# Would this be Constitutional? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [November 9, 2012, 12:15am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/would-this-be-constitutional/640426 "2012-11-09T00:15:29Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 4\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![Saint\_Cad](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/saint_cad/32/18907_2.png) [@Saint\_Cad](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Saint_Cad)\ **Post date:** [November 12, 2012, 7:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/would-this-be-constitutional/640426/41 "2012-11-12T19:19:35Z")
> [@Little\_Nemo](#): > > Interestingly, I found that there are pretty current cases being argued that the Constitutional Apportionment Amendment has been ratified. Apparently back in 1790, Connecticut apparently ratified the proposed Amendment and then neglected to officially pass this information on to Congress. Then in January of 2012, somebody going through some old Connecticut records found the ratification and said “Huh, would you look at that.” > > If Connecticut’s ratification is added to the total then the Constitutional Apportionment Amendment received ratification by twelve states in 1792 - which would be three quarters of the sixteen states then in existence. If this is all true, then the Amendment was enacted in 1792 without anyone being aware of it. > > Last June, a guy in New Jersey filed a lawsuit based on the principle that the Constitutional Apportionment Amendment had been enacted and that the government should be enforcing it. (His specific issue was the outcome of an election which he said would have been different if New Jersey’s congressional delegation was what it should be.) The courts, so far, haven’t ruled directly on the issue. They’ve only ruled that this guy doesn’t have standing to submit his suit because he couldn’t show that the outcome of that election had an individual effect on him. > > But on an issue of this size, it’s only a matter of time before somebody does present a suit in which they can show standing and that will require a court to make a ruling on whether or not the Constitutional Apportionment Amendment is part of the Constitution. Depending on how you interpret the Amendment, this might require the House of Representatives to have up to 6200 members. So who would have standing? Someone who lost a congressional race? A Secretary of State? ---
**Author:** ![Little\_Nemo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/little_nemo/32/3120_2.png) [@Little\_Nemo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Little_Nemo)\ **Post date:** [November 12, 2012, 8:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/would-this-be-constitutional/640426/42 "2012-11-12T20:34:12Z")
> [@Saint\_Cad](#): > > So who would have standing? Someone who lost a congressional race? A Secretary of State? _“The District Court concluded that LaVergne lacked standing because, among other reasons, he did not suffer the injury he complained about. The District Court concluded that, if there was an injury, it was only to certain government officials, such as the governor of New Jersey, who is responsible for implementing redistricting under § 2a; New Jersey members of the House of Representatives, who could lose their congressional seats as a result of redistricting; or certain presidential candidates, who would want New Jersey to have a larger number of electoral votes.”_ [LaVergne v. Bryson](http://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/121171np.pdf) That’s just in relation to La Vergne’s case, which was filed in New Jersey. The same issue would theoretically affect every state so a defeated Congressional candidate in New Mexico or Wyoming or Maryland could claim they would have won if the missing amendment was being applied. ---
**Author:** ![Peremensoe](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/ce7236/32.png) [@Peremensoe](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Peremensoe)\ **Post date:** [November 12, 2012, 8:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/would-this-be-constitutional/640426/43 "2012-11-12T20:49:15Z")
> [@Little\_Nemo](#): > > Interestingly, I found that there are pretty current cases being argued that the Constitutional Apportionment Amendment has been ratified. Apparently back in 1790, Connecticut apparently ratified the proposed Amendment … If this is all true, then the Amendment was enacted in 1792 without anyone being aware of it. > … > Depending on how you interpret the Amendment, this might require the House of Representatives to have up to 6200 members. Or it would make no difference at all, right, given the language that was actually voted on? Pretty sure how that ruling would go. ---
**Author:** ![Saint\_Cad](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/saint_cad/32/18907_2.png) [@Saint\_Cad](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Saint_Cad)\ **Post date:** [November 13, 2012, 12:51am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/would-this-be-constitutional/640426/44 "2012-11-13T00:51:06Z")
> [@Peremensoe](#): > > Or it would make no difference at all, right, given the language that was actually voted on? > > Pretty sure how that ruling would go. Exactly, apparently a couple key words were accidently changed so we know what it SHOULD say and what it DOES say and I guess a court would have to determine which wording is the actual amendment. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/would-this-be-constitutional/640426.md?page=2)