PDA

View Full Version : Honey, I Shrunk the Congress!



patriot45
07-15-2008, 10:08 AM
Whoo boy, Chuck Norris is getting mad! Seems he has a book out now too.

This article makes too much sense, it'll never happen.

Read the rest here,
Chuck Norris destroyed the periodic table, because he only recognizes the element of suprise! (http://www.townhall.com/Columnists/ChuckNorris/2008/07/15/honey,_i_shrunk_the_congress!)


I think it's time to let Congress feel our election fury this November. As reflected in the latest Rasmussen Reports, "Just 9 percent (of Americans) say Congress is doing a good or excellent job." It is the first single-digit approval rating for Congress in Rasmussen's history, and it makes Bush's 30 percent approval rating seem like a stat to boast. The study went on to explain: "Just 12 percent of voters think Congress has passed any legislation to improve life in this country over the past six months. That number has ranged from 11 percent to 13 percent throughout 2008."

Even The Associated Press reported last week, in the story "Congress mostly going through the motions for now," that "some fights of the 110th Congress have lost their oomph in the waning months before the November elections, with both parties content to run out the clock on messy matters."

If members of Congress are not relevant or improving Americans' lives, why do we elect and re-elect them into office?!

If you ever have heard the saying "too many cooks in the kitchen," then you know how I feel about Congress. We have more representatives than we need and even many more than the Constitution requires. What many might not realize is that there is nothing ultimately sacred about the present number of people we have in the House of Representatives. Actually, the proper number of representatives from each state has been debated since our Founders' time. The Constitution endeavors to assure fairness and equity by requiring each state to have at least one representative, two senators and representation in the Electoral College. (At the other extreme, it states, "The number of Representatives shall not exceed one for every thirty Thousand.") So why not go with the fewest number allowed? It seems to me that in our day, in both House and Senate, fewer representatives by area would be more reasonable and effective than more representatives by population.

The current numbers in the House are stacked in discriminatory ways. For example, California has a large liberal voice with its 53 representatives. How fair is that for smaller, more conservative states that have between one and five representatives in the House? I believe just as we have one governor per state, we should consider reducing Congress to one representative and two senators per state (the minimum the Constitution requires). If one representative works for Alaska, Delaware, Montana, North Dakota, South Dakota, Vermont and Wyoming, why can't it work for the rest of the states? Here's a movie we all can star in: "Honey, I Shrunk the Congress!"

I agree with the rationale of James Madison, a member of the Continental Congress and our fourth president, who advocated keeping the number of representatives within limits:

"Nothing can be more fallacious, than to found our political calculations on arithmetical principles. Sixty or seventy men, may be more properly trusted with a given degree of power, than six or seven. But it does not follow, that six or seven hundred would be proportionally a better depositary. And if we carry on the supposition to six or seven thousand, the whole reasoning ought to be reversed."

Cold Warrior
07-15-2008, 10:33 AM
The current numbers in the House are stacked in discriminatory ways. For example, California has a large liberal voice with its 53 representatives. How fair is that for smaller, more conservative states that have between one and five representatives in the House? I believe just as we have one governor per state, we should consider reducing Congress to one representative and two senators per state (the minimum the Constitution requires). If one representative works for Alaska, Delaware, Montana, North Dakota, South Dakota, Vermont and Wyoming, why can't it work for the rest of the states? Here's a movie we all can star in: "Honey, I Shrunk the Congress!"

If we make the House identical in representation to the Senate, i.e., a fixed number of representatives per state, why would we need a House at all?

dixierat
07-15-2008, 12:27 PM
If we make the House identical in representation to the Senate, i.e., a fixed number of representatives per state, why would we need a House at all?

The original intent was that the House would represent the People, while the Senate would represent the State governments. The 17th Amendment ratified in 1913, changed that to make thew Senate popularly elected. This had the effect of removing the voice of the State governments from the Federal government.

Prior to 1913, the Senators were elected by the legislature of the respective States.

Since the House generates all spending bills, the Senate would've acted as a balance against them. They could amend or just not pass bills. Now, they're all just little piggies feeding at the trough of thetaxpayers wallets.

:cool:

Elspeth
07-15-2008, 06:41 PM
1913. Around the same time as the Federal Reserve came into being?