Increase the # of congressman?

I am all for your proposal provided that I get to be one of the new Congressmen.

 

No way. We don't need to increase our spending.

 

The salary is only a small portion of the overall cost. We'd have to construct new facilities to house the Congressional offices, and we'd have to pay to run those offices.

 

No thanks, we got enough spending going on now. And there is no way they will go for a decrease in salary.

 

We need a smaller ratio. As far as the cost is concerned, take one of these bases in the Washington area for their offices and house them and their families in base housing, just like the units they voted to keep our armed forces housed in. Then for health care, scrap their present system, and give them cards to get into the VA system, the same system they voted to take care of our veterans with. The cost would be minimal.

 

Sounds good to me!

 

I would agree with your thesis, but there's no way in Alabama this could work. Govt spending would escalate. Districts would be gerrymandered to the hilt. It would just be another futile exercise.

Would to God we had the citizen congress the framers intended.

 

I don't like the idea. Then we'll be paying more people to get nothing done!

I think we ought to put the ones we have on commission - they get a % of the waste they cut.

 

The "original Constitution" (whatever that pejorative slam is supposed to mean)

does not say this.

Ed

 

Well, if one wants to get nitpicky, it actually says "the number of Representatives shall not exceed one for every thirty thousand..."

There would be benefits to increasing the number of reps, but there would also be increased problems. Think of Congress as a gang. One who first enters as an "innocent" will not typically remain that way long. There are, of course, exceptions to the rule, but it is true for the most part. If you increase the number to 500, you will just have 65 extra people with new ideas on how to spend your money.

We could just eliminate Congress altogether. All the real power seems to lie with the President and the Supreme Court anyway.

 

As long as they are sensible. In Arkansas, we have very strict term limits, so every session ends up being on the job training.

 

I could (and would) support increasing the number of Senators by 2, and the number of Representatives by 10, to 445, if it were done by a combination of the normal process for the admission of a state, and a Constitutional Amendment, or two, if needed.

The state to be admitted would be the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico. By current population, as a state, PR would have 5 (I believe, but it possibly could be 6) Representatives. Those added to the current 435 would increase that number to 440 (or 441).

By Constitutional Amendment, I would favor (and support) a "mini-state" status, with full House of Representative membership, for the organized territories of American Samoa, Guam, and the Virgin Islands, the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, and the District of Columbia. Added to the new 440 member figure of the House of Representatives, we arrive at the new number of 445 Representatives.

This now would give an "Electoral College" total of 549 - (102 Senators, 445 Representatives, and the additional two of three electoral votes granted the District of Columbia by Amendment XXIII to the US Constitution) with 275 votes necessary for the election of the President and Vice-President of the United States.

Inclusive with this, would have to be a provision that would grant full citizenship to the population of American Samoa, as well, by law. It is far beyond time, IMO, that we have one classe of American citizens with full citizenship privileges (the residents of the 50 states) other classes of American citizens with varying sub-classes, with varying privileges, in varying orders and categories, the residents of D.C., Puerto Rico, Guam, the Virgin Islands, and the Northern Mariana Islands, and a third class of non-citizen "American Nationals" in American Samoa.

This all together, I would definitely support, and full citizenship for the American Samoa residents in any case.

Ed

 

Bro. James Reed is the one correct, here. It says "shall not exceed one for every 30,000"!

However, contrary to what he posted, I don't consider that to be "nit-picky".

That idea of 30,000 does hold a bit of intrigue, however. Just think about a Congress of 10,000 members. By the time that number finished arguing and posturing, they would have far less time in which to drum up and enact legislation that would take away more of our freedoms.

And the noise of 10,000 politicians all wanting to be heard at the same, might even reach the level of six Baptists, all arging among themselves, at the same time. :laugh:



Ed

 

We already HAVE term limits! :BangHead:

It's called an "Election", for those who failed to receive a passing grade, in "civics" class, when they were in school!

And if I recall correctly, the people of two different Congressional districts in your home state of New York, imposed "term limits" on two Members of Congress in the Election of November 2006, while your neighboring states of Connecticut and Pennsylvania did the same to the tune of 4 in PA, and 2 In CT, as well. ,in other states, my own state of KY did the same in the 3rd. District, and our neighboring state of IN, in the 8th District, did so for the 7th time since 1958. (Now that's REAL "term limits"!) The 9th District of IN, had previously imposed a three term limit on its Congressman in 2004, but in 2006, decided that it had made a collective mistake, and imposed a one-term limit on the new incumbent, and returned the previous office holder back to Congress. BTW, KY imposed a one-term limit on our previous Governor, just a month ago, as well.

(Language Cop says He will help anyone with the spelling of the word "election", if needed.)

There is no such thing as a legislator or governor or President who is (or can be) appointed in any way for anything beyond a partial term under certain circumstances. That is why they call them "elected" officials.

ANd if "WE, the People" choose to send some undeserving individual or individuals back for one or more additional term(s), why should we ask that this responsibility be "pre-emptively" removed from us, to start with?

Take a lesson from the 8th and 9th Districts in Indiana. They have shown us exactly how it should be done!

Ed