The Undiscovered "Article of Amendment" from the Bill of Rights - your legacy restored?

"Article the First", and the effort to preserve YOUR Constitution by the
"Democratic-Republican" Party

It would seem that we have been completely blacked out of the news. The discovery that Article the First was, in fact, ratified, brings change, and an opportunity, to the Congress.

The parties in power, and the power behind them, are not going to like this.

The institutional resistance may even rise to the level of physical violence and
financial coercion. I anticipate that even a win in the Third Circuit Court of
Appeals will not be the end of this story. 


What saddens me is that the individuals charged with thwarting this aspect of
our Constitution have, themselves, taken a solemn oath to uphold this very same
document, and the rights reserved within it. If they will break faith
"just following orders" on an issue such as this, what is to stop them from objecting to or trampling on our inalienable rights.

Our attorney general's office is already under scrutiny over "fast and
furious". Whether the accusations are true or not, it is a symptom of a
larger cancer, partisan politics.

We read about "Democratic victory" in the House, or "Republican
dominance" defeating a Bill in the Senate. I can't tell you who will win
the Presidential race, but, if the "divide and conquer" philosophy of
the lobbyists, distracting us from the real issues, is allowed to continue, I
can assuredly predict the loser in November.

We, the People.

Frederick Douglass wrote, 150 years ago, the following:

"What on earth is the matter with the American Government and people? Do they really covet the world's ridicule as well as their own social and political ruin?

What are they thinking about, or don't they condescend to think at all? So, indeed, it would seem from their blindness in dealing with the tremendous issue now upon them. Was there ever anything like it before?

The National edifice is on fire. Every man who can carry a bucket of water, or remove a brick, is wanted; but those who have the care of the building, having a profound respect for the feeling of the national burglars who set the building on fire, are determined that the flames shall only be extinguished by Indo-Caucasian hands, and to have the building burnt rather than save it by means of any other. Such is the pride, the stupid prejudice and folly that rules the hour."

Today, the issue is not the slavery of the negro...it is the enslavement of the
majority of the American People. If you are not beholden to the two-party
system, and their supporting K-Street bandits, you need not apply.

All we once aspired to has been robbed from us, and from future generations -
signed, sealed, and delivered into the hands of our enemies by the very
officials we appointed the guardians of our rights.

Article the First, correctly read as voted in the House and Senate, - not the diluted and crippled version passed in the engrossed "copies" - results in
apportionment of the Congress in incremental districts not to exceed 50,000
persons.

Today, based on the 2010 census, we would be seating, depending on the
fractional number argument, between 6174 and 6189 members of Congress this
Fall. Those numbers would change the construction of the Electoral College,
and, in this close race, potentially could change the outcome of the election
of our Chief Executive.

Such a change has been proposed as "absurd" by the Attorney General's office, and I am inclined to agree - but not with the Attorneys General. I believe that a change in the House of 9.7%, exactly in keeping with the increase in our population, would be right action to be taken, and that the fact that we must now increase the size from 435 (yes, I know, 438, but I refer only to the "voting" members of the House) to 6189, rather than from the 5600 we were supposed to have following the 2000 Census, is, indeed, absurd.

Because Article the First IS a part of the Constitution, it frankly doesn't
matter what I might prefer, or what the entrenched office-holders would prefer.
Each of us is compelled to hold the Constitution sacred, and to defend it AS IT
IS, not as we "might like it to be".

It is not that we "may", "might", or "should" adhere to this article, and apportion "the People's House" accordingly - we MUST.

Allow me to illustrate certain advantages derived from such a change -
advantages belonging to the PEOPLE...

1.) A Fair and Equal Apportionment, to approximate the ideal of "one man -
one vote", the basis of our "popular" government.

2.) A sudden removal of the seniority of entrenched "career" politicians,
beholden to the lobbyists and special interests for years...as the whole of the
present 435 would only represent 7.02% of the "Committee of the
Whole".

("They" would argue that their experience is needed. We've "experienced"
their "experience"...I've had enough - have you?)

3.) Division of labor on examination of the many issues facing our government, with more input, and a better reliance on the judgment of those not beholden to
special interests. These are but three of the many reasons why a more
proportional government will result in better service...and I do say "service", because Congress is not meant to RULE, they are meant to SERVE.

Some would consider a Congress of 6000 unwieldy...I contend that, in this day
and age, such a position is an utter falsehood. By parsing into large committees devoted to specific "families" of issues, a greater efficiency can be arrived at.

Other than ceremonially meeting as a body a few times per session,
Representatives would better serve their respective districts by actually being
available IN their district.

None of these reasons or arguments are sufficient, however.

Adherence to our Constitution is.

I am on your ballot in the Third Congressional District for the seat in Congress.
However, the major parties have so far effectively blocked our use of our party
name, and kept this amazing TRUE story out of the news. This case will next be
heard by the U.S. Supreme Court, but not until after the election.

Take a hard look at the purported two "major" party choices...are you
satisfied with either? Me, neither - that's why I'm running. I wear no party
handcuffs - the "Democratic-Republican" Party is devoted to the
preservation of States' and Individual Rights, with our Constitution to serve
as a bit in the mouth of Congress, twitched at the polls as necessary.

If you're tired of a two-horse race where the same stables "owns" both
horses, you do have another choice.

We are running candidates in this district for the Senate, the House of Representatives, and four Freeholders, as well - two in Burlington, and two in Ocean Counties.

Feel free to reach out to us to learn more.

Frederick John LaVergne, "Democratic-Republican" for Congress

New Jersey's Third Congressional District, 2012

"Stand for what's right, or settle for what's left" - FJL