The Constitution Line By Line: Article I, Section 2

Article I Section 2 of The Constitution is the focus of Episode 2 of The Constitution Line By Line with U.S. Senator Mike Lee. The Senator explains the qualifications of Members and the design of the U.S. House of Representatives as the most democratically responsive of our federal institutions. Short House terms and constant elections are highlighted, and the Senator reflects on the importance of the amendment process which later revoked the original language of Article I, Section 2, Clause 3.
The Article I Initiative remains dedicated to discussion and debate to better appreciate the role of Congress and its rightful place in the Constitutional order. To learn more about the Article I Initiative, visit fedsoc.org/articlei.
Thanks to Free the People for partnering with us on this series. To learn more about Free the People, visit freethepeople.org.
Subscribe to the Article I playlist:
• Article I Initiative
* * * * *
As always, the Federalist Society takes no position on particular legal or public policy issues; all expressions of opinion are those of the speaker.
Differing Views:
Should House members serve four-year terms?
thehill.com/blogs/floor-actio...
Throw the bums two more years
www.economist.com/democracy-i...

[@walelegnewassie1263]

Thank You Senator

[@johnconn3054]

Thanks for sharing

[@yurielastillero506]

''A people's house that is reflective of the popular sovereignty in assuring that representation and taxation should be compatible with each other for the purpose of serving the people.''

[@PRINCEYEAKEHSON01]

Every clause in the original constitution was not a mistake. The constitution was written to certify both Federalist and Anti-Federalist at the Constitutional Convention in 1787. There was a Virginia Plan ( large States) and the New Jersey Plan (Small States). Both were divided on representation in congress. The Three- Fifth Clause was introduced to satisfy the Small States ( who had then considered enslaved persons as property and not legal persons but later wanted them considered as humans to vote to satisfy the Southern States alter ego for representation in Congress). So the Constitution was written to incorporate all the States so a Federal Government was established. The main language is "compromise." James Madison, John Jay and Alexander Hamilton produced 85 Federalist Papers to convince the Anti-Federalist to ratify the constitution. The idea was to form the Federal Government and amend later where issues might surface. So I don't agree with you that any provision in the constitution was a mistake. It was written to certify the prevailing situation then otherwise there would have been no United States of America.

[@djcal623]

preach my brother...way to go by filling in a lot of gaps he just skirted over in his explanation. were nothing more than a compromise as it states in the constitution

[@Hshsuiiien]

Nice

[@SikoraTim]

Is the representative allocation based on on total population or total legal citizen population?

[@tommysowelljr9466]

total population

[@Amokra]

the original meaning of the 3/5 clause was to handle that idea of non "legal" citizens and keep the "slave" states from gaining to much control. now illegal aliens (immigrants) would count as the 3/5 clause if it still existed which would affect the new "slave" states.

[@donaldbiden1920]

@@Amokra It doesn't say anything about "legal" citizens, or even citizens period, it makes the distinction between free, including indentured servants, i.e. people contractually bound to be slaves for a limited period of time, indians, who are their own country outside the us constitutional system and thus not counted because they aren't subject to taxation, and everyone else, i.e. slaves. The idea of "illegal" immigrants is a modern invention and isn't based on anything in the constitution, everyone who wrote the constitution was from a family of recent "illegal" immigrants and they would have found the whole idea of illegal immigration absurd on its face. By definition anyone who chose to come here was an american, otherwise you were a citizen of some other country

[@donaldbiden1920]

The constitution doesn't make any distinction other than free, indians, and everyone else. The idea of illegal immigrants is a modern concoction of anti immigrant xenophobes and politicians who find it expedient to have an "other" to use as a scapegoat to curry favor among their gullible and often racist constituents.

[@Amokra]

@@donaldbiden1920 that is why I put it in quotes now those that are not here legally tend to be used as slaves. I do get what you are saying (though I do think Indians and servants were counted as 3/5) I was more comparing modern concepts to what the founders meant. I also think if you were to count them those with "cards" and illegals should count as 3/5 (may cut CA by a third again :). Also ne of my friends talked about when she lived in New Mexico that the illegal immigrants were being used in the farms because of how hot it was and I thought (didn't say) that sounds like the old cotton fields. In other states they are used in sweat (heat again) shops.

[@danielclayton]

If slaves became "free persons" then why would language need to be amended. It would become irrelevant on its own because there wouldn't be "other persons" outside of free persons.

[@Amokra]

the original meaning of the 3/5 clause was to handle that idea of non "legal" citizens and keep the "slave" states from gaining to much control. now illegal aliens (immigrants) would count as the 3/5 clause if it still existed which would affect the new "slave" states.

[@walelegnewassie1263]

From Ethiopia

[@donaldbiden1920]

Why didn't he show clause 5 for viewers to read?

[@violatierwillbeprosecuted3392]

Interpretation can skew anything especially with coloqualism and language changes in the mix Read any book from 1812 you will not recognise or interpret it as English spoken today!

[@donaldbiden1920]

That's absurd, english hasn't changed that much, go read any pamphlet by Thomas Paine to see how nonsensical your comment is. What book are you referring to?

[@violatierwillbeprosecuted3392]

@@donaldbiden1920 Your Mama

[@rothsuede]

Propaganda film