The actual text of the constitution:
The Number of Representatives shall not exceed one for every thirty Thousand, but each State shall have at Least one Representative;
that doesn’t say 1 for every 30,000, it says not “exceed”, so limiting total membership to 435 is totally constitutional. In fact reducing it to 50, would be constitutional, but against the intent of it’s authors.
this sentence,
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.
would have required me to have more than 50 in the house, until the 1790 census was complete. Once a census is completed, this clause essentially expires.
Now Chips, are saying that you would rather have 10,000 members of the house, instead of 435? I know you wouldn’t wish that on your worst enemy (well maybe). I personally think 435 is pretty good, anywhere between 300-500 seems about right to me. I think the UK has nearly 700 MPs
So you were joking about the checkbox? Cause i wasn’t joking about the democrats using the electronic notification.