FACT SHEET: Congressional Apportionment Amendment (Article the
Fact Sheet Congressional Apportionment Amendment
FACT SHEET Congressional Apportionment Amendment (Article the First)
Boldtruth.com
Overview
This fact sheet summarizes the historical record surrounding the Congressional Apportionment Amendment, why Boldtruth.com asserts it is already ratified, and how recent congressional action attempts to time ou an amendment that crossed the Article V threshold in 1790.
Readers should confirm constitutional information with trusted primary sources such as state archives and the National Archives.
Key Facts
- Connecticuts 1790 Ratification Both chambers of the Connecticut General Assembly voted YES on the Congressional Apportionment Amendment. Legislative journals from the period document the approval.
- Senatorial Acknowledgment Connecticuts U.S. Senators at the time referenced the states approval, demonstrating that the ratification vote was known at the federal level.
- Transmission Delay Connecticut withheld formal transmission because it wanted Congress to correct a mathematical inconsistency in the amendments text. The delay was procedural, not a rejection.
- Article V Requirements Under Article V, a states ratification occurs when its legislature votes to ratify. Transmission is a clerical step, not a constitutional requirement.
- Ratification Threshold In 1790, approval by three‑fourths of the states required 10 of 13. With Connecticut’s vote included, the amendment met that threshold.
Modern Misreporting Later summaries incorrectly listed Connecticut as no action taken, largely because the transmission was never sent. This clerical omission became a historical misunderstanding.
- Congressman Issa Bill The newly introduced legislation seeks to time out the amendment as if it were still pending. Boldtruth.com asserts this is an attempt to nullify a ratification that already occurred.
- Legal Implications If the amendment is already ratified, Congress cannot retroactively invalidate it. Only a new amendment could repeal it.
Why This Matters
- Representation Ratios Article the First would dramatically increase the size of the House of Representatives, restoring the original intended ratio of population to representatives.
- Transparency and Accountability A larger House reduces the power concentration of oversized districts and increases constituent First
FACT SHEET Congressional Apportionment Amendment (Article the First)
Boldtruth.com
Overview
This fact sheet summarizes the historical record surrounding the Congressional Apportionment Amendment, why Boldtruth.com asserts it is already ratified, and how recent congressional action attempts to time ou an amendment that crossed the Article V threshold in 1790.
Readers should confirm constitutional information with trusted primary sources such as state archives and the National Archives.
Key Facts
- Connecticuts 1790 Ratification Both chambers of the Connecticut General Assembly voted YES on the Congressional Apportionment Amendment. Legislative journals from the period document the approval.
- Senatorial Acknowledgment Connecticuts U.S. Senators at the time referenced the states approval, demonstrating that the ratification vote was known at the federal level.
- Transmission Delay Connecticut withheld formal transmission because it wanted Congress to correct a mathematical inconsistency in the amendments text. The delay was procedural, not a rejection.
- Article V Requirements Under Article V, a states ratification occurs when its legislature votes to ratify. Transmission is a clerical step, not a constitutional requirement.
- Ratification Threshold In 1790, approval by three‑fourths of the states required 10 of 13. With Connecticut’s vote included, the amendment met that threshold. Modern Misreporting Later summaries incorrectly listed Connecticut as no action taken, largely because the transmission was never sent. This clerical omission became a historical misunderstanding.
- Congressman Issa Bill The newly introduced legislation seeks to time out the amendment as if it were still pending. Boldtruth.com asserts this is an attempt to nullify a ratification that already occurred.
- Legal Implications If the amendment is already ratified, Congress cannot retroactively invalidate it. Only a new amendment could repeal it.
Why This Matters
- Representation Ratios Article the First would dramatically increase the size of the House of Representatives, restoring the original intended ratio of population to representatives.
- Transparency and Accountability A larger House reduces the power concentration of oversized districts and increases constituent First
Boldtruth.com
Overview
This fact sheet summarizes the historical record surrounding the Congressional Apportionment Amendment, why Boldtruth.com asserts it is already ratified, and how recent congressional action attempts to time out an amendment that crossed the Article V threshold in 1790.
Readers should confirm constitutional information with trusted primary sources such as state archives and the National Archives.
Key Facts
- Connecticut’s 1790 Ratification Both chambers of the Connecticut General Assembly voted YES on the Congressional Apportionment Amendment. Legislative journals from the period document the approval.
- Senatorial Acknowledgment Connecticut Senators at the time referenced the states approval, demonstrating that the ratification vote was known at the federal level.
- Transmission Delay Connecticut withheld formal transmission because it wanted Congress to correct a mathematical inconsistency in the amendment’s text. The delay was procedural, not a rejection.
- Article V Requirements Under Article V, a states ratification occurs when its legislature votes to ratify. Transmission is a clerical step, not a constitutional requirement.
- Ratification Threshold In 1790, approval by three‑fourths of the states required 10 of 13. With Connecticuts vote included, the amendment met that threshold.
- Modern Misreporting Later summaries incorrectly listed Connecticut as no action taken, largely because the transmission was never sent. This clerical omission became a historical misunderstanding.
- Congressman Issas Bill The newly introduced legislation seeks to time out the amendment as if it were still pending. Boldtruth.com asserts this is an attempt to nullify a ratificaton that already occurred.
- Legal Implications If the amendment is already ratified, Congress cannot retroactively invalidate it. Only a new amendment could repeal it.
Why This Matters
- Representation Ratios Article the First would dramatically increase the size of the House of Representatives, restoring the original intended ratio of population to representatives.
- Transparency and Accountability A larger House reduces the power concentration of oversized districts and increases constituent representation.
Below is a list of the states that ratified the Congressional Apportionment Amendment (CAA) Article the First from the Bill of Rights and the dates they ratified it. Over 80% of the states ratified Article the First into Constitutional Law by 1792. How many States voted yes and when did Article the First become ratified by at least 75% of the states:
1. New Jersey 11/20/1789 - YES
2. Maryland 12/19/1789 - YES
3. North Carolina 12/22/1789 - YES
4. South Carolina 1/19/1790 - YES
5. New Hampshire 1/25/1790 - YES
6. New York 2/24/1790 - YES
7. Connecticut 5/10/1790 - YES
8. Rhode Island 5/29/1790 - YES
9. Pennsylvania 9/21/1791 - YES
10. Virginia 11/3/1791 - YES
11. Vermont 11/3/1791 - YES
Even with Massachusetts, Georgia and Connecticut never being marked up on Jeffersons Tabulation chart, there was a belief by Thomas Jefferson that the Congressional Apportionment Amendment or 11 of the 12 amendments were ratified (Rounding up on 9 of the 13 states) and that is why those three states aren't shown as voting. It wasn't needed. Delaware was marked as a NO vote but not Massachusetts, Georgia and Connecticut. (Historical note: Delaware didn't vote no, they postponed.) The round up caused the Congressional Apportionment Amendment to be ratified in Jefferson' mind but Jefferson never knew Connecticut voted (or if he did, he never marked it). That' the reason no more markups were made on the Tabulation chart. Jefferson thought it past with the other amendments, (Not the Pay amendment which he marked as not passed). Even if you don't believe on the roundup like Jefferson did, now that we know for sure that Connecticut voted for the Congressional Apportionment Amendment, or 11 of the 14 states and you have a ratified amendment regardless.
So as of 11/3/1791, 11 of the then 14 states or 78.6% of the states had effectively ratified Article the First by the Constitution' Article V standards therefore consummating Article the First into permanent Federal Constitutional Law. 75% was the threshold. Then Boom, a statehood vote no one knew was coming.
12. Kentucky 6/1/1792 - YES to all 12 amendments.
and we now have 12 of the then 15 states ratifying Article the First. 80% of the states at this point have ratified this Article into permanent Federal Constitutional Law. This is pretty simple to see to anyone reading it. You know the line. If you can't believe your own eyes...... As of today, Archivist of the United States David Ferriero still won't believe his own eyes and present the Congressional Apportionment Amendment as being ratified to Congress. In reading the Final Reply Brief, you'll see the Kentucky and Connecticut ratification paperwork. There can be no doubt this amendment was ratified by vote of the states of the time.
Note: If you want to see the record of the vote by Connecticut, The Lavergne Brief gives you just where it is in the Connecticut archives. You can go to Connecticut and look it up yourself. This voting record has been presented via this suit to David Ferriero many times in the last few years. To date, he has refused to act on it and by doing so, holds up the 28th Amendment to the Constitution from taking effect.
We know this is a long read but if you love a GOOD read, this is it. This suit covers all the bases on why this is a ratified amendment. The US Court of Appeals has described Attorney Eugene M. LaVergne as a "Respected Attorney". Found out why we have a 28th amendment and then share with all your friends and neighbors. The more people you tell about this, the better the chance that public pressure can bring this amendment to light.
Read the Final Reply Brief and Addendum to the US Court of Appeals by NJ Attorney Eugene M. LaVergne
Copyright 2012 - 2024 - BoldTruth.com - Recordweb Communications LLC. - Contact information: email Sneuman@recordweb.com to with questions, concerns and to schedule interviews with Eugene Martin LaVergne.