democracy is an ad populum

[iNow]

At this point, we won't get freedom and liberty back in this country without violence.

<...>

I’m done entertaining moral busy bodies with the merits of my choices or justifying why freedom of choice should remain a key American value. The tree of liberty should be watered with the blood of traitors this time.

I understand your passion, but profoundly disagree with the conclusion into which it has landed you.

 

You don't change hearts and minds with blades and bullets. You change them by articulating your argument in a way that is reasonable and makes sense... supporting it and addressing challenges to it.

 

Ideas reproduce and cascade when they are powerful. Why not let those ideas be about freedom and not the eternal removal of it from another life form?

[ParanoiA]

I understand your passion, but profoundly disagree with the conclusion into which it has landed you.

 

You don't change hearts and minds with blades and bullets. You change them by articulating your argument in a way that is reasonable and makes sense... supporting it and addressing challenges to it.

 

Ideas reproduce and cascade when they are powerful. Why not let those ideas be about freedom and not the eternal removal of it from another life form?

 

I think you missed the line "I’m done entertaining moral busy bodies...".

 

I'm done changing the hearts and minds of thugs and tyrannts - I'd just rather see blood. In my mind, it's time to start prosecuting those who advocate against my liberty like the tryannts they immitate. I don't give a shit how charged they are with what's "best for me", they are as insulting as a slave owner and deserve to lie with them.

 

I don't have much to offer politics really, sorry. I try to conjure up a coherent post here and there, but mostly I'm ready for it to end. America is home mainly to cowards.

[iNow]

So, in your quest for freedom you are planning to remove it from others. This is not a logically consistent position you are espousing.

[ParanoiA]

So, in your quest for freedom you are planning to remove it from others. This is not a logically consistent position you are espousing.

 

In our quest for freedom we remove it from others as a matter of government design - hell, our nation was born in the blood of that hypocrisy.

 

Every law that protects someone else's freedom is a threat to remove their own. Our prisons are just a fraction of the evidence of the business end of that arrangement. And that's actually logically appropriate for those that violate the freedom of others - to remove their own. By that measure, it's quite consistent. Respect other's rights, or lose your own. Sounds fitting to me, anyway.

 

Care to rethink that statement?

[iNow]

Care to rethink that statement?

 

No, I'm good with what I said and how I said it. You are advocating violence against others and ending their lives. In what more full a way could you possibly remove their freedom from them? There is none.

 

In your quest for freedom, you are espousing taking it from others. I have some issues with that ideology, and see it as internally inconsistent.

[ParanoiA]

No, I'm good with what I said and how I said it. You are advocating violence against others and ending their lives. In what more full a way could you possibly remove their freedom from them? There is none.

 

In your quest for freedom, you are espousing taking it from others. I have some issues with that ideology, and see it as internally inconsistent.

 

Yes, I'm advocating force against others for initiating force against me. No matter how you spin it, it's reactionary, not preemptive.

 

It appears you believe the only choice for a freedom lover is to be a pacifist. I do not agree, and do not accept that as the only "consistent" response to threats against liberty.

 

By your logic, our government is one gigantic experiment in inconsistency. Hell, that may be true, actually...

[DJBruce]

Paranoia, just a quick question. The Deceleration of Independence says:

 

a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

 

Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.

 

With this in mind do you honestly think you have suffered "a long train of abuses and usurpations", and if so would you care to enumerate upon them.

 

I will say that I agree that at times revolution might be the best tool to protect the liberty and freedom of the majority, but I do not feel we have reached the point were that is necessary.

[Sisyphus]

The Deceleration of Independence

 

Interesting typo.

[jackson33]

I don't have much to offer politics really, sorry. I try to conjure up a coherent post here and there, but mostly I'm ready for it to end. America is home mainly to cowards. [/Quote]

 

P; If it means anything to you, IMO you offer more than you realize. There are literally millions of folks out there feeling no LESS frustrated than yourself, especially in the business world or the young folks trying to understand how all that is going on, will in fact complicate their desires and hopes for a future.

 

If you would, try and look at the current political climate, from the angle of the elderly and without question both extremes the political spectrum of their lives. Some have lived through the Great Depression, WWII, the Korean Conflict, the Cold War, Vietnam, which in those times were just as important or influential on the society as anything going on today, in many cases much worse. Historically, I could go through the plights of cultures the American Immigrants, the Native American's problems, or the various religions, have survived.

 

All this and a whole lot more was done without a second 'Civil War' and that war was possibly not necessary. The reason is, as a society we have that right of free speech and now the ability to openly discuss these matters with an even larger audience. So long as the majority of those in the Country, can and do believe in their form of government and most importantly under the laws (by far, they do) the Social Structure will survive.

 

While I may agree, the current Administration has entered the picture and is building on previous programs and policies, that were and are ill advised, our system will correct itself to the satisfaction of the majority. In saying this, your personal picture of an utopian Nation, may not be the actual result, but tolerable in the end.

 

I will say that I agree that at times revolution might be the best tool to protect the liberty and freedom of the majority, but I do not feel we have reached the point were that is necessary.[/Quote]

 

Bruce; Well, I disagree and the revolution is already in progress. It's possible it may result in "Guns and Violence" in some local areas, but the final battles will be fought in the polling booths all across the Country, no less than it has about every 20-40 years (think Jefferson suggested) and will for, what I hope is a very long lasting "American Society".

[rigney]

A mandate(s), regardless of how severe; can always be overturned. While I am no coward, bullet holes are a lot harder to fix than a broken system. You first give the ballor boxes a chance and go from there. Our constitutional framers were very thoughtful in that respect. Quote: Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments LONG ESTABLISHED should not be changed for "LIGHT AND TRANCIENT CAUSES": Unquote. Violence should be the last resort to any civilized disagreement. But, should it come to where there is no compromise, "It's Katy, bar the door".

Edited July 8, 2010 by rigney

[ParanoiA]

With this in mind do you honestly think you have suffered "a long train of abuses and usurpations", and if so would you care to enumerate upon them.

 

Yes I do, sir. And my fellow citizens.

 

1) The egregious confiscation of property through value judgment from one citizen to another. I and my fellow citizens have our property residually removed bit by bit, incrementally and progressively, such that those of us who manage our money and property properly, without need of the people's charity, have our property removed and given to those who have mismanaged their property, their money, the "poor".

 

This cyclic, persistent confiscation of property to usurp the people's charity causes undo, and unearned hardship to those who rightly sacrificed their time, their sweat - a portion of their lives given up, by personal choice and direction, with no chance of reliving that time, to attain their property. To be sure, taking property is taking a portion of one's life and cannot be properly compensated.

 

The rates at which property is confiscated by force improperly reduces movement between classes, violating the design and promise of class ascension and descension based on individual merit. Akin to soft slavery, the damage caused by this abuse is immeasurable, and it's attack on basic human rights unforgiveable.

 

2) The systemic extortion of property and denial of self determination and individual choice by legal architecture to force patronage to state approved corporations and private business, such as the latest healthcare insurance act.

 

To force patronage by the citizenry to the benefit of private enterprise is an unfounded abuse of authority and yet another attack on basic human rights – further threatened by encroaching corporatism repackaged as government intervention, all empowered by the further usurpation of the people’s charity.

 

Government wills itself to be obligated to fund the costs of those who don’t pay for medical services, then uses its own uninvited voluntary imperative to then give itself authorization to restrict the rights of all and force trade against their will – ostensibly due to every citizen’s potential to be a recipient of their charity. This is akin to volunteering to pay for one’s groceries, and then using that charitable decision to authorize forcing one to shop at Safeway, and further to regulate the goods purchased.

 

Further still, such twisted logical operations would well serve the tyrant and despot such that any oppressive law can be imagined and sold, with the proper packaging. The list of abuses from this act rival the outright neglect of national security and dutiful protection of the basic rights of the people – such as individual choice and self determination.

 

3) The theft of state sovereignty by federal funding and judicial manipulations to revise interpretations of the constitution as a flexible document of weasle clauses. By the abuse of General Welfare and Commerce Clause, diverting from 150 years of plain limitation, the federal government has expanded powers well beyond the jurisdiction of the states using interpretive methods that nullify the bulk of the constitution as well the authority of amendments over that of the articles.

 

The 10th amendment clearly limits both aforementioned clauses, yet the federal judiciary changes its collective mind and both clauses instead limit the 10th amendment, and by extension, the people's free choice. To measure this abuse, would be futile. To measure the threat imposed by its existence is to entertain extremes of the tyrannical majority and moral police, self appointed across the nation.

 

 

These are but a sampling of the source of abuses by the federal government, that in turn create pages and pages of enumerated abuses and usurpations that are ignored and dismissed by the central authority and its supporters. While 'good' remains objectively indefinable, supporters of this statist government find no resistance in defining it for all.

 

That one man should be forced to live up to the 'good' defined by another man, at the expense of his own, is reason enough to spill his blood. If they will not be persuaded by the edge of my tongue, they will be by the edge of my blade.

 

 

 

Ok, that's all I can afford to write. It's busy as hell today.

[PhDP]

If they will not be persuaded by the edge of my tongue, they will be by the edge of my blade.

 

What are you doing here then ?

 

It's a science discussion forum, not McVeigh's fanclub. A quick look at your last posts (and your signature) seem to indicate you're done with the "discussion" part, and pretty much everybody here fits in your definition of "tyrant/statist cowards afraid to be free" (I know I am).

 

You certainly have the right to say what you want, but I'm curious about your motives.

[ParanoiA]

I thought it was obvious I was playing around a bit. I don't actually talk like that ya' know.

 

I don't even own a blade. Well, a set of bent up butter knives...that's about it.

 

Sure, I'm governed but I don't consent. All that really means is that once a critical mass of folks stop consenting, at some point we stop being governed by you. You'll have to initiate the force, just like Lincoln.

 

I was specifically asked to enumerate the abuses, so that's what I did. I tried to lighten it up a bit by trying to throw some pretentious style in it, but I guess I failed. Ah well.

Edited July 9, 2010 by ParanoiA

[PhDP]

Fair enough.

 

P.S.: No blades ? Not even a Katana ? You're a softie.

[DJBruce]

Bruce; Well, I disagree and the revolution is already in progress. It's possible it may result in "Guns and Violence" in some local areas, but the final battles will be fought in the polling booths all across the Country, no less than it has about every 20-40 years (think Jefferson suggested) and will for, what I hope is a very long lasting "American Society".

 

I should have probably been more specific. When I stated revolution I meant a full revolutionary war. There were well might be a revolution coming. If there is a major change in our political system I would certainly hope that it does occur at the voters box.

 

You are right Thomas Jefferson actually suggested frequent changes to the constitution. Stating in his June 12, 1816 Letter to Samuel Kercheval:

 

Each generation is as independent as the one preceding, as that was of all which had gone before. It has then, like them, a right to choose for itself the form of government it believes most promotive of its own happiness; consequently, to accommodate to the circumstances in which it finds itself, and received from its predecessors; and it is for the peace and good of mankind, that a solemn opportunity of doing this every nineteen or twenty years, should be provided by the constitution; so that it may be handed on, with periodical repairs, from generation to generation, to the end of time, if anything human can so long endure.

 

Do you think that such frequent changes to the Constitution would prove useful, or do you believe that such frequent change would cause to much instability for the government to endure successfully.

[ParanoiA]

Do you think that such frequent changes to the Constitution would prove useful, or do you believe that such frequent change would cause to much instability for the government to endure successfully.

 

I know you didn't ask me, but this question seems a bit like asking 'is it better to go faster or slower' - gee I don't know, are you running from an axe murderer or taking a sunday drive?

 

I think it depends on what's going on. I truly believe the amendment process was meant to be utilized much, much more than it has been. It takes a major, majority but that is very possible for many issues. Most of my complaints about Judicial activism and the methods the federal level has used to expand itself, would be deflated if the same changes were done with amendments instead of interpretive circumvention.

 

At least then a justifiable argument could be made that the major, majority of americans have spoken. That argument can't be made at all, as only a seasonal simple majority was required to invoke these careful, incremental nudges and manipulations that lead to a legislatively active judiciary that expanded federal power at the expense of state sovereignty and individual choice without a clear signal from the major majority of the governed.

 

So, yes I agree with Jefferson entirely. If the people want to serve fair masters at the expense of their own liberties then let them say so, outright, without ambiguity and opportunistic machinations - let them speak through their states and pass a constitutionally unassailable amendment. As was intended.

[jackson33]

Do you think that such frequent changes to the Constitution would prove useful, or do you believe that such frequent change would cause to much instability for the government to endure successfully.[/Quote]

 

Bruce; As a strict Constitutionalist, I believe in the Sovereignty of the States and the powers delegated to them under the Constitution. I know most people feel this is somehow 'Libertarian', but I also believe the powers authorized to the Federal Government also have meaning.

 

Having said that, anything that would or should change the general meaning of these distinctions, involves the separation of powers or involves any issue not delegated to the Federal, either in the Constitution or a current Amendment, that issue should require it's own amendment. Hundreds have been voted on by Congress over the years and several that have passed Congress (Executive NOT involved) have not been ratified by the States.

 

In explaining the process from the Amendment to Judicial or Legislative powers and State Rights, I like to use the 1926 'Child Labor Amendment', which has NEVER BEEN RATIFIED, yet upheld by virtually each State, both Constitutionally and under Law. In its entirety and the link provides the others including the 1972 'Equal Rights' amendment never ratified;

 

The Child Labor Amendment

 

In 1926, an amendment was proposed which granted Congress the power to regulate the labor of children under the age of 18. This amendment is still outstanding, having been ratified by 28 states. Ratification by 38 states is required to add an amendment. Congressional research shows that the amendment was ratified by 28 states, the last being in 1937.

The text:

 

Section 1. The Congress shall have power to limit, regulate, and prohibit the labor of persons under eighteen years of age.

 

Section 2. The power of the several States is unimpaired by this article except that the operation of State laws shall be suspended to the extent necessary to give effect to legislation enacted by the Congress. [/Quote]

 

http://www.usconstitution.net/constamfail.html

 

Because two-thirds of both houses must pass an amendment, and two-thirds of both houses are required to overturn a presidential veto, the framers may have decided to leave the President out for the sake of brevity. However, since the arguments of the President for the veto could change some minds between the passage vote and the veto vote, it is more likely the Framers just felt that amendments were something best left to the states and the representatives of the states.[/Quote]

 

http://www.usconstitution.net/constnotes.html#Article5

 

To answer your question, it's my belief instability is caused between Governments (Administrations) by the hundreds of thousand PAGES of regulation and Federal Laws to in effect subvert the Amendment process, which could easily have been half page Amendments. During the FDR 13 years, no Amendments were offered (one 1932 Amendment Ratified his first year) and everything he and the then Congress enacted, has been built on by legislation since...

[pioneer]

When the US and constitution first formed, the logistics were such that an election process was the most efficient system. The country became a republic and not a democracy for practical reasons. Everyone could not leave the farm, travel hundreds of miles by horseback, to and from Washington, to voice an opinion. This would be slow, cumbersome and totally inefficient int terms of the national economy. The solution was, local people would discuss things, elect a rep, and he would become the voice of the group.

 

In modern times, we now have the logistics, that the farmers and town's people of 200 years ago did not have. These logistics could allow individuals to participate in the process, much more that via the old fashion election method, without having to leave the farm and/or travel for weeks (so to speak). We have TV, internet, teleconferencing, etc. There is no practical reason why one needs another person to speak for them, especially if there is no penalty for that person if he lies, beyond letting them continue their tenure until another election cycle. A lot of damage can be done.

 

An analogy is having a friend talk to your professor for you about your grades, since you are sick and can't travel. You want him to talk on your behalf, but the circumstances create an opportunity for him. The way the rules go, you can't stop them from saying anything, until a full month is finished. You can't nip him in the bud, but need to wait. He can screw you, since you are handcuffed by the election tenure rules. If one could pull the rug out at any time, this would be better. But it still is not as efficient as your own voice talking to the professor.

 

Since the logistics are there, what I would do is add another branch of government. We could call this the Popular Branch of government; composed of normal people for the people. This branch makes use of the modern information logistics to vote for the social agenda. Instead of a party deciding this, the popular branch does.

 

Just as our elected official needs to go through a tough election process, voting in the popular branch should also require a process before one is allowed to vote for any issue. This assures some training and smart people voting. I like the idea of an objectivity test, which shows one is aware of both sides and is not not just a trained seal. A horse can be trained to tap once for yes and twice for no, but he can't learn to be objective.

 

One can take the objectivity test as many times as needed, up to the vote. The popular branch needs at least 1,000,000 votes on a issue before the popular vote counts. This means at least 1,000,000 talented people and not just a smaller pool of elected officials. The result of this vote, shapes the agenda for all the processes that occur with the other branches. The popular branch is not the final say. Rather it is the first say; where we go. How we get from here to there, the other branches decide.

[jackson33]

pioneer; I want to preface the following, by saying you have made several good points and above that are showing interest in politics, IMO admirable qualities. I'll offer some comments, where it might seem I'm disagreeing....

 

When the US and constitution first formed, the logistics were such that an election process was the most efficient system. The country became a republic and not a democracy for practical reasons. [/Quote]

 

The founders for the most part deplored democracy, but more important then and should be today was the desired to maintain sovereignty/independence over their State. States determined their own political structure then (still do, for the most part) and allowed only land owners or vested people of the community to run or be elected to the House. The two Senators and electors (those chose to vote for P/VP) were chose by the individual State Legislatures. Today Senators are popularly elected (A-17 1913) and electors for the most part are picked by the parties. The hilarious thing here is 99.9% of those voting believe they are voting for the Candidates and that .1% probably thinks their vote must be voiced by the elector, which it is not true.

 

In modern times, we now have the logistics, that the farmers and town's people of 200 years ago did not have. [/Quote]

 

Very true, but we also have 307 Million people in 50 States* spread out over thousands of miles, not to mention 99% couldn't care less about more than three or four issues and leading lives unknowing when and where Government could be an influence. I'm constantly amazed to hear how many people think the Federal Government is in control of their local schools, fire department, their local police or hundreds of other items.

 

*In 1790 we had around 4M people in 13 States, about half in the north and south. Today the vast majority live in urban areas (pop over 200K)...

http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/planning/census/cps2k.htm

 

Since the logistics are there, what I would do is add another branch of government. We could call this the Popular Branch of government; composed of normal people for the people. This branch makes use of the modern information logistics to vote for the social agenda. Instead of a party deciding this, the popular branch does. [/Quote]

 

I'm not sure what normal people are or that political's can be described differently, but I TOTALLY AGREE, under a little different scenario. Briefly; Five plus years ago I first suggested a forth branch of Government, independent of the three branches, with limited subpoena power, financed by the States and to issue weekly/monthly reports, based on their findings. This kind of a think tank, with media power. Each State would legislature would pick 4-6 each year from offered applications, based on preplanned interest of their States, by professions (Agriculture/Mining/Education/Medical etc) to terms of 1 or 2 years (no renomination's), meeting somewhere near Washington no less than Congress itself was in session.

 

Just as our elected official needs to go through a tough election process, voting in the popular branch should also require a process before one is allowed to vote for any issue. [/Quote]

 

I also agree here, but it's just not going to happen. Then I'm not sure what process could be proposed. Voter registration and getting to the voting places, seems to be enough for most folks (to difficult for others) and no test could be devised to satisfy anyone, today. This should be addressed through the Educational system, which was in my day and to some degree in your day...just not at all today.

 

 

One can take the objectivity test as many times as needed, up to the vote. The popular branch needs at least 1,000,000 votes on a issue before the popular vote counts. [/Quote]

 

While I'm not sure where your going here; All parties, including the two major parties, have hundreds to thousands of people from each State involved (especially States with a Caucus) in the election process of their own State. Electors are eventually chose and sent to a National Convention, each four years. It's here where Party Platforms are drawn up (few bother to read, including the candidates) and where the Parties ideology can be dissected.

[DJBruce]

To answer your question, it's my belief instability is caused between Governments (Administrations) by the hundreds of thousand PAGES of regulation and Federal Laws to in effect subvert the Amendment process, which could easily have been half page Amendments. During the FDR 13 years, no Amendments were offered (one 1932 Amendment Ratified his first year) and everything he and the then Congress enacted, has been built on by legislation since...

 

I do not think that instability is caused by the sheer volume of the laws and regulations currently in place. Although it definitely adds to the apathy of the public.

 

I would agree that the amendment process should be used more, and that the federal government does often overstep their constitutional boundaries. However, I think that the amendment process should not be taken lightly, and that it should be used more only weight things.

 

As for the idea of adding another branch of government, I doubt it would be very effective. There is already a problem getting people to participate in a presidential election that occurs ever four years. I doubt we could get a significant number of people to weigh in on numerous pieces of legislation that are brought to the floor each day. Also although there might be no formal party affiliation in this, the parties would still attempt to rally there supporters around various issues.

[jackson33]

I do not think that instability is caused by the sheer volume of the laws and regulations currently in place. Although it definitely adds to the apathy of the public. [/Quote]

 

Bruce; Apathy of the electorate, comes from acceptance and acceptance comes from definitions expressed. As under the 'New Deal', the subject matter was quite simple and think in 3 volumes, but over the time has added hundreds of volumes and nothing in those first three volumes is valid today as written. Point; Legislation and basic law, drawn outside the fundament outlines for creating that law or legislation, takes on it's own and uncontrolled life.

 

I would agree that the amendment process should be used more, and that the federal government does often overstep their constitutional boundaries. However, I think that the amendment process should not be taken lightly, and that it should be used more only weight things. [/Quote]

 

IMO, anything concerning the operation of all States whether perceived for the good or bad to any particular States, or is not already perceived or in fact covered by the Constitution or an Amendment, should require the amendment process. Congress, under the Constitution can legislate anything it wishes, even voiding the Constitution. Without objection then the Constitution could be voided. While this is the extreme, the process to the same end on many topics/issues has been imposed, on the people/States.

 

As for the idea of adding another branch of government, I doubt it would be very effective. There is already a problem getting people to participate in a presidential election that occurs ever four years. [/Quote]

 

I agree and the idea fell flat, but it was oriented to the many minorities that exist around the US, that have no meaningful voice in the Federal Government, or where other States tend to speak for the many. Keep in mind that idea was designed for media and media seems to have their own agenda, these days. As it stands, in House formed legislation, seven States have one representative, while the LA, California area has about 25, alone. The amendment process in my mind, equalizes the States to affirm or reject new matters at the same level, the Constitution and each amendment has been, one vote per State.

[DJBruce]

I agree and the idea fell flat, but it was oriented to the many minorities that exist around the US that have no meaningful voice in the Federal Government, or where other States tend to speak for the many. Keep in mind that idea was designed for media and media seems to have their own agenda, these days. As it stands, in House formed legislation, seven States have one representative, while the LA, California area has about 25, alone. The amendment process in my mind, equalizes the States to affirm or reject new matters at the same level, the Constitution and each amendment has been, one vote per State.

 

There is a point to how the House of Representatives work. Although seven states each have only one representative and LA has approximately 25 each one of those representatives, in theory, represents the same number of constituents. Also wasn't it the Framers' idea that by creating a bicameral legislature where in one house all the states are represent equally to balance the legislative power of each state.

[ParanoiA]

There is a point to how the House of Representatives work. Although seven states each have only one representative and LA has approximately 25 each one of those representatives, in theory, represents the same number of constituents. Also wasn't it the Framers' idea that by creating a bicameral legislature where in one house all the states are represent equally to balance the legislative power of each state.

 

Sort of, but I thought the bigger reason was about state representation. Less about balance, and more about orientation. Each state, as its own sovereign entity, being equal by that metric, represented by two senators. Whereas the people were represented as portions of the whole, being equal in proportion to each other, state boundaries largely irrelevant.

 

I don't see it as 25 California reps, but rather 25 reps for the tons of people that just so happen to be located in California.

 

Of course, these reps do have consequences that give advantage to the states, but I think that's largely because we subverted the whole arrangement with the 17th amendment and the way we allocate electoral votes.

Edited July 14, 2010 by ParanoiA

[jackson33]

There is a point to how the House of Representatives work. Although seven states each have only one representative and LA has approximately 25 each one of those representatives, in theory, represents the same number of constituents.[/Quote]

 

Bruce, as I said the idea went nowhere; Yes, the House (The Peoples House) was designed for equal representation by the number of the total, to be off set by the Senate, with equal representation from each State. In theory, the limited two year term (many suggested one year) was to keep a continuous flow/stream of current ideas or sentiment of those people. I've already address the reasons and IMO the importance of reducing that to one per State and based on that States total, their legislators.

 

While that idea was one per 30k/40k people, later limited to a 435 total* (apx. 800k people each, today) and I have gone along with that limitation, the purpose was drastically altered. Any seven districts in downtown LA, with primarily the same ideology have an unlimited power over those 7 States, all different than the LA philosophy and in fact different from each other, Alaska and Vermont for instance. (others include..N/S Dakota, Wyoming, Montana and Delaware)

 

 

*

In 1911, Congress passed Public Law 62-5, which limited the size of the House of Representatives to 435 members. The law took effect in 1913. If it wants to, Congress could change the number of members in the House, provided that the new number is within the minimum and maximum established by the Constitution.[/Quote]

 

http://clerk.house.gov/member_info/memberfaq.html

 

Also wasn't it the Framers' idea that by creating a bicameral legislature where in one house all the states are represent equally to balance the legislative power of each state.[/Quote]

 

Yes, but remember those Senators where then chose by each State Legislature, not popularly elected, which changed in 1913, A 17. The Framers intent and that of the Progressive Movement were not the same...another thread!!!

[ParanoiA]

I've already address the reasons and IMO the importance of reducing that to one per State and based on that States total' date=' their legislators.[/quote']

 

I don't see how you can even pretend it represents "the people" with that kind of broad appropriation. That just makes it bicameral just to be bicameral. Neither tier would represent really anything any different than the other, dwarfing the incremental presence of that very problem that already exists right now.

 

I liked doG's old thread on increasing the number of reps. At least it seemed to acknowledge the difference in representation orientation as well as intensifying the philosophy behind it. It would also consequently reaffirm the role of senators a bit.