# HOA's Take Aim at Our Hobby!

Discussion in 'Amateur Radio News' started by WA2SQQ, Aug 14, 2015.

Not open for further replies.
1. ### K0MHPHam MemberQRZ Page

i do not think either of us are misreading it. ??? YES to no minimum number. ??

BUT 435 has been the minimum for right around a century.

And yes. we agree on what i quoted???? it is to be one per 30,000 (see art 1, sec 2 clause 3) AND SHALL NOT EXCEED ONE FOR EVERY THIRTY THOUSAND....

my point is that it does... and congress since the mid 1900's has not corrected it -- as the population grew.representation did not grow, accordingly, as the "fathers" meant for it to do.

we agree (?): the Constitutional ratio shall not exceed one per thirty thousand .. and per your math, 435 falls way short of one per thirty thousand

so what is it we are not in agreement with? what am i missing? i said the House size of 435 is not correct Constitutional Representation and per your math you seem to agree ?????

do the math from the other end.... if the 2010 (last enumeration) US population was say 311,000,000 or so roughly, and divide the estm'd 2010 population by 435 House seats then each Representative represents over 714,000 people NOT THE CONSTITUTIONAL one per 30,000 (311,000,000 / 4 = 714,943)

House size of 435 is not the correct Constitutional Representation.. per your own math when you got a House with over ten thousand members at the correct one per 30,000 ratio.

and in Art. 1, Section 8 there is no expressed power that relates to the setting a perpetual fixed number of House seats... at 435 since around 1910 -- nor will the necessary and proper clause work since it relates to the foregoing powers in Art 1 Section 8.[/QUOTE]

Last edited: Sep 20, 2015
2. ### WB2WIKPlatinum SubscriberPlatinum SubscriberQRZ Page

Constitution needs some serious updating.

3. ### K0MHPHam MemberQRZ Page

that is an understatement in the area of enumeration of House seats...

IT IS REALLY an issue of enforcement of the document that has failed us..NOT the document -- it has been loose constructionalism or as i call it "who needs a blue print construction"

but long term it has functioned well... UNTIL the courts became the co-executive branch and when that does not suit them they become the co-legislative branch... as noted recently by Justice Thomas.

KV3D likes this.
4. ### WA4ILHSubscriberQRZ Page

There is the common misconception among consumers and even some municipalities that a radio transmitting antenna mounted high on a radio tower is more likely to cause interference to consumer grade electronic equipment than a smaller antenna mounted closer to the ground. Actually, the exact opposite is true. Most amateurs employ the least amount of power necessary to communicate with a distant station As an antenna is raised higher above the ground it becomes more efficient in radiating RF energy in the direction of a distant station. Also, as the antenna is elevated, the RF “field” is greatly reduced closer to the ground. The RF field near the ground is reduced even more when the amateur is able to reduce his transmit power because of the increased efficiency of the antenna at higher elevations. Some of the newer transmitting equipment will actually reduce output power automatically. Most cell phones and PCS devices have been employing automatic power reduction technology for years.
Tom WA4ILH

WA7PRC likes this.

Article One reads "the number of representatives shall not exceed..." NOT "the number of people represented by a representative shall not exceed..."

If you think gridlock is bad now, imagine how long it would take Congress to do anything if you have over 10,000 politicians clamoring for their time to talk, rather than just the 435 yammerers we have today.

If the concern is ensuring an individual has adequate representation in government, it would be far more effective to do something about our one-representative-per-district/winner-takes-all structure we have today.

6. ### AI0KHam MemberQRZ Page

[/QUOTE]

You're reading it backwards. "Shall not exceed one per 30,000" means 1/2 per 30,000 (one per 60,000) would be fine. However, 2 per 30,000 would exceed that amount.

Just like if you go to a store and are told "No more than 4 to a customer". You can get 2 just fine, but not 8.

Jerry, AI0K

The number of representatives shall not exceed (x).

X = (free people + 0.6×slaves)/30000

The number of representatives shall not exceed 10,700 or so.

QED

Don't believe me?

Check out some of the surviving speeches and letters from the Constitutional Convention. One of the concerns the anti-federalists raised was that this particular provision left open the possibility that Congress could decide to shrink the House down to one member to state, risking tyranny.

Concerns such as this were one of the reasons that "Publius" (probably Madison here) had to dedicate an entire issue of the Federalist Papers (#58) to the subject of the apportionment of representatives. In Federalist #58, the author goes on to note that having too many representatives can be injurious to the republic:

Given that...it seems preposterous to interpret the framers' intent of the 30,000 rule as specifying the minimum number of representatives, rather than the maximum.

8. ### K4JDHHam MemberQRZ Page

This sure is boring but I like it better than discussing HOAs.

WA7PRC likes this.
9. ### WB2WIKPlatinum SubscriberPlatinum SubscriberQRZ Page

Hey, one guy running in the early trials right now is a self-proclaimed Socialist. And he's gaining momentum.

Of course the powers of the president are rightfully limited. But no matter who it is, he'll have the launch codes.

10. ### WB2KSPHam MemberQRZ Page

A self proclaimed DEMOCRATIC Socialist, or progressive, not a classic Socialist. There's a difference