The Real First Amendment, also known as the Congressional Apportionment Amendment or Article the First

There is a lawsuit that has been filed in a special Federal Court in Washington DC. The plaintiffs of the lawsuit are attacking the fact that the size of the U.S. House of Representatives has not increased since 1911. The effect of freezing the size of the US House at 435 members and the fact that the population has grown causes each citizens vote and access to their representative to diminish. The argument is that in order for our system of government to function correctly (and we all know it isn’t functioning properly), there needs to be an adequate number of representatives for the citizens. The suit is being brought to give us as citizens the representation and access that we are entitled to.

The basic thrust of this case is that when the Constitution was formed, there were 12 Amendments offered up by the States. It was required that there be enough states to vote in on and pass the amendments. Officially only 10 of the 12 were passed. The second was passed in 1992 as the 27th Amendment when enough states did end up passing them. A legal scholar who is a plaintiff says that the original first amendment did get enough states to enact it.

That bit of text that this case is over guaranteed the people's role in government to be sanctified in a manner of speaking in the supreme law of the land. It was intended to make sure that each member of the US House represented no more than 50,000 citizens. The founders knew that without the people represented in politics, human nature would eventually lead us to Oligarchy, which it appears we now have. Each member of the U. S. House now has approaching 750,000 people and an army of unelected staff members. This is not representative government.

The claim by the opposition is that it was never put into law. So the constitution, never having been updated left us with a lack of any real representation in our own government.

Now then, this is not only an important case for representation, but it is in effect also a solution to gerrymandering, the two party dilemma as well as election justice. If this case wins, the size of the House of Representatives would multiply by a factor of eight or more, and a peoples majority would give us what we need most, a connection between the people and our government. It would instantly re-balance our political power in Government and it would shift to the people, almost certainly in proportion to the collective mindset.

If this happens, not only would be much harder to buy congress, (not so hard if there's only a few hundred of them like now) but the ability of a person to represent 50,000 seems at least within reason. For one person to represent current districts of close to 750,000 people effectively seems dubious at best. In fact, as we all know, they don’t, they represent the moneyed. I don't know anyone who feels well represented by their government nor their representative who is well informed and takes the time to think about it.

What I believe we all think is needed is a full on paradigm shift and this case puts a real possibility of putting the American people and democracy itself back in the driver seat at a crucial time in history.

For more information here are a few links (from across the political spectrum) that may be helpful.