Is It Wrong to Push a Crack-Pot Theory Just to F%$# with People?

It appears that a bit of history is false.

The generally accepted fact that Connecticut did not ratify the Bill of Rights until 1939 (it was symbolic) is incorrect.

The reason that this is interesting is that the Bill of Rights sent to the states in the 1790s had 12, not 10, amendments, and Connecticut ratified all 12 at that time, but never properly reported it to Congress.

The first two were not ratified, and were not incorporated into the constitution, though the 2^nd amendment (basically preventing Congressmen from voting in their own pay raises) was ratified later as the 27^th amendment in 1992 (It's actually the same amendment, because it never expired).

If Connecticut did actually approve the whole bill of rights, then the first amendment is technically ratified, and it reads thusly:

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.

Yep, you got it right, it requires that Congressional districts have no more than 50 thousand persons, as opposed to the roughly ¾ million (actually 710,767) currently used.

By way of comparison, the Maryland House of Delegates has roughly 42,000 people for each representative.

This means that, if Connecticut were to notify the US government of the vote, there would be 6175 (you gotta round up) members of the House of Representatives.

I think that some sh%$ stirring is in order by a member of Connecticut's Congressional delegation.

I am under no illusion an appellate court, or (inevitably) the Supreme Court would uphold this, but the ambiguity that it would bring, and in the best case it might result in an increase the number of seats in the lower house of Congress to something more reasonable.

I am not suggesting that they could actually win a court case, but it's a great way to f%$# with the Republicans, because it is a lot harder to Gerrymander 6175 districts than it is to Gerrymander 435.

H/T Naked Capitalism.