Talk:Article The First

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the first article of the original 12 articles for amendment presented by the first congress to the state legislatures for their ratification. --The Trucker 18:28, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Much of this was copied from "Congressional Apportionment Amendment" . The new version of the page is being developed @ User:mikcob/Article. That new version will replace this one and eventually the "Congressional Apportionment Amendment" will redirect to Article the First as it should. Failing that then "Article the First" will be a redirect to The Congressional Apportionment Amendment which will be the exact wording of the new "Article the First" and "Article the First" will be a redirect. "Article the First" made not one stinkin change to apportionment and the entire reason for its existence was to prevent an oligarchical congress as we have today that is totally owned by the two major parties, That might be OK for the Senate and the Executive, but it was not and is not OK for the House. History is replete with the realization of this and with many many good references describing the _real_ reasons behind the drafting of this amendment. If you are in a hurry to find out all you want and more go to [| Thirty-Thousand.org ] and spend an hour actually engaging the mind.

[edit] The First actual installment of Article the First

There are probably some minor hickies that need to be cleaned up on this, but let's let the wiki police screech and wail about POV and such before I invest any more of my time. In anticipation I will just say that my "point of view" is backed up by the facts. This Amendment was NOT about apportioning votes among the states.--The Trucker 04:03, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Reverting Unnecessary Deletion

If the unknown person identified only by an IP address wishes to expand the deleted section such that it is not "poorly written" then that person is invited to do so. However, I am not disposed to having someone delete my work because of his or her personal opinions. DO THE RESEARCH. I certainly did mine.--The Trucker 21:25, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

I see where the anonymous user was coming from. The section needs to be heavily copy edited, as the title of the section isn't even properly capitalized. But even more importantly, the section is simply just unnecessary speculative arithmetic for the purposes of mere trivia. It would be more useful to condense the entire section down to "Under the provisions of this amendment, the US House would currently have 1600 members, and the US Senate would have 800," and then insert the line into a relevant part of the article.

Let me rephrase your illustrious statement for you and correct it:

"Under the provisions of this amendment, the US House could currently have 1600 members, or 800 members depending on which of the versions (House or Senate respectively) one might want to interpret as an algorithm as opposed to a limit".

It should furthermore be observed that this entire article is suffering from massive POV and original research issues.

The article as it existed was a total lie and had no references at all. I gave you many, many, references that illustrate that the previous interpretation was just flat wrong and in addition to that it is impossible to actually study what was there and not see the obvious fallacy. The TOTALLY UNSUPPORTED "purpose" claimed in the original article was smokeblowing bunk. My, so called, POV is supported by factual references and the previous garbage was not. Yet I see no screeching from you concerning missing references on the original.

I notice that you have been a major contributor to this article, and you yourself have practically dared other Wikipedians to attempt to apply Wikipedia:NPOV and Wikipedia:NOR to your contributions.

I can understand the NOR and I will fix it, but the NPOV is a false claim. The purpose of the amendment was precisely as I have stated. And the original claim as to purpose was total crap. (unsupported idle crap at that). Your error is in your failure to enforce your rules on the previous author.

Perhaps you have "done the research," however, if you were a responsible wikipedian, you would know that original research is not kosher on this site.

So I should just leave the lie alone because it has been there long enough to become true? I think not. And the NOR stuff is addressed below.

For the best example of your violations of NPOV and NOR, I refer you to the "purpose" section of this article. This section is less for an encyclopedia, and more for an essay for a constitutional law class, especially the outrageously uncited line, "Article the First was not about apportionment of power among the states. It was about essential Liberty." According to who?

1. The amendment (for those who care to read it) has NOTHING to do with apportionment of the representatives seats among the states. That needs no references. It is a fact of objective reality. Like saying water is wet. Such a point does not require any "original research". one only need to be able to read what is right there in the words of the amendment itself.

2. If the claimed purpose of the amendment is false (which it was) then what is was the purpose? -- And now you may have a leg to stand on because I did not sight the original research that was done before I wrote the article. I instead sited the historical references I found in the "original research" as discussed with the author of that research and I left his HUGE pdf document out of it in accordance with HIS request. (He must pay for the bandwidth of downloading that hog each time it is referenced) According to all the historical references I cited, the purpose of the amendment was to insure a MINIMUM representation for the PEOPLE. And the states had NOTHING to do with it. I didn't write or re-write that history. Did you even bother to read the references?

You?

Not according to me. I gave you the references. And I would suggest that you trot on over to the original "Congressional Apportionment Amendment" and see if you can find some source for the ridiculous claim as to purpose in that article. My version illustrates very clearly that the previous claim is erroneous on its face. And any reference that you might find for the original (and there are none) would also be erroneous for the same reason. There are no references for the previous claim because only a very careless person (and looking around the net there are alot of them) could interpret the apportionment clause in the Constitution and the Amendment in such a way as to come to such a conclusion regarding "purpose". That point is valid even without the FACTUAL history. The original went on to blather about how if the amendment would have been ratified that the House might get as large as 6000 reps (oh trauma). The unamended Constitution will allow 10,000 reps as it stands. I see this same screwup all over the place and I wonder if that original wiki article is the source.

Please, do not make claims on Wikipedia - cite other people who do.

Ok, fine: "Article the first of the bill of rights", Bryan W. Bricker ISBN 978-1-84728-951-3

Or perhaps http://Thirty-Thousand.org/GHA-04.pdf all of section 7.

I will add the first one to the refs. But the second one is too expensive to do that with. You will find thirty-thousand.org in the "See Also" section.

Either way, I suggest you read through NPOV and NOR before further contributing to this and other articles. Brash 18:13, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] NPOV sticker removed

I have removed the offending stuff from the article. And I therefore remove the sticker. --The Trucker (talk) 21:14, 29 January 2008 (UTC)