Americans are Underrepresented

On November the second, 2010, citizens of the United States voted in their midterm elections. Re-elected, or newly elected were all four hundred and thirty five members of the house of representatives and one third of the senate. The United States holds elections for its houses of congress every two years, where in all representatives of the people all elected concurrently. One third of the states' representatives (at least that was the function originally intended for the senate) are elected by the citizens of the states. What many Americans do not realize however, is that they are grossly underrepresented in their legislature. The framers of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights intended that the total population of Congressional districts never exceed fifty or sixty thousand. George Washington himself wanted the proposed maximum district size to be lowered from forty thousand to thirty thousand. The very first proposed amendment to the constitution, as it was originally drafted,  declared that there would be no less than one representative for every sixty thousand people. Currently, the average house constituency is roughly seven hundred thousand people.

The text of 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

From Wikipedia (I know, I know, but at here at least they provide citations):

(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Article_the_First#Text)

This amendment was proposed as a means to ensure a minimum representation for the common people in the new government defined by United States Constitution.[2][3][4][5][6][7] In the First Congress, amendments properly addressing the issue were produced by both the House and the Senate, each providing for a minimum representation based on the expanding population of the nation, but a joint House-Senate committee, assigned the duty of compromising between the two versions, substituted the word 'more' for the word 'less,' perhaps crippling, if not reversing the intent of the amendment after the membership of the House would have increased to a level of 200.

Were the amendment ratified while the 2010 United States Census population figure of 308,745,538 was current, the 1:50,000 Representative to constituent ratio maximum would allow up to 6175 Representatives. This is more than 14 times the cap of 435 self-imposed by Public Law 62-5, which as of the 2010 Census translated on average to each Representative in Congress representing 709,760 persons.[1]

 Thus, had article the first been ratified as amended, there could be up to  6000 plus Representatives in the House. There probably wouldn't be one for every fifty thousand as the same people who passed Public Law 62-5 in power would still limit representation as much as possible. However, there would almost certainly still be several times the number of Representatives in the House over that of the current statuary four hundred and thirty five. 

However, had article the first been ratified as originally written, there would need to be at least 6175 Representatives according to the most recent census. Further, there would be no constitutional restrictions on how many members of the House there could be above that. When first hearing this, it may sound like a preposterous figure. However, when you consider that the United States has a population two thirds the size of the European Union, which is comprised of twenty seven independent countries, it becomes apparent upon reflection  that it is a very reasonable number to expect. The German Bundestag, the lower house of the German parliament, alone has six hundred and twenty two members. At roughly eighty one million, Germany possesses less than one third of America's population. The House of Commons of Canada has three hundred and eight members. This averages out to roughly one mp for every one hundred, seven thousand citizens. My personal riding only has seventy thousand citizens. Thus Canada has an average of seven times the number of legislative representatives  per ca pita compared to the Untied States.

This brings me to my other major point about how Americans are not adequately represented. 
 According to section two of the Fourteenth Amendment:

Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed.

The reapportionment of Representatives is mandated by the Constitution to happen via a decennial census. Article 1, Section 2 of the Constitution states:

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.

Pending the failure of article the first to be ratified, the minimum and maximum district size mandated by the Constitution is very broad. Article 1 stipulates:

The Number of Representatives shall not exceed one for every thirty Thousand, but each State shall have at Least one Representative.

Thus a representative is guaranteed for every state but cannot represent a district with less than thirty thousand people.  Though never explicitly stated, it was the intention and expectation of the founders that after each census, there would be a reasonable increase in the number of House members to adequately represent the change in population. It wasn't stated because it was assumed such was a given. After every census, from the very first following ratification of the constitution, through the nineteenth century (with one exception) until nineteen ten, there was a moderate increase in the number of Representatives to better reflect the greater size of the population, as well as the admission of new states. After the census of nineteen ten, in nineteen eleven congress passed Public Law 62-5, which increased the number of Representatives to 433, with a provision to add one permanent seat each upon the admissions of Arizona and New Mexico as states. As provided, membership increased to 435 with the convening of the 63rd Congress on May 4, 1913. This was the last time the size of the House was  increased following a census. In 1920, for the first time, the Congress failed to carry out the constitutionally mandated decennial census. Thus there could be no reappointment until the census of 1930. However, in 1929, a law was passed called Public Law 62-5. This permanently set the number of seats at 435, with a provision to allow an additional one for newly admitted states until the next census following statehood. At the time of the first census after the new state is formed, that additional seat is abolished and the number of seats returns to 435. Thus, except for a brief period after the admittance of Alaska and Hawaii as states,  the number of congressmen in the lower house has remained static since 1913. The population in 1910, according to the census, was 92,228,496. The population in 2010 is over three hundred million. The population has more than tripled since it was last permanently increased. Therefor, your vote is only a third as influential as your great grandfathers was. And it just keeps getting less so as the population gets bigger and bigger, yet congressional districts are only readjusted to be larger and less representative each time. This may not be against the letter of the constitution, but it is certainly against its spirit.

As an aside, while this strictly speaking legally acceptable, perhaps it won't always be be given that American judges have a history of favouring interpretations that seem to fit better with the notion of natural rights than legal positivism.

Now I'd like to compare the American situation with the status of my country. Canada has a census every five years and redistributes House seats according to changes in the populations of the provinces. Notice that we do not limit the number of MPs and then just keep redrawing larger and larger electoral districts as happens in the United States. The 37th Canadian Parliament lasted from January 29, 2001 until May 23, 2004. At the time there were three hundred and one seats in the House of Commons. During that period we had our census and it was determined Canada's population had grown since the previous one. Consequently, beginning with the opening of the 38th Canadian Parliament, which lasted from October 2, 2004 until November 25, 2005, the number of MPs was increased to the current number of three hundred and eight. We Canadians gained seven additional parliamentary seats within the period of one election cycle. If this happened in the United States, you can bet that there would be a big media storm publicizing that small measure as a major historic change to Congress. But in Canada, it's such a normal, procedural thing that no one gives it any head and it receives little media coverage. It is simply how the system is expected to function.

All of this doesn't even touch upon the inequality of House districts.  Unrepublican distortions arise from substantial fluctuations in the voting populations of different districts. That, however, is another kettle of fish.

Something must be done to restore proper reprensation to the people of America like the founding fathers intended. You can read more here:

http://www.thirty-thousand.org/

Conservatives don't have a Monopoly on what's Constitutional

Constitutionalism and states' rights are a cause often echoed by conservatives in the United States. It seems to rarely ever be brought up by more liberal minded voters. This is likely due to the fact that, with the major exception among many conservatives as the principle pertains to America's armed forces, conservatives believe in smaller government that isn't intrusive in peoples personal lives and dealings (as epitomized by lower taxes).
It is true that strict constitutionalism would mean an extremely reduced federal government in most of its scopes. However, in theory there IS such a thing as constitutionally acceptable Single-payer health care, unemployment checks or certain regulations. It is not that it is government mandated or a government run program that makes it constitutionally invalid, it is the LEVEL of government. As long as a citizen's fundamental natural rights, as expressed  in the first ten amendments (or fourteenth), aren't violated, there is no dictate indicating if or how much involvement state governments can have in these. One major legal difference between "romneycare" and the "obamacare" is the that while the former might be just as reviled by Massachusetts conservatives as the latter, it IS within the purvues of the constitution.
Here is the best example I can think of. It is a popular initiative to establish a liberal social welfare program that would affect all Californians.

http://californiaonecare.org/ 

"This California OneCare Campaign is an historic grassroots movement to educate millions of Californians and build overwhelming public support for single payer universal health care in California.We support single payer legislation, Senate Bill 810, authored by Senator Mark Leno. In its previous versions (SB 840 authored by Senator Sheila Kuehl), this bill passed both houses of the California legislature twice, only to be vetoed by Governor Schwarzenegger, who stated that “Health care is not a right.”We believe that healthcare is not only a right, but it is also a moral obligation in any enlightened society. Indeed, every other developed nation on earth provides comprehensive health care for its entire population, and does so for less than half of what we spend on our inadequate system in the U.S. Almost all of them use some form of single payer, non-profit health care financing system.“Single Payer” means that all health care is financed by a single state agency that also collects health insurance premiums through a progressive tax system. Under SB 810, private health insurance would be eliminated. Health care would continue to be provided by private doctors and hospitals, just like today. Patients could choose any health care provider. There would be no deductibles, co-pays, or exclusions for preexisting conditions. Coverage would be comprehensive, including medical, dental, prescriptions, mental health, rehabilitation, diagnostics, and more. Everyone would be covered for life, regardless of employment status, age, or health. Physicians would be responsible for the management of individual care; they would not need authorizations or pre-approvals from government officials for treatments or diagnostics."

 Disregarding the grammatical error of having 'an' before a word starting with a consonant, this is constitutional 'socialism'. It is a government mandated program that forces people to buy health care insurance from the state government. And it is fully constitutional. You may vehemently disagree and believe that health care is not a right, as governor Schwarzenegger had stated. That doesn't mean you can't still have it. Assuming the axiom that health care is not a right, the people of California still have the right as voters and citizens of that state to collectively decide that they would like to implement a single payer system for utilitarian and financial reasons, and/or because it better reflects their values as a society. They may feel that in the big picture and in the long run, it is more financially sound to cover everyone with an across-the-board-insurance plan that to partially subsidize people to buy private insurance or not to at all. Remember, if worst came to worst, your could always vote with your feet.
That is the wonderful thing about proper constitutional federalism.

First post, intruduction

I am a 23 year old Canadian and I love the United States. I love the idea of it, I love what it stands for, and I love its constitution. I most of all love its (original) ingenious idea of federalism and states as sovereign countries within a larger union. You can't apply a one-size-fits-all set of policies to a country of three hundred million like you can in a comparatively tiny one like the Scandinavian countries or even Canada and expect the same levels of success or efficiency. If people in one state want legalized cannabis and single payer healthcare, and those in another want a flat tax of 2% and unrestricted right to bear arms including assault rifles, well that's excellent and it is within their rights as citizens of their respective states to be able to create such. This is of course on top of the minority rights they possess as citizens of the union. This means that they don't have to worry about their state trampling their Deity-given rights.
Unfortunately, through the aftermath of a civil war, a series of poorly thought out constitutional amendments, and the SCOTUS becoming bat-sh!t insane and turning the meaning of the commerce clause on its head, America has lost its way. The welfare state, the drug war (which is the federal creation and enforcement of criminal law, the exclusive purvue of the state governments)and FEDERAL LEVEL healthcare, are all unconstitutional.  As I will be discussing these sorts of things, this can be considered a political blog, though not exclusively such. I will also discuss whatever I'm interested in, but obviously the above topics are going to be the primary focus.