The congressional bill to expand the size of the U.S. House from 435 to 437 members, with a new member for Utah and a voting member for the District of Columbia, is likely to receive a vote in the House in May. It has already passed the Senate. See this article in the April 1 Washington Post, which highlights that the U.S. Justice Department’s original analysis this year was that the bill is unconstitutional, but the Attorney General himself reversed that position.
DC with a representative IS a breach of the Constitution. Whether or not this administration holds up the Constitution or not.
This is a blatantly unconstitutional piece of legislation.
I think it will be ultimately struck down in the courts.
Richard, doesn’t the Texas State Constitution still allow it to divide itself into 5 separate states? In this event, would Congress need to admit them or am I right in recalling that Congress already sanctioned this back in 18something. Would be amusing to see DC and Utah get an extra member in the house, and Texas one up ’em by getting 8 more senators…
What about the remainder territories of Hawai’i and
Michigan? If they get the required populations they
both would have a delegate to the House of Representatives. Both would be island territories
Michigan Territory would be those parts of the remainder of the Michigan Territory that did not
become part of states of Wisconsin, Oregon, or Alaska. That would be a few islands off the
West Coast of North America that includes the
Washington Islands. Remember not all of Michigan
Territory upon Michigan becoming a State remained
in State of Michigan or became part of the then new
organized territory of Wisconsin. Some territory went into the Territory of Oregon and other parts of the remainder became part of the District of
Alaska, because the Secretary of the Treasury of the United States caused remainder Territory of Michigan to be placed in the Alaska File at the
Treasury Department that was not included in the
territory covered by the Treaty of Washington of 1867. Remember the Congress in 1872 by the Garfield Act, made those persons born in Oregon
Country [now mostly British Columbia and the
remainder Territory of Michigan] collective naturalized Citizens of these United States.
By the Organic Act of 1884, the District of Alaska
was made up of two types of territory, viz., that
territory included in the ceded territory of Russia
by the 1867 Treaty of Washington and the territory
“known as Alaska”, viz., remainder Michigan Territory of “Oregon Country” that was placed in
the Alaska File at the U.S. Department of the
Treasury between 1877 and 1884 as authorized by an
exchange of formal letters between the Secretary of the Treasury and the Secrtary of War in 1877.
For the Territory of Hawaii it would be the remainder Territory of Hawaii excluded from
the 1959 Hawaii Statehood Act. Remember, the State of Hawaii covers territory over large
parts of the vast Pacific Ocean, viz., Stewart
Atoll (which was added to Hawaii by the Fourth
Kamahamaha in 1854) and other outlying islands
that were dependencies of Hawaii under the terms
of the Newlands Resolution, e.g., Arosi (near the
Solomon Islands).
Sincerely, Mark Seidenberg, Vice Chairman, American
Independent Party.
Politics trumps the law……….
Donald Raymond Lake
I can tell that this is not the first time you write about this topic. Why have you decided to touch it again?