House of Representatives

On occasion as I have mentioned before I will step away from local politics. Sorry folks this is one of those times.

Being election season, the talk of a bailout, and the utter division that is ripping this Country apart, I was talking with a friend and as we talked decided I wanted to review what our founding fathers decided on the House of Representatives. So on to Wikipedia I went for a start. Fascinating I must admit.

The only constitutional rule relating to the size of the House says: "The Number of Representatives shall not exceed one for every thirty Thousand."[2] Congress has regularly increased the size of the House to account for population growth; but Congress fixed the number of voting House members at 435 in 1911[1] The number was temporarily increased to 437 in 1959 upon the admission of Alaska and Hawaii (seating one representative from each of those states without changing existing apportionment), and returned to 435 four years later, after the reapportionment consequent to the 1960 census.

Now I am no mathematician admittedly, however, I do find that at a time when our Country had approximately 3.9 million people the Constitutional rule allowed that the number of reps SHALL NOT EXCEED 1 per 30,000 people. SO if we appropriate growth of citizenry and follow this rule our House could just as easily have over 10,000 reps today based on approximately 300 million people. Don't you just wonder what happened to NOT EXCEEDING 1 per 30,000. Where was the Constitutional amendment at that allows for what we have today.

Kind of makes you wonder just how much representation we get doesn't it? Today our elected Representatives actually average over 689,000 per Rep.

Congress has regularly increased the size of the House to account for population growth; but Congress fixed the number of voting House members at 435 in 1911[1] Based on our Founding Fathers design did Congress have the right to limit the House to 435 without approval by the voters? What happened over the last almost 100 years did the population stop growing?

Of course not and yet we keep adding to the number of people each Representative serves.

It really isn't hard to see why our voice doesn't get heard as much as we need it to does it? It is also easy to see why those with the bucks get to be heard. When you represent so many people you cannot possibly listen to them all so you go with who can help you keep your job.

Throw in the fact that our House is elected to 2 year unlimited terms, and they spend half of that campaigning for reelection, makes you wonder just how effective can the House be.

For myself, one way to offset the lack of representation and also enhance oversight is to amend the Constitution to allow an elected Rep to serve 4 year terms and set term limits at the House (and Senate) to 2 consecutive terms not to exceed 16 years total. Many have argued with me that it takes so much time to build up tenure to really be able to get the pork dollars back to the community that we have come to expect from our Reps that it would hurt us.

Nonsense. Think about how hard it would be for special interests and lobbyists to buy politicians when they are in their second term and a lame duck. Wonder how much actual legislation would get done. Would pork really be necessary? Without pork how much of our money would need to go to taxes? Would we not benefit from less taxes per person? Would you like having more of your own money to decide how to spend?

Personally I think most would say yes.

Perhaps we should increase the number of Reps in the House to a lower per person average say 1 for every 100,000 people. That certainly would give us better representation wouldn't it? If you increase the number of Representatives and put term limits on all, with NO automatic one term and out great retirement plan, perhaps we could get more people doing the job honestly and less worrying about how to keep their job.

Here is another interesting fact most do not know:

Article I, Section 2 of the Constitution sets forth three qualifications for representatives: each representative must be at least twenty-five years old, must have been a citizen of the United States for the past seven years, and must be (at the time of the election) an inhabitant of the state they represent. In Powell v. McCormack, the Supreme Court held that the constitutional requirements of Article I, Section 2 for election to Congress are the maximum requirements that can be imposed on a candidate. Therefore, Article I, Section 5, which permits each House to be the judge of the qualifications of its own members does not permit either House to establish additional qualifications.

Why would you not have to live in the District you represent. Shouldn't our Representatives have first hand knowledge of the area and people they represent?

Our founders believed in We The People and allowed for us to be represented fairly by people who knew us where we lived, knew what we wanted, and would do the job to the best of their ability based on a smaller number of people per Rep to speak for.

Seems it is a lot easier to buy 435 Representatives by the lobby and special money interest than it would be 10,000. It also is a lot easier to buy a career politician than one who is a sitting duck after 8 years. Either move up or move out I say. We do not need career politicians any longer. Look at where we are today because of them.

We need fresh faces and new ideas. Today the world moves at a faster pace than it did 100 years ago and we need people who can recognize that from living in it not those who have lived in the bubble sheltered world of Washington politics for many years.

And we wonder why so many things get passed without our approval.

Do we want leadership that reflects us or leadership that reflects the money that buys them off.

Your thoughts?