Interesting linguist turns. It says that the shall not exceed one for
every 30K, then the comma, then the but (indicating an upcoming
transition) and THEN the each state. The comma and the but both indicate
a different clause and different thought. It reads basically that no
state (including those with less than 30,000 people) will have less than
one rep. The rest have to be apportioned so that they no more than
represent 30K voters.
Actually one is generally looked at as a minimum in most areas of
law, accounting, politics, physics, etc.
Same thing, different wording, after the original wording. Either
way says specifically one rep or every 30,000 with a minimum of one per
state. Sets maximums first one per 30K, then minimum of at least one per
It doesn't say that. It says you can't have more than one rep per 30K
voters, it does NOT say that you can't have more than 30K voters per
Then it's not the same thing. The OP implied that one per 30K is a minimum.
You say (correctly) that one per 30K is a maximum. You can't have two per
30K, but you can have one per 100,000.
With one per 100K, "The Number of Representatives" does "not exceed one
for every thirty Thousand".
If you really believe carbon dioxide causes global warming,
you should stop exhaling.
True dat. So why are voters dumb? Maybe it's because public
schools are not teaching civics anymore. But we will teach
Islamic studies. How about American studies? The founding
fathers were not racist pigs, they were truly brilliant men
with a vision for a nation that had never been conceived before.
Anyone that takes the time to study their work will be duly
impressed and gain an understanding of why America is great
and why it is worth defending.
But that would not advance the socialist agenda, stupid me.
YEp yep if you think that Daniel Moynihan is bad
how about this Major that NYC have he would like
charge all who visit city below 86th. street $ 8.00 fee
and truckers $ 26.00. what truckers should do make surcharge
for any delivery $300.00 under 1 ton and $500.00 over 1-5,
5 ton and up $1000.00 no exceptions then let him dance jig
London, England has had this type of thing for some time now. They want
about $14/day. Since introducing the fee, private traffic has dropped
nearly 40 percent, cyclists have nearly doubled and bus passengers have
increased 50 percent.
Interestingly enough, the American ambassador who took his post in July
205 refused to pay the fees. Including fines, the embassy owes around a
That's what happens when there ought to be law types get in charge. The
damned socialists have taken over England and are starting here with
their traffic cameras, in the name of safety. It's all bull sh--. It's
about the money.
Heck works well with Immigration (G&D&R). Studies show that those
areas with the most Draconian personal gun laws also have the highest
rates of gun-related violence. Of course, no one has yet answered my
questions about the other relationship, which is that they tend to be
big cities. More target-rich environments that many areas in Utah,
I don't know all the laws in this country but it seems to me that Cities
that have laws making it illegal even to own the weapon of any kind
has most killing and largest crime and as I said I don't know all
the laws and rules but it sure don't make any sense to me
HomeOwnersHub.com is a website for homeowners and building and maintenance pros. It is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here.
All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.