Article 1, Section 2. Apportionment
The original Constitution set Congressional representation at 1 Representative for every 30,000 persons. If this formula had remained in effect, the House of Representatives would today contain over 10,000 members.
What would have been the original first amendment had it been ratified in 1791 would have gradually increased the apportionment formula until it reached 1 Representative for each 50,000 persons. Even at 1 to 50,000, the House would today contain about 6400 members.
Back when communication was somewhat less than globally instantaneous, and telepresence still a science fiction, a legislative body of these proportions seemed unmanageable, and so the Reapportionment Act of 1929 was passed which capped the number of Representatives at 435. In 1929, when the U.S. population stood at 121.8 Million, this meant each Representative must represent 280,000 persons. Today, the average Representative must represent the interests of 750,000 individuals. Good luck with that.
Providing the basis for this apportionment was an enumeration or census, to be conducted every 10 years:
“The actual Enumeration shall be made within three Years after the first Meeting of the Congress of the United States, and within every subsequent Term of ten Years, in such Manner as they shall by Law direct.”
Our country’s first official census was conducted in 1790 and the last in 2010. The 2020 census is beginning to come onto political radar screens and looks to be as controversial as any previous. What should be a simple counting project has proven to be anything but.
Certain elements of the U.S. government attempt to use the census to gain additional socio-demographic information they can use to shape their programs. This means asking census questions that go well beyond a simple “enumeration” and intrude into personal information that some feel the government has no need to know or right to demand.
With apportionment, however, comes political power -- 15 states are projected to gain or lose districts as a result of the 2020 census -- and that means politically-motivated groups will seek ways to influence the outcome. It should come as no surprise then to learn that certain political groups hope to influence the 2020 census to gain political advantage.
The Open Society Foundation, founded by George Soros, is funding key progressive groups
 with the goal of attempting to “influence appropriations for the (U.S.) Census Bureau.” while pushing to change the methods by which racial categories are counted. One big issue: do you count incarcerated individuals as residents of the jail/prison location or are they residents of their pre-incarceration domiciles? With U.S. prisons bursting at the seams, this becomes an important question. Watch for more on this as we get closer to the actual census.
First Amendment. A Win for Religious Liberty?
Genesis 1:27 tells us that God created humans as either
male or female. Although biologists point to several factors involved in determining gender during conception, gender, once set, is set; the idea that someone could actually change their gender after birth is of very recent vintage. Only advances in cosmetic surgery have made the idea even approachable. Of course, at the genetic level the idea is preposterous. Despite all external attempts to portray oneself as the opposite sex, chromosomes have proven more resistant to change.
But now that the issue of homosexual marriage appears to have been settled, in the eyes of many, if not most Americans, gender identity is the new battleground. Bathroom/shower-room use in the public schools gets a lot of the attention (as a side note: a Texas Federal Judge has blocked the Department of Education’s attempt to inflict gender confusion on the nation’s schoolkids). But trans-genderism is creating other controversies as well. For instance, must an employer accommodate an employee’s announcement of gender “transition” at face value and retain that employee in their job?
A U.S. District Judge in Michigan has decided the answer to that question is “No,” the employer can not only fire such an individual, they and can base their decision on their firmly held religious values, even if the business involved is not a church or other religiously-oriented organization. I’ve no doubt this decision will be appealed and I fully expect it to reach the Supreme Court, where, based on our Society’s emerging hostility to religion, I predict the Court will strike down the decision and state that a firing decision cannot be based on religious views of gender. But we’ll see.
Two Wins for Religious Liberty in One Week, What’s Happening Here?
The following story shows the strength of grass-roots efforts when properly marshalled.
The California legislature was set to pass SB1146. Among its provisions was one preventing low-income students from receiving Cal Grants,California’s system of need-based education aid, if they attended colleges which restrict campus bathroom use based on biological sex. Thanks to “hundreds and hundreds of phone calls,” Senator Ricardo Lara, a Democrat and the bill’s sponsor, agreed to remove the offending clauses.
Kudos to the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty and the Southern Baptist Convention’s Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission which mobilized their members. It can work!
Why Does the Federal Government Own So Much State Land?
In previous posts and in my seminar I complain about the extent of state land claimed by the federal government: 85% of Nevada, 70% of Alaska, 57% of Utah, and so on. Article 4, Clause 2 gives Congress the power to “dispose of and make all needful Rules and Regulations respecting the Territory or other Property belonging to the United States.”
Notice the words “dispose of.” These imply that federal territory will not be held in perpetuity, only temporarily until it is either sold off or made into a state.
Environmentalists, of course, have no problem with the federal government sequestering such land from development and keeping it as wilderness “for the people;” otherwise, cash-hungry states would just sell it off to developers, and then “good bye Yellowstone!” Now we learn there are a considerable number of conservatives who see things the same way. Apparently willing to put aside the issue of big government, they see these lands as a “national birthright” and demand they be protected from economic development, principally by keeping them under federal ownership. What’s a Republican platform-writer to do?
19 Sep, Christian Financial Concepts Webinar – The Electoral College Once Again
I give a one-hour abbreviated version of my Electoral College presentation for the Christian Financial Concepts
 webinar series. Participation is free, but this will by necessity be a more truncated view of the subject.
 The word “residents” is not used, however, giving rise to the question of whether representation was intended to be based on “residents,” however temporary may be their residency, or “citizens,” or some other designation.
 For more on ratifying the original first amendment today see: https://americaagain.net/
 The U.S. population in 1790 was 3,929,214.
 The U.S. population in 2010 was 309,300,000.