50,000 People per district once the country reached 8,000,000 people.
Interesting point: Why should one elected Representative in the House of Representatives represent around one million peoples votes and another represent around 500,000 peoples votes? Quite simply, they shouldn't. Your voice and votes were diluted when Congress voted to lock the House of Representatives at 435 members in 1911. The ratified Congressional Apportionment Amendment isn't being followed and doesn't allow for this type of Apportionment of Representatives, but this was one of the reasons the amendment was created. To always give a voice to the People on a level field for all people.
We can fix that. We want to put the country back on track for fair representation and do it constitutionally. No new amendment is needed. The United States already voted yes for this Congressional Apportionment Amendment. It's been done. It is constitutional law.
Now, one more thing needs to be done so that Congress will follow this amendment. The Department of Commerce and the Archivist of the United States are delegated with the task of accepting this amendment and presenting it to Congress.
The Archivist of the United States is David Ferriero. Aside from being the Archivist, it is the role of the Archivist to accept this amendment and present it to Congress as our 28th amendment once he knew it is ratified. He found out in 2011 when he was presented with all the needed facts in the lawsuit "Eugene M. LaVergne v. Rebecca Blank, Acting Secretary of Commerce, el al, No. 12-778". This suit gives all the votes of the states including a certified copy of Connecticuts voting record from 1790 on this amendment. That copy was certified by the Archivist of Connecticut. David Ferriero was one of the defendants in this suit.
Luckly, there is talk on the Beltway that David Ferriero is considering accepting this amendment as ratified and making it our 28th amendment but the longer we wait for this to happen, the greater the damage to our country.
Is it really the job of the Department of Commerce and Archivist David Ferriero to present a ratified Amendment to Congress?
We point to the role of Don Wilson. Who is Don Wilson? In 1992, Don Wilson, then the Archivist of the United States, did his job when it was found that Article the 2nd from the Bill of Rights (and commonly called the Watson Amendment) had enough states voting YES to be ratified. David Ferriero has been served in many lawsuits requesting he do his oath of office. Since David Ferriero has refused up to this point, (Not like the honorable Don Wilson), the lawsuit requested that the Supreme Court require him to do just that. The Supreme Court has declined that offer saying it's a political matter. Take a read in our lawsuit for all the proof you need to show we have a ratified amendment, why the Government of the United States has agreed that we have a ratified amendment, but says this is the job of the Archivist of the United States to accept. Since David Ferriero is the Archivist, David Ferriero needs to do his job. Mr. Ferriero has a twitter account at https://twitter.com/dferriero. Lets all tweet to him and ask him when he'll be accepting the CAA now that he knows enough states have ratified it into Constitutional history.
Eugene M. LaVergne v. Rebecca Blank, Acting Secretary of Commerce, et al., No. 12-778 is our PDF filing for the Federal Lawsuit to have the Apportionment Amendment recognized by the Supreme Court as Constitutional Law and require Congress to start seating the correct number of Congressmen and Women from each state. This lawsuit was filed with the Supreme Court in December 2012, after being denied a review in the 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals on "Political Grounds" and was again denied without comment on 02/15/13 by the Supreme Court. Denying a suit without comment isn't the same as saying it's wrong.It's like saying "I take the Fifth". The suit clearly outlines all the proof you need. There are other options and we are working on them. Read our News section for updates.
You'll have to educate yourself and see why we are correct in what we are presenting to you. See below for the first four articles of the Bill of Rights as voted on by the states. All are now passed. You'll notice Article the 3rd is the Free Speech amendment and isn't the first of the amendments to be voted on. It doesn't make it any less important but it corrects a common historical inaccuracy that we only had 10 amendments in the Bill of Rights.
1Interestingly enough, two mistakes wer continued in comment 1
SOURCE URL: http://boldtruth.com/
This renders the whole issue moot. Without these three states, the amendment as intended by Congress cannot be said to have passed. No court would uphold the claim that these states ratified an amendment that meant the opposite of what they received and voted on.
The image copy at http://archives.gov is unreadable, but I got this from Wikipedia and I believe it's correct.
Article the first: After the first enumeration required by the first article of the Constitution, there shall be one Representative for every thirty thousand, until the number shall amount to one hundred, after which the proportion shall be so regulated by Congress, that there shall be not less than one hundred Representatives, nor less than one Representative for every forty thousand persons, until the number of Representatives shall amount to two hundred; after which the proportion shall be so regulated by Congress, that there shall not be less than two hundred Representatives, nor more than one Representative for every fifty thousand persons.
Thus, whether or not this amendment was actually ratified (a question I know nothing about and am not going to speculate on), I would argue that we are already in compliance with it and always have been. Reread the last "after which" clause (since there are more than 200 Representatives): one Representative per 50,000 population is the upper limit of the size of the House. The lower limit is 200 Representatives.
The present population (324,354,245 right now according to http://census.gov) equals 745,642 for each of the 435 Representatives.
I see no upside.
Amendments can only be done away with by a repealing Amendment. Having got away with it once, now twice let's look at another Amendment. First, Second, Fifth, Fifteenth, twenty Fifth? What would a string of Obamas do with that power? What would a Hillary Supreme Court do?
All it took was honesty after all they didn't hide it away for 200 years. Congress puts out an Amendment Bill of Correction calling for repeal. Everyone has a good laugh and 2/3rds of the states pass it. All it would probabl take is what these people are trying to do. Get it into any court have the Judge rule it moot for whatever verbiage and then appeal OR the jduge rules it valid and forces a proper amendment repleal be enacted and a lot of congressionals etc are going to be very embareassed trying the cover up route.
But No ....like Hillary's knee jerk if it feels good say it lying the got to have a cover up and use the ignoring method.
THAT is the issue.
And sure enough everyone says...upside and downside and forgets the 'right' and 'moral' side.
I did get the fact that it was ratified, but it is probably something that should be dealt with after the election. If Hillary becomes President, it wont really matter anyway, since the rule of law will likely be abandoned.
Donna Brazile just publicly admitted on CNN that the Clinton Foundation is dirty. "here's part of the article that can be found at Hotair. com.
"Not only is this a startling admission that access is granted to major donors on a “business as usual” basis over at the DNC, Brazille’s statement also illustrates a much larger problem for her candidate and her relationship with the Clinton Foundation.
You see, Brazille is describing a scenario where, she believes, it’s perfectly understandable that a major donor to a political campaign might gain some access to a candidate or an event because of their donation. She calls this “normal” and she may be right.
Here’s the problem, Ms. Brazile: The Clinton Foundation is not supposed to be a political campaign fund!
In her defense of her candidate, Ms. Brazile seems to have highlighted the exact problem — if not illegal behavior — in how the Clinton Foundation operated in connection with the State Department. The foundation is a 501(c)3, non-profit, non-partisan charity, not a political campaign apparatus."
Donna Brazile just slipped big time and admitted that and you can listen to her own words on vid segment.
Hows the FBI Director And the Attorney General going to get around that? Lie, obfuscate, distort, ignore evade?
That translates to one really Sick Candidate and what will be a Sick Admiminitration Hillary wil have a new name.
Slick Willy becomes Sick Hilly.
And I see Pennysylvania and Michigan is tightening in the polls First Florida Now two more major delegate states. that six percent gap looking mighty narrow
ally correct or not. I guess I'll have to read it over
and think about it. But don't we already have e-
nough mouths (and pretty big ones) in D.C. to feed?
The proper procedure is waiting it's turn in the court system..to work it's way up to the Supreme Court who can decide the best procedure to render it moot and harmless.
Instead the knee jerk reaction was kick it under the rug but was not necessary. Done properly it was a WHAT? A laugh and hey let's get it taken care of. No one alive today was involved except the Archivest.
Instead their is egg on everyone's face for once again doing the Potomac Two Step.
That's an unfortunate trend and part of the overall problem. This is an indicator.
What it needs is a first class independent forensic examination. A court can order that done.
At the worst it would be repealed so big deal. For once do it right.
Amazing but true. In addition, the states were also sent "Cruel and Unusual Imprisonment", rather than punishment. The mistakes were reprinted in the official editions of the "Laws of the United States, Vol 1" from 1796. The books now sell for up thousands of dollars and up to millions of dollars in the case of George Washington's copy, all with the Scriveners errors including George Washington's personal copy" Imagine paying millions of dollars for a book that has errors."
This missing part of history has a lot more to it than the false forged period claim by that illiterate Professor From Princeton. This one has actually historical proof.
It seems coverups by Government employees started long ago but 1792 to present must be a record! After all 224 years!
Why is this important? Well if nothing else it's a chance to get 5,000 plus criminals off the streets. If you follwoed Mark Twain's comment "The US Congress is America's only true home grown criminal class."
You got that right Sammy.
My own grandfather had 640 acres claim rights to one side of Yellowstone Park. It was nullified and he moved further West to Ashton, Idaho area and started over. Hated Roosevelt, T. from then on.
So let's say the Bill to create Yellowstone is suddenly found and had never been signed nor passed. Being a direct heir I find a sharp group of tort lawyers and sue for past lessing or rental type fees, loss of income and of course a proper deed. how much would that be worth.
Don't know but suppose I sold my interest to Peter Fonda and Carradine and or worse to the largest private landowner in the country the founder of CNN. Took my millions and skedaddled. Why? Because when the mistake was found the government buried it BUT some D. Ellsberg's pshrink type observed the whole thing and passed it on. Let's say it was to the Koch Brothers or to the Chinese who fore closed in lieu of loan debt payment. How do iyou say Yerro Stone in Chinese?
That was the point their first reaction in Hillary style was to lie and cover up when there was no need.
6500 for one thing would slow things down we would be part with Australia. And that's a good thing. But the Senate could still block everything with or without cloture. Wait until you see mananas offering if someone doesn't beat me to it.