text:
Article the First
Sabotage or Clerical Error
In an earlier edition of this website, a case was made for ratifying the Constitution of 1787's forgotten first amendment, Article the First, which remains before the States. What follows in this is a retraction of that plea and an in-depth analysis of Article the First, based solely on primary sources. This complete revamping of this site was necessary to correct certain errors in my previous edition and to examine the charge that the Bill of Rights' original first amendment failed ratification due to political sabotage.
Students and Teachers of US History this is a video of Stanley and Christopher Klos presenting America's Four United Republics Curriculum at the University of Pennsylvania's Wharton School. The December 2015 video was an impromptu capture by a member of the audience of Penn students, professors and guests that numbered about 200.
Checks and Balances
In 1787, the framers took the lessons learned over 13 years from both the state governments and three different unicameral United American Republics to enact a constitution peppered with "checks and balances." Most U.S. citizens know that this fundamental "check and balance" principle ensures that each branch of the government (executive, judicial, and legislative) exercises some measure of influence over the other branches. These Constitutional "checks and balances" were specifically designed to prevent any one branch from accumulating too much power while encouraging cooperation between branches as well as comprehensive debate on contentious policy issues.
What citizens do not understand, however, is that the framers of the Constitution of 1787 and the Bill of Rights provided two additional checks on the federal government that were most potent but are currently defunct. In the last edition, this chapter argued that these rejected checks are primarily the reason why the states and citizens are disengaged from the federal legislative process and distrustful of Congress.
The first forgotten check on the federal government can be found in the Constitution of 1787's Article I, Section 3 and it states: "The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each State, chosen by the Legislature thereof for six Years; and each Senator shall have one Vote." In other words, Article I, Section 3 required each state's legislative body, rather than its citizens, to choose its two U.S. Senators.[1] This Senate provision was the original instrument that ensured "State Rights" in the legislative, executive and judicial branches of the federal government because all presidential nominations for executive and judicial posts take effect only when confirmed by the Senate, and international treaties become law only when approved by a two-thirds vote of the Senate.[2]
From 1789 until 1913, United States Senators served, essentially, as ambassadors of the individual states to the Federal Government. Senators unequivocally represented their States' interest and took instructions directly from the legislative branch of their respective state governments. The first significant example of state power in this regard was in 1788, when Patrick Henry, as a powerful member of the Virginia House of Delegates, used his voting block to thwart James Madison's aspirations for a seat in the United States Senate. Henry then used his influence to draw-up a Virginia Congressional District that gave James Monroe the voter advantage over Madison in the House race between two future U.S. Presidents. In order to placate Patrick Henry's anti-federalist supporters, James Madison was forced to promise that, if elected, he would introduce constitutional amendments. Winning his home county of Orange 216 to 9, Madison won the election by 1,308 to 972 over James Monroe.
Madison questioned the necessity of a federal bill of rights but was forced to face the issue early in the first House session. On June 8th, 1789, he introduced in the House proposed amendments that were primarily related to civil liberties rather than the structure of the government. Henry and the antifederalists believed Madison's proposals were a far cry from the Amendments that they had proposed at the ratification convention and, on August 13th, antifederalists introduced amendments changing the structure of the federal government and protecting the rights of the states from encroachment. The debate was vibrant and Representative Madison, due to Patrick Henry's blocking of his election to the Senate, found himself the pivotal Congressman in framing what we now call the Bill of Rights.
Under the Constitution of 1787 Article I, Section 3, U.S. Senators were also actively engaged in the election of local State legislators. When Abraham Lincoln and Stephen Douglas traveled around Illinois in 1858 debating each other as they vied for a seat in the U.S. Senate, they weren't looking for votes from the citizens. Douglas, the incumbent senator and Lincoln, who had served one term in the House, were seeking votes from the State Delegates and Senators in the Illinois legislature. For 124 years, State legislators, not lobbyists,[3] worked closely with U.S. Senators in drafting bills to be introduced in Congress. U.S. Senators spent the majority of their time in the Senate actually conducting the nation's business, as opposed to today's members whose schedules are consumed with fund raising-related duties.[4] The 17th Amendment's provision for direct popular vote elections, while purportedly giving "power to the people," in fact stripped the States' constitutional check over the Senate.[5]
A forgotten and failed check – a maximum citizen limit for Congressional Districts – is more multifaceted because, although loosely followed by Congress for 120 years, it was never enacted. This original people's check on the federal government was proposed by Congress on September 25th, 1789, as the first article in the HR/Senate 12-Amendment Resolution commonly known as the "Bill of Rights." Its first amendment, known as Article the First, proposed a 50,000 maximum citizen limit on Congressional Districts to ensure that the House of Representatives would be comprised of citizen-legislators who were personally known to their constituents. Today, Article the First remains the only amendment in the Bill of Rights not ratified.
In direct opposition to the spirit of Article the First, the 435-member limitation set on the House of Representatives was launched on August 8th, 1911, when President William H. Taft (R) signed the 62nd Congress' Apportionment Act of 1911, increasing House membership from 391 to 433. The act also included provisions to add two more members when New Mexico and Arizona became states. The legislation took effect on March 13th, 1913, during the 63rd Congress (1913–1915).
The bill's modest increase of Representatives from the previous census was a direct result of members raising concerns that the House was growing to an unwieldy size. Republican Representative Edgar Crumpacker of Indiana, however, who chaired the House Committee on the Census, argued just the opposite:
Members are . . . supposed to reflect the opinion and to stand for the wishes of their constituents. If we make the ratio [of persons per Representative] too large the idea of representation becomes attenuated and less definite. The personal interest of the voter in his representative becomes less important to him, and we may lose something of the vital strength of our representative form of government. [6]
For the first time after a decennial census, Congress failed to re-apportion the House in 1920. Previously, the House had reapportioned itself in a manner that expanded the representation of the early Congresses. The methods for calculating apportionment by the 1920's, however, caused the smaller rural states to lose representation to the larger urbanized states, whose population was growing. Additionally, Article the First had not been ratified to cap Congressional Districts at 50,000, so Congress was free to break the 120 year-old tradition: the Constitution of 1787 called only for at least one Representative per state and no more than one Representative for every 30,000 persons. A political battle erupted between rural and urban factions resulting in no reapportionment following the 1920 Census.
It was not until the eve of the next census that Republican Majority Leader John Q. Tilson of Connecticut took the lead in developing a House reapportionment plan for the 1930's. In direct opposition to Article the First, Tilson led the effort to pass the Permanent Apportionment Act of 1929, fixing the number of Representatives at 435. The House of Representatives Historian writes:
Signed into law on June 18, 1929, the Permanent Apportionment Act capped House Membership at the level established after the 1910 Census and created a procedure for automatically reapportioning House seats after every decennial census. Republican Majority Leader John Q. Tilson of Connecticut approvingly declared that the act dispelled the "danger of failing to reapportion after each decennial census as contemplated by the Constitution." But opponents, such as William B. Bankhead of Alabama, who doubted its constitutionality, had earlier described the plan as "the abdication and surrender of the vital fundamental powers vested in the Congress of the United States by the Constitution itself." [7]
In 1941, the Democratic-controlled Congress adopted the current formula for reapportioning House seat districts, still limiting the House of Representatives to 435 members (See 54 Stat.L. 761, November 15, 1941); the House has remained at 435, except for a temporary increase to 437 Members from 1959 to 1961, after Alaska and Hawaii achieved statehood.
Congressional Districts are now 14 times larger than the population cap proposed under Article the First. Following the 2010 Census, the populations of Congressional District have soared to 710,767 citizens, and, every two years, House candidates spend millions of dollars for media sound bites designed to reach over a half-million voters whom Representatives can't possibly ever know. Having created no additional House representation for over 100 years, Congress instead has employed over 12,000 "staffers" to conduct legislative business on Capitol Hill.
To put these 12,000 staffers (almost 20 per House member) in context: Up until the 1890's, House members were allotted no paid staff because their small districts' voting population numbered less than 50,000 citizens per Representative.[8] This changed in 1893, when House members were allotted one paid staff member each. The following chart shows the growth of House staff from 1893 to 2013.[9]
Fiscal Year
Authorized Staff [1]
1 to 2
[1] Chart is taken from a 1993 Congressional Report and shows the increase in the number of staff for each member of the House of Representatives since 1893. Before 1893 the House members paid for their own staff. Since the 1919 staff allotment of two, the House of Representatives has been fixed at 435 Representatives. For more information on House staff and salaries please read The Number of Congressional Staff Is the Real Problem by Daniel J. Mitchell
Today, based on the 2010 census, the 19 paid public servants allotted for each Congressional District of 539,228 voters translates into one paid public servant per 28,380 citizens over 18. Since 1910, just before the first House Apportionment Acts were passed, House staff has grown from 500 for a 92 Million Population in 1910 to 12,200 (2,420% increase) for a 308 Million Population in 2010 (342% increase), while the number of HR members increased from 394 in 1910 to 435 (9% increase) in 2010.
In 2015, Congressional Districts now exceed a population of 725,000 citizens and inexperienced staffers, usually not from their Representative's home district, are overwhelmed by the current constituent base. According to the Washington Times, these 24 year old staffers are running the House of Representatives:
The most powerful nation on Earth is run largely by 24-year-olds. High turnover and lack of experience in congressional offices are leaving staffs increasingly without policy and institutional knowledge, a Washington Times analysis of a decade of House and Senate personnel records shows — leaving a vacuum that usually is filled by lobbyists. Most Senate staffers have worked in the Capitol for less than three years. For most, it is their first job ever. In House offices, one-third of staffers are in their first year, while only 1 in 3 has worked there for five years or more.
Among the aides who work on powerful committees where the nation's legislation takes shape, resumes are a little longer: Half have four years of experience. When Americans wonder why Congress can't seem to get anything done, this could be a clue. It's also a sharp difference from the average government employee: Unlike many state and federal workers with comfortable salaries, pensions and seemingly endless tenures, those in the halls of power are more likely to be inexperienced and overworked. Low pay for high-stress jobs with less-than-stellar prospects for advancement takes a toll on institutional memory and expertise.
While senators make $174,000, staff assistants and legislative correspondents — by far the most common positions in the Senate — have median pay of $30,000 and $35,000, respectively, significantly less than Senate janitors and a fairly low salary for college graduates in a city as expensive as Washington. Historical pay records were transcribed from book form by the website egistorm.
The size of committee and members' staffs have remained the same over the past decade, and salaries have often not risen with inflation — or at all. The average legislative counsel in the House made $56,000 last year, less than in 2007. While pay for parking-lot attendants in the House increased from $26,000 to $49,000 in the past decade, pay for staff assistants, who make up the bulk of the House's workforce, rose from $26,000 to $30,000. That puts them in the bottom fifth of the region's college-educated workforce. [10]
Moreover, the combination of an inexperienced staff with elected members who spend most of their time fundraising has created a vacuum of competency that has been filled with seasoned experts paid by the money of Special Interest. National Public Radio reports that 11,000 Lobbyists are writing the House's bills:
It's taken for granted that lobbyists influence legislation. But perhaps less obvious is that they often write the actual bills — even word for word. In an example a week and a half ago, the House passed a measure that would roll back a portion of the 2010 financial reforms known as Dodd-Frank. And reports from The New York Times and Mother Jones revealed that language in the final legislation was nearly identical to language suggested by lobbyists. It's been a long-accepted truth in Washington that lobbyists write the actual laws, but that raises two questions: Why does it happen so much, and is it a bad thing?[11]
Lee Fang's "Where Have All the Lobbyists Gone?" not only provides a graphic mapping out special interest influence on Capitol Hill but provides $3.2 billion annual estimate in lobbyist spending:
On paper, the lobbying industry is quickly disappearing. In January, records indicated that for the third straight year, overall spending on lobbying decreased. Lobbyists themselves continue to deregister in droves. In 2013, the number of registered lobbyists dipped to 12,281, the lowest number on file since 2002.
But experts say that lobbying isn't dying; instead, it's simply going underground. The problem, says American University professor James Thurber, who has studied congressional lobbying for more than thirty years, is that "most of what is going on in Washington is not covered" by the lobbyist-registration system. Thurber, who is currently advising the American Bar Association's lobbying-reform task force, adds that his research suggests the true number of working lobbyists is closer to 100,000.
A loophole-ridden law, poor enforcement, the development of increasingly sophisticated strategies that enlist third-party validators and create faux-grassroots campaigns, along with an Obama administration executive order that gave many in the profession a disincentive to register—all of these forces have combined to produce a near-total collapse of the system that was designed to keep tabs on federal lobbying.
While the official figure puts the annual spending on lobbying at $3.2 billion in 2013, Thurber estimates that the industry brings in more than $9 billion a year. Other experts have made similar estimates, but no one is sure how large the industry has become. Lee Drutman, a lobbying expert at the Sunlight Foundation, says that at least twice as much is spent on lobbying as is officially reported. [12]
In summary, the failure to enact Article the First, the people's check on the House of Representatives, has allowed powerful Congressmen to create enormous Congressional Districts that elevate their seats to a hallowed status while rendering impossible a successful grass roots campaign based on ideas and issues by a working class candidate. 21st-century door-to-door campaigning is fruitless except as a public relations stunt to attract traditional media coverage or produce a viral internet opportunity. The purchase and mastery of mass media, not personal contact, is the marketing mix that ultimately persuades 540,000 eligible voters to elect and re-elect House members.
The 1789 Congress' bungling of Article the First has enabled powerful members of Congress to enact House Apportionment Acts that entrench incumbents while empowering special interests, the highly partisan two-party system, the media, and citizens of great personal wealth. These House Apportionment Acts, more so than any other laws, are responsible for the people losing their check on the federal government. If the citizens of the United States truly seek a mechanism to break the two-party stranglehold, end partisan politics, birth new political parties, and obliterate special interest influence over the House, then Article the First should be resuscitated.
What happened to the Bill of Rights Article the First?
On September 25th, 1789, the First Bicameral Congress of the United States proposed to the state legislatures 12 amendments to the Constitution of 1787. This was a painstaking process because, only a year earlier, the States had proposed more than two hundred amendments during the Constitution's ratification process.
When repetitious amendments are eliminated, over one hundred separate proposals can be identified. Most sought to change the structure of the federal government or the balance of power between it and the states, while others focused on protecting individual rights. [13]
The first group of amendments actually to pass were formulated by the House of Representatives (HR) on August 24th, 1789 and numbered 17 Articles. The first amendment concerned congressional apportionment and sought to limit congressional districts to a maximum size of 50,000 citizens.[14]
After the first enumeration, required by the first Article of the Constitution, there shall be one Representative for every thirty thousand, until the number shall amount to one hundred, after which the proportion shall be so regulated by Congress, that there shall be not less than one hundred Representatives, nor less than one Representative for every forty thousand persons until the number of Representatives shall amount to 200, after which the proportion shall be so regulated by Congress, that there shall not be less than two hundred Representatives, nor less than one Representative for every fifty thousand persons.
The second set of 12 approved amendments was passed by the U.S. Senate between September 4th and 9th. The Senate placed its congressional apportionment amendment as Article the First; it limited congressional districts to a maximum size of 60,000 citizens.
Article the First: After the first enumeration, required by the first Article of the Constitution, there shall be one Representative for every thirty thousand, until the number shall amount to one hundred, to which number one representative shall be added for every subsequent increase of forty thousand, until the representatives shall amount to two hundred, to which one representative shall be added for every subsequent increase of sixty thousand persons.
Front and Back of the proposed Amendments to the U.S. Constitution broadside as passed by the House of Representatives and on August 24th, 1789. Images are from the National Archives of the United States.
Images are from the Records of the U.S. Senate National Archives
Samuel Otis, Secretary of Senate 12-Amendment Broadside with "ag" written in the margins of the Articles agreed to and lines through the articles that were changed by the HR-S CC. Images courtesy: Records of the Senate in the National Archives
The HR and Senate each elected the following members for a House–Senate Conference Committee to finalize all HR-Senate amendments "disagreed to:"
- Representatives: James Madison of Virginia, Roger Sherman of Connecticut and John Vining of Delaware.
- Senators: Oliver Ellsworth of Connecticut, Charles Carroll of Maryland and William Paterson of New Jersey[15]
On September 21st, 1789, a House–Senate Conference Committee (HR-S CC) convened to resolve the numerous differences between the two Bill of Rights proposals. On September 24th, 1789, the HR-S CC submitted their recommendations to the House of Representatives and the Senate. The original committee report, written in the hand of Senator Oliver Ellsworth, was read in the Senate by Ellsworth:
The Committees of the two Houses appointed to confer on their different votes on the Amendments proposed by the Senate to the Resolution proposing Amendments to the Constitution, and disagreed to by the House of Representatives, have had a conference, and have agreed that it will be proper for the House of Representatives to agree to the said Amendments proposed by the Senate, with an Amendment to their fifth Amendment, so that the third Article shall read as follows "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of Religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of Speech, or of the Press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances" And with an Amendment to the fourteenth Amendment proposed by the Senate, so that the eighth Article, as numbered in the Amendments proposed by the Senate, shall read as follows "In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy & publick trial by an impartial jury of the district wherein the crime shall have been committed, as the district shall have been previously asscertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; and to have compulsory process for obtaining Witnesses against him in his favour, & to have the assistance of counsel for his defence.
The Committees were also of Opinion that it would be proper for both Houses to agree to amend the first Article, by striking out the word "less" in the last line but one, and inserting in its place, the word "more," and accordingly recommend that the said Article be reconsidered for that purpose. [16]
This report was ordered to lie for consideration. [17]
Page two of U.S. Senator Oliver Ellsworth's handwritten report of the Conference Committees recommending changes to the House version of Article the First. Images are from the Records of the Senate from the National Archives of the United States.
Page one of U.S. Senator Oliver Ellsworth's handwritten report of the Conference Committees, recommending changes to the Senate's Article the Third and Article the Eighth. - Images are from the Records of the U.S. Senate National Archives
While the U.S. Senate attended to other matters, the House of Representatives drafted and seemingly passed a resolution adopting HR-S CC's recommendations and rushed it up to the Senate floor:
A Message from the House of Representatives: Mr. Beckley, their Clerk brought up the Amendments to the 'Articles to be proposed to the Legislatures of the several States, as Amendments to the Constitution of the United States;' and informed the Senate, that the House of Representatives had receded from their disagreement to the first, third, fifth, sixth, seventh, ninth, tenth, eleventh, fourteenth, fifteenth, seventeenth, twentieth, twenty-first, twenty-second, twenty-third, and twenty-fourth amendments, insisted on by the Senate: Provided, That the two articles which by the amendments of the Senate are now proposed to be inserted as the third and eighth articles, shall be amended to read as followeth:
Article the third. "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the People peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
Article the eighth. "In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor; and to have the assistance of counsel for his defence."
And provided also, That the first article be amended by striking out the word " less," in the last place of the said first article, and inserting in lieu thereof the word "more." [18]
September 24th, 1789, House and Senate Journals. The person who was responsible for creating a HR Bill of Rights Resolution ignored the Conference Committees' recommendation of the "last line but one" change in Article the First. Instead the word 'less" was ordered changed in the "last place" of the Article. The Senate, unlike the House, read the entire report into the record.
The HR Bill of Rights Resolution, however, failed to incorporate the HR-S CC penultimate line language "in the last line but one." Instead, the House had substituted its own verbiage, "in the last place of the said first article," rendering Article the First dysfunctional. Despite this serious divergence from HR-S CC's recommendations, which no one apparently noticed, the Senate approved the HR Bill of Rights Resolution on September 25th, 1789.
Transmitting 12-Amendments to the States
On September 24th, 1789, the House passed a resolution that ordered the proposed Bill of Rights to be engrossed and transmitted by President George Washington to the 11 United States, plus Rhode Island and North Carolina (even though they had not ratified the Constitution of 1787). The Senate approved the resolution on September 26th, 1789. The Clerk, rightly, inscribed the Bill of Rights according to the language of the approved HR/Senate Bill of Rights Resolution, even though it differed from the HR-S CC report; this divergence ultimately doomed Article the First to the dustbin of failed U.S. Constitutional Amendments. According to an analysis written in 2007, the engrossed Article the First with its one word change was dead on arrival for the following reasons:
1. A Redundant Maximum: It imposed … a new formula for determining the maximum size of the House. This was clearly unnecessary given that the Constitution (drafted only two years earlier) already provided the method for determining the maximum size ("shall not exceed one for every thirty Thousand"). Moreover, the new and more restrictive maximum (of one representative per 50,000) would not be activated until the total population reached 8 million, at which point a significant & discontinuous reduction in the maximum size of the House becomes imposed.
2. An Irresolvable Math Error: It incorporated an internally contradictory math error in that — for a given population range — the required maximum would be below the required minimum.
3. Failed to Maintain a Proportionate Minimum: Though the amendment proposed a proportionate minimum size as long as the total population remained below 8 million, beyond that number it effectively abandoned the need to define a minimum. This reversed the original intent of the amendment by eliminating the guidance for determining a minimum size for the House that would have been proportionally commensurate with our nation's total population. [19]
The transmittal letter reads as follows:
United States, October 2nd 1789
Sir, In pursuance of the enclosed resolution I have the honor to transmit to your Excellency a copy of the amendment proposed to be added to the Constitution of the United States. I have the honor to be, With due Consideration, Your Excellency's Most Obedient Servant,
George Washington
Image from the U.S. National Archives
Engrossed 12-Articles proposed by the 1789 Congress to amend the Constitution of 1787 that was sent to the States for ratification consideration. Article the First remains the only amendment, due to its dysfunctional form, not ratified by the States. Image is from the National Archives of the United States.
The dysfunctional Article the First has nevertheless since been ratified by 12 States:
Virginia on November 3, 1789; New Jersey on November 20, 1789; Maryland on December 19, 1789; North Carolina on December 22, 1789; South Carolina on January 19, 1790; New Hampshire on January 25, 1790; New York on March 27, 1790; Rhode Island on June 15, 1790; Pennsylvania on September 21, 1791; Vermont on November 3, 1791 and Kentucky on June 24, 1792.
Challenging the Dysfunctional Article the First
On September 25th, 2014, the 225th birthday of the Bill of Rights, each of the States' Attorneys General was notified that their respective states had ratified the incorrect Article the First amendment to the U.S. Constitution. The response of the Attorneys General ranged from no reply to that of North Carolina, replying:
After reviewing your materials, it appears that, if the United States House of Representatives or Senate made a mistake on approving a proposed amendment, the remedy lies with the United States Congress, not the North Carolina Assembly.[20]
There have been numerous efforts to ratify Article the First, as transmitted to the States, including this book's first edition. Such efforts, however, will be fruitless due to the fact that the 1789 Congress sent the dysfunctional Article the First to the states.[21] Furthermore, efforts to change the word "more" back to "less" in Article the First, which would cap Congressional Districts at 50,000 citizens, would require Congress to approve an entirely new amendment before it could be submitted to the states for ratification. Additionally, there was a recent legal challenge seeking a U.S. Federal District Court order that Article the First be implemented in its functional form because it was ratified by the necessary 4/5ths of the States on May 10th, 1790:
Article the First was agreed upon and settled and was not even before the Joint Conference Committee, during the process it was noticed that there was a possible flaw in the text of "Article the First" at Line 2 (the second of the three Lines, or "Clauses"). With inclusion of the negative word "less" at Line 2, the 40,000 ratio was actually a "ceiling" ratio when in fact at Line 2 the 40,000 number was intended to be a "floor" ratio, so that once the growth or population progressed so that the Nation was at Line 2, the ratio would be between 40,000 and 50,000, but not "less" than 40,000. These were smart men, and they quickly realized that there was a simple way to correct this hard to recognize flaw so that the intent of what was actually approved would be guaranteed. All that had to be done was to exchange the new word "more" for the existing word of "less" in Line 2.
Indeed, the Final Report made such a recommendation, and this is what was voted on and approved by Congress as the final form of text of "Article the First". However, thereafter some Clerk misunderstood the Final Report and did not know what a penultimate was (and apparently then incorrectly read the "Article the First" text linearly as printed in the Broadside, and not as the three "Lines" or Clauses referred to by the Joint Committee and understood by Congress) and took it upon themselves to paraphrase what they thought the Final Report meant when referring to the Final Report in the House Journal, rather than simply memorialize the verbatim text of the actual Final Report that was voted on and approved. [22]
In other words the "less" in red was supposed to be changed to more.
First line - After the first enumeration, required by the first Article of the Constitution, there shall be one Representative for every thirty thousand, until the number shall amount to one hundred,
Penultimate Line - after which the proportion shall be so regulated by Congress, that there shall be not less than one hundred Representatives, nor less than one Representative for every forty thousand persons until the number of Representatives shall amount to 200,
Last line - after which the proportion shall be so regulated by Congress, that there shall not be less than two hundred Representatives, nor less than one Representative for every fifty thousand persons.
Although I do not agree with the claim, petitioner Eugene LaVergne, Esq. correctly explains how a functional Article the First would have emerged in the Bill of Rights had the House adopted the HR-S CC penultimate line language "in the last line but one" verbatim in its resolution, instead of the substituting its own verbiage, "in the last place."
The Lavergne v. John Bryson federal case, however, was dismissed by the U.S. 3rd District Court of Appeals in 2012, which never ruled on the discrepancy between the HR-S CC's Final Report and the HR/Senate Bill of Rights Resolution.[23]
ThirtyThousand.org has a different take on the how Congress could have transmitted the dysfunctional Article the First to the States for ratification. They maintain Article the First was "effectively sabotaged":
As passed by the House, Article the First would have required there be at least one Representative for every 50,000 people at larger population levels. The Senate's version required one Representative for every 60,000. However, the would-be first amendment was effectively sabotaged by an ostensibly minor modification made at the last-minute by a joint House-Senate committee. In fact, this modification not only subverted the amendment's purpose, but it also introduced a mathematical defect which would have later rendered it inexecutable. Largely because this subtle modification was generally unnoticed initially, Article the First was affirmed by every state except Delaware. Had the proposed amendment not been crippled then it might have eventually been ratified (as originally worded) and, as a result, we would now have approximately 6,000 Representatives. [24]
What happened to Article First is a debate that has fulminated for 225 years. This sabotage charge, however, caught my attention prompting me to ask the age-old question: Who did it and why?
If Article the First was indeed deliberately sabotaged, we can rule out the HR-S CC Senate members because the committee's recommendations were read on the Senate floor by Senator Oliver Ellsworth, the report's author, and correctly entered into the minutes. The House, however, unlike the Senate, did not enter the HR-S CC report into its records. The House Journals record only:
The House proceeded to consider the report of the committee of conference, on the subject-matter of the amendments, depending between the two Houses to the several articles of amendment to the Constitution of the United States, as proposed by thin House : Whereupon, Resolved, That this House doth recede from their disagreement to the first, third, fifth, sixth, seventh, ninth, tenth, eleventh, fourteenth, fifteenth, seventeenth, twentieth, twenty-first, twenty-second, twenty-third, and twenty-fourth amendments, insisted on by the Senate: … And provided also, That the first article be amended by striking out the word " less," in the last place of the said first article, and inserting in lieu thereof the word "more." [25]
The House Journals also report that all three HR-S CC members voted for the bungled resolution. Therefore, any "sabotage" could only be traceable to Madison, Sherman and Vining. Additionally, Article the First originated as Madison's second amendment proposed on the House floor on June 8th, 1789:
Secondly: That in article 2st. section 2, clause 3, these words be struck out, to wit, "The number of representatives shall not exceed one for every thirty thousand, but each state shall have at least one representative, and until such enumeration shall be made." And that in place thereof be inserted these words, to wit, "After the first actual enumeration, there shall be one representative for every thirty thousand, until the number amount to after which the proportion shall be so regulated by congress, that the number shall never be less than nor more than but each state shall after the first enumeration, have at least two representatives; and prior thereto."
Larry Sabato, Professor of Political Science at the University of Virginia, offers a motive when he correctly maintains that:
Madison recognized the need for some upper ceiling on the number of House members: "A certain number [of representatives] seems to be necessary to secure the benefits of free consultation and discussion…On the other hand, the number ought at most to be kept within a certain limit, in order to avoid the confusion and intemperance of a multitude." From Madison's perspective, a 1,000-member House of Representatives, with about 300,000 constituents per representative, would seem reasonable. [26]
Therefore, Madison becomes our prime suspect because he did not want too large of a House. He was also in a position of power and if he had misgivings over capping Congressional Districts at the 50,000 citizen limit, an obscure change in a complex resolution would be a most effective way to kill the amendment quietly. Additionally, it stands to reason that only Madison could have changed the verbiage and gotten away with the sabotage:
1. The "last place of the said first article" resolution originated in the House, and thus rules out the three HR-S CC's Senators.
2. Had a clerk or one of the two other HR-S CC members constructed the dysfunctional resolution, author James Madison would surely have caught the error.
3. Only Madison, due to his ethos as a framer of the Constitution of 1787, could create a resolution with an error in the construction of his own amendment, and be above suspicion that chicanery was afoot.
Another factor supports Madison's role as saboteur: once it became common knowledge that Article the First had been submitted to the states with the wrong one word change, why didn't Madison act to have the error corrected during his eight year tenure as a powerful member of the House of Representatives? The ideal time to have repaired the dysfunctional amendment was in 1792, when the 12th State, Kentucky, ratified the dysfunctional Article, and George Washington cast the first Presidential veto, denying Congress the opportunity, based on the 1790 census, to create Congressional Districts below the constitutional minimum of 30,000 citizens.[27] Finally, in 1811, when the Republican Party controlled both houses of Congress and the 1810 Census apportionment created Congressional Districts at just under the 40,000 maximum prescribed in Article the First, why didn't now President James Madison champion his amendment?
If Thirtythousand.org is correct and Article the First was effectively sabotaged by the House on September 24th 1789, then this finger points to the amendment's author, James Madison.
The members of this 1789 Congress included two future U.S. Presidents, three former Presidents of Congress, nine Declaration of Independence signers, four Articles of Confederation signers, and 15 U.S. Constitution Signers. Moreover President George Washington, Chief Justice John Jay, Secretary of State and Declaration of Independence author Thomas Jefferson, Secretary of the Treasury and U.S. Constitution signer Alexander Hamilton, Attorney General and U.S. Constitution framer Edmund Randolph, and Secretary of War Henry Knox worked behind the scenes to constitutionally cap Congressional Districts at the maximum of 60,000 or 50,000 citizens. Madison's possible sabotage aside, their debates and letters make clear that the framers of the Bill of Rights wanted the House of Representatives to remain answerable to people through the mechanism of small districts devoid of any undue influence by special interests. Even President James Madison, during the War of 1812 that raged 25 years after Article the First was proposed, worked with a House whose congressional districts did not exceed 50,000 citizens.
The 11 Amendments found in the Bill of Rights are a national treasure. Perhaps the current Congress might draw yet again upon the wisdom of the Congress of 1789, assembling a new Conference Committee to formulate a functional Article the First that caps Congressional districts somewhere between the 50,000 to 60,000 citizens originally proposed. With the passage of such an article, the States can recommence the national debate on whether the only amendment not ratified in the 1789 Bill of Rights should become the 28th Amendment to the Constitution of 1787.
[1] This important check of the States over the U.S. Senate was overturned by the Progressive Republicans when they voted to send the Constitution's Seventeenth Amendment to the States for ratification on May 13, 1912.
[4] Ryan Grim and Sabrina Siddiqui, Call Time For Congress Shows How Fundraising Dominates Bleak Work Life, Huffington Post, 01/08/2013 - "The amount of time that members of Congress in both parties spend fundraising is widely known to take up an obscene portion of a typical day -- whether it's "call time" spent on the phone with potential donors, or in person at fundraisers in Washington or back home. Seeing it spelled out in black and white, however, can be a jarring experience for a new member, as related by some who attended the November orientation."
[5] The Editorial Board, Dark Money Helped Win the Senate, Sunday Review Editorial, New York Times, 11/8/2014 - "The next Senate was just elected on the greatest wave of secret, special-interest money ever raised in a congressional election. What are the chances that it will take action to reduce the influence of money in politics? Nil, of course."
[6] House of Representatives Historian, The 1911 House Reapportionment, http://history.house.gov/Historical-Highlights/1901-1950/The-1911-House-reapportionment/, retrieved online 12/26/2014
[7] House of Representatives Historian, The 1911 House Reapportionment, http://history.house.gov/Historical-Highlights/1901-1950/The-1911-House-reapportionment/, retrieved online 12/26/2014
[8] United States Census Bureau, Reports and statistics from the 1890 census, Males of Voting Age table, page clxxviii.
[9] Chart is taken from a 1993 Congressional Report and shows the increase in the number of staff for each member of the House of Representatives since 1893. Before 1893 the House members paid for their own staff. Since the 1919 staff allotment of two, the House of Representatives has been fixed at 435 Representatives. For more information on House staff and salaries please read The Number of Congressional Staff Is the Real Problem by Daniel J. Mitchell
[10] Luke Rosiak, Congressional staffers, public shortchanged by high turnover, low pay, The Washington Times - Wednesday, June 6, 2012
[12] Lee Fang, "Where Have All the Lobbyists Gone? On paper, the influence-peddling business is drying up. But lobbying money is flooding into Washington, DC, like never before. What's going on?" The Nation, March 10-17, 2014.
[13] The First Federal Congress Project, Birth of the Nation: The First Federal Congress 1789-1791, Amendments to the Constitution, http://www.gwu.edu/~ffcp/exhibit/p7/, retrieved 12/23/2014.
[14] Journal of the First Session of the House of the Representatives: New-York, Printed by Thomas Greenleaf, 1789, pages 103-104.
[15] John Agg, History of Congress, exhibiting a classification of the proceedings of the Senate, and the House of Representatives, from March 4, 1789, to March 3, 1793, embracing the first term of the administration of General Washington, Philadelphia: Lea & Blanchard 1843, page 169
[16] Conference Committee Report." Creating the Bill of Rights. Ed. Kenneth R. Bowling and Helen E. Veit. Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press, 1991. 49-50. Print. manuscript source: National Archives Original Manuscript, National Archives of the United States
[17] Journal of the First Session of the Senate of the United States of America: Begun and Held at the City of New-York, March 4th, 1789, and in the Thirteenth Year of the Independence of the Said States, New-York, Printed by Thomas Greenleaf, 1789, page 145.
[18] Journal of the First Session of the Senate of the United States of America: Begun and Held at the City of New-York, March 4th, 1789, and in the Thirteenth Year of the Independence of the Said States, New-York, Printed by Thomas Greenleaf, 1789, page 148.
[19] Thirty-thousand.org, Analysis of "Article the first...", online publication, 2007 - http://www.thirty-thousand.org/pages/article1_analysis.htm, retrieved December 31, 2014.
[20] Karen A. Blum, North Carolina Special Deputy Attorney General, typed letter signed to Stanley Klos, dated October 9, 2014
[21] Article the First, in its dysfunctional form, remains pending before state lawmakers because like Article the Second, which was ratified in 1992, there is no time limitation on Article the First. Today, with the 12 state approval, the legislatures of 28 more states could ratify Article the First, for the amendment to become constitutional.
[22] See Thomas H. LeDuc, "Connecticut and the First Ten Amendments to the Federal Constitution," S. Doc. No. 75-96, at 2-3 (1937); see also David E. Kyvig, Explicit and Authentic Acts: Amending the U.S. Constitution, 1776-1995, at 108 & n.76 (1996) (noting that "over the course of three sessions" in Connecticut, "one house or the other approved most of the amendments but the other failed to concur")
[23] Eugene Lavergne, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. John Bryson et al., Defendants-Appellees, U.S. Court Of Appeals Third Circuit, No. 12-1171: "This is a pro se challenge to the constitutionality of longstanding aspects of the process for apportioning the House of Representatives. Plaintiff invoked the jurisdiction of the district court under 28 U.S.C.§ 2284(a). On December 16, 2011, the district court entered a final judgment dismissing plaintiff's suit. A5-A6. On January 17, 2012,plaintiff filed a timely notice of appeal from that judgment." http://redistricting.lls.edu/files/NJ%20lavergne%2020120416%20exec.pdf
[24] Thirty-thousand.org, Analysis of "Article the first...", online publication, 2007 - http://www.thirty-thousand.org/pages/article1_analysis.htm, retrieved December 31, 2014.
[25] Journal of the First Session of the House of the Representatives: Begun and Held at the City of New-York, March 4th, 1789, and in the Thirteenth Year of the Independence of the Said States, New-York, Printed by Thomas Greenleaf, 1789, September 24th, 1789.
[26] Larry Sabato, Expand the House of Representatives, Democracy Journal of Ideas, Issue #8, Spring 2008.
[27] On 5 April, 1792, the president decided to veto the Apportionment Act of 1792 (1 Stat. 253) and returned the bill to the House of Representatives with the two objections that "there is no one proportion or divisor which, applied to the respective numbers of the States will yield the number and allotment of representatives proposed by the Bill" and that "the Bill has allotted to eight of the States, more than one [representative] for thirty thousand." Congress, after receiving Washington's veto message, the first in U.S. history, threw out the original bill and decided, on 10 April 1792, to apportion representatives at "the ratio of one for every thirty-three thousand persons in the respective States".
Middle and High School Curriculum Supplement
For More Information Click Here
|U.S. Dollar Presidential Coin Mr. Klos vs Secretary Paulson - Click Here


text: Word of Mouth 12.15.2012 By Virginia Prescott • Dec 14, 2012 ShareTwitter Facebook Google+ Email Credit Leo Reynolds via Flickr Creative Commons An anthropologist embeds herself with hackers. Santa opens shop in Hooksett. A Hobbit scholar explains why Tolkien fascinates. Women comedians find success on through podcasts. And the very interesting history...of boredom. Listen Listening... / 50:29 The whole darn show Tags: HistoryChristmasMoviesHackersView the discussion thread.

subset: commoncrawl


text:
Brink of divorce? Wait.
"Your one idea saved my marriage."
The Good Men, a biweekly men's group that I run, has a simple mandate: To help each other be better men.
Better fathers, better partners, and better people. No sacred circles, hand holding, or kumbaya. Just talking.
We all love our group. It is a chance for men to talk, to laugh, to share, to give difference perspectives. And occasionally, we save marriages.
Late last year, one of our men was in a deep dark relationship rut. He was, in his words, on the brink of divorce. They had already talked about dividing up their stuff, and their kids were asking who they might be living with.
Nothing was working. He felt no connection with his wife, no love, no sex, and no friendship. Nothing but door slamming, yelling, constant fighting, frustration, and lots of space growing between them.
Luckily, we managed to pull him back off the ledge and helped him to pause and reflect. He credits our group and the one idea offered with changing everything.
Let's back up. Once the fireworks and excitement of a new relationship have started to simmer down, relationship life begins, and all couples enter a new phase.
Come on, did you honestly think you could stay in that stage forever? Who would get any work done?
It isn't even physiologically possible. The chemicals responsible for that passionate loving feeling (adrenaline, dopamine, noradrenaline, phenethylamine, etc.) all start to dwindle and level off. Suddenly your perfect lover has faults. Why did he or she change?
Actually, your partner probably hasn't changed at all, it's just that you are now able to see him or her more rationally rather than through the blinding hormone-driven passionate love, sex, and blissful infatuation. When a couple hits the simmer down phase, the relationship is either strong enough to endure, or it ends.
So, our helpless friend on the brink felt there was no hope. He had a very negative perspective on his wife, their marriage, and his ceiling of happiness. Everything was bad.
The idea I offered wasn't my own. I would love the credit, but I borrowed it from my Gottman Couples training. It is, simply:
Maintain a positive perspective.
When you are in a negative perspective, at least five things happen:
You are hyper-vigilant
You are constantly judging, looking, watching to catch your partner doing things wrong, to support your negative opinion of them.
You are hyper-sensitive
There is a massive magnification of feelings around a negative event, and little things are constantly blown out of proportion.
Nothing rolls off your shoulders
You become score-keepers, and everything is tit for tat
No one gets the benefit of the doubt
No one gets a respectful interpretation of their behaviour, only the worst interpretation which continues to feed the core negative image you have of your partner.
You don't bite your tongues and take the high road
You give in to contempt and hostile comments. You take cheap shots at each other, and each other's character (and maybe family members too).
Are you in a negative perspective of your relationship?
If so, put on a different pair of glasses. You are missing out on all the good stuff that might be happening, because all you see is the darkness.
Looking at his wife through a positive perspective worked for our man on the brink, and it just might help your relationship too. What do you have to lose?
Look for the person you fell in love with. He or she is right there in front of you.
Until next time. . . .
My genetically average kids
My kids are athletically genetically average.
I am ok with that.
We have exposed our children to as many activities as life, time, and money will allow.
We tried hockey.
We tried soccer.
We tried baseball.
We tried rugby.
We tried dance.
We tried ballet.
We tried theatre.
We tried basketball.
We tried karate, Taekwondo and yoga.
Our kids were okay at all of them. They tried hard, they worked hard, and they had fun. Never the star of the team, but always a valuable part of the team.
Should we have picked a lane and just focused on one sport, like hockey? Should we have looked for spring leagues, power skating camps, and hockey academies to accelerate and improve skills?
I don't think so.
We accept what is. Sport for kids should be fun, not a job. We see the light at the end of the tunnel, and it ain't the infinitesimal chance of making the NHL or the Olympics, it's happy, confident kids.
While dedicating weekends and weeknights to hockey wasn't super appealing, the costs of elite rep hockey are staggering, from equipment to coaching, camps and even hotels at faraway tournaments.
Could we afford it? Maybe for one kid, but I have four children. Does only the one that shows the most promise get to go, and we buy colouring books for the others?
Don't even get me started on the politics of elite sports, like hockey or figure skating or the crazy parents that inhabit those worlds.
I will openly admit, though, that I do struggle with the notion of not pushing my kids in activities. If they show promise and interest, am I doing them a disservice by not making maximum opportunities available to them? I want my kids to know sacrifice, working hard, and dedication as cornerstones for a strong adult work ethic, but should hockey, for example, be our chosen vehicle for these life lessons?
Because we have jumped around from activity to activity with our kids, never spending more than two seasons at any given activity, our children have never really had the chance to improve skills over time. Was that a mistake?
Exposing them to different sports was important to us, but also important was allowing the children to choose their activities. Their sport/activity resume looks like a job-jumpers work experience nightmare, but it's what they wanted. They would choose a sport because they wanted to try it, not because they thought it was what we wanted.
I coached my oldest son for year at hockey. He loved it and I loved it, and he was good. Not great, but he enjoyed it. However, he was lukewarm when the topic came up the following season. I was worried that he might choose to play to please me, and unless he is bolting out of bed and really jacked for a 6 a.m. Saturday morning practice, I ain't pulling teeth. So we chose not to play hockey, and he did break dancing that fall, with no regrets.
I don't want to live vicariously through my kids. I have a life and so should they: My ego is my ego, not theirs.
I was fortunate enough to play every sport growing up, and was pretty decent too. Sport can be tremendous source of confidence and self esteem. Now, I enjoy sport for the exercise and social connections. That is what I want for my children, to have the skill set and coordination for many sports. Shoot, pass, skate for beer league hockey. Leave the left wing lock to the pros.
TAKEAWAY POINT: Where is that balance of push and pull? Knowing when to encourage your kids to help achieve a higher level, or accepting what is, and letting them choose their own path of experiences?
Although parents can be terrible judges of their own kid's ability, you still know your kids best. Be honest, do they really love it? Or do they love it because they think you really love it? Forced participation can not only hurt the self esteem of your child, it can make them resent you.
Every parent's goal is a happy well-rounded kid. If pushing your child to excel is working and you are blessed with an elite athlete, then go for it. But for the rest of us, let your kids lead their way to happiness by providing opportunities for a variety of activities and experiences.
Be a fan and cheerleader on the sidelines, with front row tickets to the best game in town.
Until next time. . . .
"Santa's dead??"
Dearest Santa,
I know you are reading this letter at your busiest time, and for that I do apologize. Having paid my dues in Christmas retail, I always hated the shoppers who ran into the store at closing time, but I do need to talk to you about this Christmas, and my four children.
Our youngest is only 19 months, so he is blissfully unaware of your magic, and also unaware of the unrest and suspicions swirling around our house.
I am not sure if your Scout elves, Gabriel and Elizabeth, who, of course, witnessed the entire interrogation, were able to fill you in on my Christmas Dilemma, but here's the skinny (sorry Santa – bad pun).
The three older kids surrounded me last week and demanded to know if I was Santa. Isn't that hilarious?
"You always want us to tell the truth Dad, so tell us, are you Santa?"
The question, straight from left field, hung in the air like a drunk uncle's B.O. at a crowded family gathering.
Inside, I was shocked, surprised, and a little sad at the question (I thought we had more time, another year at least).
Overtly, I winced, sighed, and stammered. I thought about playing the "Santa comes to those who believe" card, or the more effective "Santa-Soup-Nazi-card" – "No Believe in Santa? No Santa for you!"
Instead, I turned the tables and asked why they might think I was Santa.
Their flimsy arguments revolved around three key points –
Logistics, China, and spatial load constraints
How could Santa get to EVERY house in the world, all in one night?
Why were you outsourcing your North Pole toy manufacturing factories to China? (where they discovered our Elf on the Shelf was made).
How could your ONE sleigh hold all of those toys for the four billion children of the world?
I marvelled at their wit, logic, and common sense, but then I realized the even bigger gift: My egocentric children were finally realizing that there are others in their world? How exciting. It's a Christmas miracle!
Santa, I love you, and I love the magic of Christmas. It is hardest for my oldest boy, who, in the same week as this Santa inquiry, also learned at school about periods, menstruation, and tampons (he then polled every women in his life on whether they were wearing a pad at that moment).
Straddling these two worlds of Santa and impending puberty is tough, so how can we keep the innocence and magic alive as long as possible? I am sure you have encountered this before in your 1600+ years, so I am open to your suggestions, and look forward to your crafty ideas.
Thanks for listening, and enjoy Mexico in January. Don't forget the 50+ SPF sunscreen.
Lots of love, big guy,
PS Feel free to keep my wife on the naughty list.
Until next time, Merry Christmas to all, and to all a safe and happy holiday with family!
People, not things
Facebook can waste a ton of your valuable time with Cat Fail videos, but every once in a blue moon, a gem will cross a "newsfeed". Last week, the final thoughts of a rich man shook me to my core. The alleged final words were exactly what I have been preaching to my kids: "People, not things." The man had, in his life, achieved the epitome of success, but in the end, his non-stop pursuit of wealth and 'things' left him feeling bankrupt in some key relationships.
Mansions, Lamborghinis, and yachts are great but if you treat people around you poorly, or don't have friendships or a family with whom to share life, then your life can be seen as very poor.
Prosperous people are ones who are rich in relationships and authenticity. So sad are the millionaires who die alone.
My kids have developed a genuine fixation with 'things'. iPods, phones, the latest Nerf guns, newest 'rare' Shopkins, Xboxes, and so on. Before any eye rolls, I do realize this preoccupation with the latest things is normal, and kids have always been this way (and marketed to this way).
However, I become furious when dinner table talk is focused solely on things, and the insatiable need to have more. Yesterday, we stumbled on the question of what we'd do if our house was burning down. I told the kids that if it ever happened, I would make sure everyone was out, and then would sit and watch.
Kids in chorus: "But what about your hockey cards Dad? Your computer? Dr. Seuss collection? Your CDs?"
Me: "What about them?"
Kids in shock: "Wouldn't you be sad to lose all your stuff?"
Me: "Sure I would be sad, but it's just stuff. It can be replaced, but you can't be replaced!"
I'm certain most parents, at some point, have had similar conversations. In desperate attempts to get our children to start thinking of other people not things, we have had Food Bank and SPCA inspired birthday parties in which party invitees are encouraged to bring a gift for the cause NOT toys. These parties have been briefly successful in shifting focus (and the last thing this house needs is 20 more plastic disposable toys), but dropping in to the food bank or soup kitchen once a year is not enough to make permanent change.
As Christmas rolls around, I find myself struggling and raging against the commercialized Christmas machine. In previous years, we have taken the UNICEF catalogue and funded goats, shelters, and other necessities for faraway villages, but to what avail? Kids still whine for more junk, which causes my Scrooge meter to skyrocket.
Society is fascinated with money and wealth, and material things will always be a part of our lives, these are basic facts. But as a parent, I need to tip the scale back to the people side. One dad told me he is careful what he highlights to kids on a drive around their neighbourhood. Rather than pointing out big mansions and expensive cars, he looks for kids playing, or better yet, generations of families playing together.
I am now telling my kids, "Put down your iPod. The only screen time and Facetime I want you to have is your face at your friend's screen door, knocking and asking them to come out and play!"
Deathbed heartaches and regrets should not be a reality for anyone. What can we/society do to help our children and teens realize that people, love, and relationships make you happy, not things?
I would love your ideas. I know there are many families winning the "People vs. Things" battle. How do you do it? Please let me know – [email protected]
Until next time. . . .
More The Dad Vibe articles
Previous Stories
- Your wife hates this Nov 27
- Just say no! Oct 30
- But . . . who comes first? Oct 16
- Gay black female president Oct 2
- Crank up the step-dad love! Jun 19
- Baby, beggar and a left turn Jun 5
- 'Mommy's house is better' May 22
- These Dads get it! May 8
- Naked in front of kids? Apr 24
- Spousal resentment meter Apr 10
- '50 Shades of You' Mar 13
- How to raise a kid no one likes Feb 13


text:
The thefts occurred around 10 p.m. July 25 in the 300 block of Truxtun.
The man captured on video taking the cameras had numerous tattoos, including the word "Death" on one of his hands, police said Monday.
Anyone with information helpful to the investigation is asked to call Detective A. Menendez at 326-3947.


text:
Heinrich Burgers
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Heinrich Bürgers was born in Germany in 1820. He became a journalist and an editor of the Neue Rheinische Zeitung He became a member of the Communist League and, in 1850, he became a member of the League's Central Authority. For his participation in the 1848-1849 uprising, Bürgers became one of the defendants in the Cologne communist trial in Cologne, Germany in 1852. Bürgers died in 1878.[1]
- ^ Biographical note contained in the Collected Works of Karl Marx and Frederick Engels: Volume 38 (International Publishers: New York, 1982) p. 648.
|This German biographical article is a stub. You can help Wikipedia by expanding it.


text:
Diyarbakir overview
More information about Diyarbakir
- The famous Ziya Gökalp's Museum House and the Archaeology Museum are located in the city centre.
- Diyarbakır is a holiday destination filled with character, soul and energy perfect for a family break.
- Do not leave the city without tasting some of the famous dishes of Diyarbakir;grilled meat, sac tava and dolmasi.
- Spring and autumn are the best time of the year to visit the city and discover the Turkish culture in a warm climate.


text:
Mobile app sales forecast to reach $27 billion this year
ABI Research says Apple and Android are the clear leaders, but in a growing market opportunity remains for other platforms.
4G pricing competitive in Hong Kong, Norway and the US
According to ABI Research, the world's cheapest 4G data plan is currently on offer by CSL Hong Kong.
Most Commented


text: [[quoteright:200:http://static.tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pub/images/Mr_B_The_Gentleman_Rhymer-1-200-200-85-nocrop1_6070.jpg]]Mr. B The Gentleman Rhymer (real name Jim Burke) is a parodist who is one of the pioneers of Chap Hop — HipHop delivered in a Received Pronunciation accent. Mr. B raps, or "rhymes", about high society, pipe smoking and UsefulNotes/{{cricket}} while playing the banjolele. His appearance is that of a dapper chap from the 1920's, complete with period mustache and pipe. He has become quite popular in the SteamPunk community with his parody of Music/{{NWA}}'s ''Music/StraightOuttaCompton'' called "[[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bj7J7vXCf5w Straight Out Of Surrey]]."----!!Tropes he displays:* AllMenArePerverts: Yup, even the upper-class Mr B is no exception, if "More Kissing in Porn Please, We're British", "A Thoroughly Modern Breakup" or "You Just Can't" are any indication.* ArchEnemy: Was in a feud (of sorts) with fellow chap-hop artist ProfessorElemental, which gained them both [[http://www.cracked.com/blog/5-music-videos-that-justify-existence-internet_p2/ international recognition]]. They have since guest-starred in each other's videos, peformed live together and recorded "The Duel" together for Elemental's latest album "Father Of Invention", which begins as a [[BattleRapping Rap Battle]] and ends with them praising each other.* AffectionateParody: Most of Mr. B's songs, most notably "Straight Out Of Surrey" and "Chap-Hop History."* DashinglyDapperDerby: Mr. B often wears one.* DistinguishedGentlemansPipe* HipHop* IAmVeryBritish: Given the genre, it's a given.* NiceHat: Mr. B always sports a nice hat, be it a newsboy cap, bowler, boater or trilby.* ProtestSong: Mr. B complains about not being able to light up his pipe in a pub in "Let Me Smoke My Pipe!"* QuintessentialBritishGentleman* SharpDressedMan* SmokingIsCool: Pipe Smoking Is Cool, to be precise.* SophisticatedAsHell: The subject matter of his raps sometimes makes him come off as this (e.g. "Oh, Santa" or "A Thoroughly Modern Breakup").* SpotOfTea: In the video for his song, "Mr. B's World Cup Song," Mr. B escapes some kidnappers by enticing them into having a cup of tea with him (and later a game of cricket).* StiffUpperLip* TakeThat:** "Whatever Happened To Timothy?" is a TakeThat at [[Creator/TheBBC Radio 1]] DJ Tim Westwood, mocking him for his PrettyFlyForAWhiteGuy persona.-->Whatever happened to Timothy?\\I was at [[BoardingSchool prep]] with him, you see.\\He was a wiz with a cricket bat,\\But he never used to talk like that.** "Hip-hop Was To Blame After All" is a TakeThat to the Hip-hop music industry. It starts out sounding like an indictment of hip-hop in general...-->Hip-hop decided to homogenize itself\\And place itself in violence and wealth.\\Hip-hop decided to pick up its lowest traits\\And sell them to the public over everything that's great.\\Hip-hop decided that misogyny and greed\\Would be the sort of thing that America would need.*** But later in the song, sarcastically:-->So hip-hop was to blame after all\\I thought I'd say it as no one else has the gall\\Yes, it's all hip-hop's fault, you see,\\[[OldMediaAreEvil Not the]] [[MegaCorp three companies]] [[DoNotAdjustYourSet who decide what you hear and see.]]----