Become a part of one of the fastest growing adult communities online. We have something for you, whether you’re a male member seeking out new friends or a new lady on the scene looking to take advantage of our many opportunities to network, make new friends, or connect with people. Join today & take part in lively discussions, take advantage of all the great features that attract hundreds of new daily members!
of course, the next census Will determine who will get those 53 seats.
this is not about a legal argument, but about politics.
No and No.
The "census" doesn't determine "who gets seats" .... and who determines who is in a district is a legislative decision based on legal standards, enforced by the Judiciary.
As for your 1911 "argument" ... has a State withdrawn from the Republic since 1911? So your use of the point is irrelevant, and has nothing to do with the final decision of Congress.
The "census" doesn't determine "who gets seats" .... and who determines who is in a district is a legislative decision based on legal standards, enforced by the Judiciary.
As for your 1911 "argument" ... has a State withdrawn from the Republic since 1911? So your use of the point is irrelevant, and has nothing to do with the final decision of Congress.
your legal point is irrelevant. this legal point is already established and not in dispute.
by law, the seats/districts are distributed by a formula administered by the census bureau that tries to be fair to all states.
so, yes, the census does determine who gets how many seats in the House of Representative.
you say politics has nothing to do with it, you're wrong on that.
why do you think it was difficult for congress to pass a law to increase the number of house seats in 1929 & in 2000s where 2 additional seats were considered.
The "discussion" involves the circumstance in which a State, e.g. California, secedes from the Union, but the discussion cited, and the one continually brought forth in this thread, is based on the "joinder" of States into the Union.
Now, the question is ... where is the case law, statute, and/or any binding legal authority that says: "If a State withdraws from the Union the number of Senators and Representatives allowed for that State are distributed among the remainder of the States left in the Union."
There have been other instances in these forums when posters have "assumed" the interpretation of provisions of Constitutions and Statutes out of context of the purpose and remaining language. The statutory Maximum for the number of seats in the House is just that ... a Maximum.
Here is a decent discussion of the "435" rule and its basis:
Note the "theme" of setting the number of House seats is based on the 50 States, which were anticipated with Alaska and Hawaii, with the increase of 2 seats cut back to 435 after re-apportionment based on 50 states and the following census.
Based on the numbers posted for 1990 California had around 30 million "residents" and in the 2010 census around 37 million.
Eliminating California's population from the Union would not necessarily increase the population in the remaining States to justify an increase of the seats in those States.
Highly speculative, at best, that California will withdraw.
The State has been in constant threat of bankruptcy for years.
The "discussion" involves the circumstance in which a State, e.g. California, secedes from the Union, but the discussion cited, and the one continually brought forth in this thread, is based on the "joinder" of States into the Union.
Now, the question is ... where is the case law, statute, and/or any binding legal authority that says: "If a State withdraws from the Union the number of Senators and Representatives allowed for that State are distributed among the remainder of the States left in the Union."
There have been other instances in these forums when posters have "assumed" the interpretation of provisions of Constitutions and Statutes out of context of the purpose and remaining language. The statutory Maximum for the number of seats in the House is just that ... a Maximum.
Here is a decent discussion of the "435" rule and its basis:
Note the "theme" of setting the number of House seats is based on the 50 States, which were anticipated with Alaska and Hawaii, with the increase of 2 seats cut back to 435 after re-apportionment based on 50 states and the following census.
Based on the numbers posted for 1990 California had around 30 million "residents" and in the 2010 census around 37 million.
Eliminating California's population from the Union would not necessarily increase the population in the remaining States to justify an increase of the seats in those States.
Highly speculative, at best, that California will withdraw.
The State has been in constant threat of bankruptcy for years.
" in constant threat of bankruptcy for years ". Mebbe if the political leaders weren't focused on those oh-so-important things like capturing cow farts and WERE focused on building more power plants ( without a 7 YEAR permitting AND construction process that is done in EVERY OTHER STATE IN 3-4 YEARS ! ) and building the economy, they wouldn't always be facing that threat. Being " liberal " with tax payer money to their public employees unions and pension funds doesn't help either.
Being " liberal " with tax payer money to their public employees unions and pension funds doesn't help either.
There was a migration to California to grab those cushy jobs with fat retirement benefits, which included lump sums, 100% payments, and "Cadillac" medical, followed by an mass migration elsewhere (North to Oregon and Washington states) to avoid the suffocating taxes to pay for all that shit. A short fall was created, so the pension fund was attacked and along came Obamacare to "cure" their problems. Turning the State into a "sanctuary state" will do wonders for the annual budget .... long on entitlements and short on funding.
Anyone else seeing on TV and the internets, Democratics efforts already to impeach President Trump?
It's hilarious. Trump Derangement Syndrome on full display as they SCREAM to have a person who hasn't even taken the oath of office to be impeached!
And what "high crimes and misdemeanors" is Trump accused of? That's even funnier. It ranges from "crickets" to whatever rumor they read on Facebook to snowflake butthurt like "Crimes against the Planet" and "Taking away people's healthcare."
What is sadder is fellow Dims aren't educating them. Just let them scream it out! Your feelings are valid!
That's why he's keeping his own security force, which, given the state the Secret Service is in, is wise.
Someone needs to look after him while the Service guys booze it and whore around. They didn't worry about Obaminable ... Biden was insurance! Now Pence is in the wings.
