1 vote

Expand the House of Reps to at least 932, or perhaps as many as 1,761

On Politics - Expand the House? - NYTimes.com

"The lawsuit asks the courts to order the House to fix the problem by increasing its size from 435 seats to at least 932, or perhaps as many as 1,761. That way, the plaintiffs argue, every state can have districts that are close to parity."

http://bit.ly/Sy5n5

Sounds good to me.
___

435 Representatives Can NOT Faithfully Represent 300 Million Americans! http://thirty-thousand.org/

Here's Senior Fellow of the Mises Institute, Dr. Mark Thorton on the Lew Rockwell Show: The Case for 'Bigger' Government
http://bit.ly/Goi04



Trending on the Web

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

A "bigger" yet "smaller" gov't -- This is absurd

It is an absolute HISTORIAL FACT (not just ours but in all countries) that you cannot "vote" (abdicate self-rule and receive "liberty" (self-rule).

----I've never EVER had one person able to counter the above fact.

If you accept that then making gov't bigger CANNOT possibly give you anything other than greater abdication.

A third party makes gov't (politicking and lobbying) more profitable by increasing the revenue generators (voting - begging and lobbying - selling/buying) otherwise known as "perpetual war."

Good Luck with this One.

Octobox

OK

It is an absolute HISTORIAL FACT (not just ours but in all countries) that you cannot "vote" (abdicate self-rule and receive "liberty" (self-rule).

----I've never EVER had one person able to counter the above fact.QUOTE

With few exceptions, maybe Robinson Crusoe on his desert isle, self rule doesn't exist.
I was born without self-rule and I'll die without it. We can't abdicate or receive what doesn't exist. Government is a fact of life not going away. It was here when we were born and it will be here when we die.
The question is what kind of government. Only in the fantasy land of anarchy do the concepts of self-rule and no government exist.
We can support incremental change to make our world freer, or we can retire to the world of anarchy.

JohnB: Gov't was "less" when we were born

It's growth is not mirrored by the "growth" of society but is the catalyst of growth -- the false dichotomy (business cycle: subsidization of food, subsidization of health care); and diversion of innovation dollars.

If Gov't was "less" and it was falsely grown -- the argument stands that it could be positively reduced.

What would happen if End the Fed actually resulted in the elimination of the Fed and by some stroke the Sec Treasury? Would gov't be "larger" or "smaller" then?

If Ron Paul were in office would gov't get larger or smaller?

There's nothing wrong with "parental oversight" -- just as long as it doesn't enter Gov't.

If an adult child failed and there was no gov't to get welfare they'd go to voluntary churches, relatives, community, or friends.

There's nothing wrong with "welfare" as long as it's voluntary.

I think I made the case Gov't could shrink (given the present size population) -- If it can "shrink" it could be eliminated entirely as Gov't is reactionary (force) but society in the present tense is anarchy (self-rule and self-reliance).

Your notion of Gov't as "protector" as parental authority is always past-tense -- well mostly so.

How Gov't is a past-tense reactor (in the areas of):

Fire -- FireDepartment is past-tense
Murder -- PoliceDepartment is past-tense
Drunk Driving -- Police Dept is past-tense
Cancer -- Medical Help is past-tense
Search and Rescue -- FEMA slow slow past-tense
Drug Task Force -- DEA past-tense

In fact if you could show me where gov't keeps us "out of anarchy" rather than just responding to a situation or event I'd be amazed.

So we live in "anarchy" but we pay out the keester for reactionary fixes.

Living is the "present" and dying is the present -- we live and die in anarchy.

We are taxed on preventative measures always applied after-the-fact -- We are taxed to prevent our natural secondary potential reaction; with the argument being "we'll make the wrong decision."

Octobox

I don't think anyone here is

I don't think anyone here is disputing that.

The fact is though, New Hampshire's huge house, combined with the small Senate, makes the 2 houses very very different demographically which means much more gridlock.

The reason they didn't want to keep with the tradition they had been following was because it would "cost too much." to build a bigger building.

That's a pretty lame excuse compared to all the stupid stuff they spend lots of money on. So, it should make you pause.

Listen to the podcast with Lew Rockwell I posted below.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
A Way for Trey Grayson searchers to find Rand Paul
http://www.treygraysonforsenate.com :
Trey Grayson For US Senate 2010 in Kentucky.

SD Ron Paul liberty Operation up an running.
http://www.southdakotaforliberty.com/

Donate here https://rally.org/southdakotaforliberty/donate
Volunteer for Phone from Home here http://www.southdakotaforliberty.com/node/4

Skyorbit: I did listen to it.

Gov't (authority) needs to be absolutely reduced to "true" (Ron Paul or even better Octobox) sized Consumer-Minarchism -or- be expanded to 306,000,000 representatives; a Consumer-Individualist Society (ZERO Abdication).

Asking for it to increase by a few thousand is absurd.

A congressman gets $135,000 plus a $1,000,000 budget.

Congress is divided: Senior Politicians vs Junior Politicians.

The "seniors" control the special commitee seats (the big lobby seats); thus they control the votes of the "juniors"

The "seniors" control the political war chests -- thus they control the votes of the "juniors."

If you increased the number of "juniors" without putting "term-limits" (something Rockwell's man is against) you have a net zero effect (well less the dynamically increased costs of supporting these welfarists).

You cannot defeat my argument -- it's based on observable fact. In fact I can't take credit for it -- just that my eyes were opened to it and so should your's be.

Good Luck,

Octobox

The way the house works is the direct result of efforts after

the size of districts grew large enough to have protected districts. (over 50K)

It used to not work like that. With 6k-10k reps, it would be much easier to get the votes to abolish such a crony protect absurd system and get back to how we operated when the nation was formed.

The Nation was Formed with a Voting-Class, Slavery, and Land

Theft -- and Mass Murder.

We now "export" these things -- If we can't export them yet you return gov't to a "similar" power structure than the theft, slavery, land theft will grow here.

Voila -- 900,000 homes in foreclosure in July 2008 (California) alone.

Gov't backs Banks (owns them) -- Gov't Creates Business Cycle -- Land Theft -- Increased Debt Per Civilian -- Greater Tax (direct and indirect) Slavery.

Voila -- 1798

Octobox

What in the world does that have to do with what I just said

Can you lay off the generalizations and generic "indictments" of "society?" How about we stick to things that are quantifiable and readily addressed?

The flaws of our past don't have to be the burden of our future. Get a grip.

Samadamscw: You are slow at connecting dots

My comments are right on -- give this notion of 1 rep for 30K civilians -- that was a Constitutional edict.

So, yes understanding our past is relevant when you are making, in essence a constitutional argument.

We had a Voting Class Minarchy under the Founders.

There's no liberty when their is an un-elected voting class -- non-elected by the people.

When all the people can vote you have Deomcracy -- equally as bad.

Voting and Lobbying is Perpetual War

Creating a greater Voting and Lobbying opportunity does not "reduce" it -- It only increases the over salary and budgetary costs.

Octobox

http://thirty-thousand.or...

http://thirty-thousand.org/ has the correct name, but disregards what is actually in the Constitution. What was intended and what was actually written are at odds. The limitation advocated by the Anti-Federalists was ultimately implemented. However, I believe that was their greatest error in that trying to work on the inside gave it legitimacy. Even Jefferson realized and acknowledged this in his latter days when he denounced and regretted his involvement in creating the 2 party system.

Article I, Section 2 states: "The Number of Representatives shall not exceed one for every thirty Thousand, but each State shall have at Least one Representative" http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html#A1Sec2

The number 435 was set in the early 20th century arbitrarily and unconstitutionally. The argument at the time was that anymore would make the federal government too unwieldy. See Public Law 62-5 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_Law_62-5

They had no authority to do this yet the people have never spoken up. With a population of approximately 307M, the number off Reps should 10,230+.

Article 1 Section 2

...sets a LOWER limit on the size of legislative districts: either 30k or the population of the whole state, whichever is less. No upper limit is defined. One could conceivably redefine the size as the current population of California, reducing the number to fifty, and remain consistent with the letter of the Constitution.

I tend to like the idea presented by the OP. The present chambers may well be useful for committee meetings, perhaps, while the Committee of the Whole might have to caucus in the open air on the mall. Such a hardship might help to reduce the amount of legislation coming out of DC, particularly if coupled with the Shattuck proposal to require open readings of all bills before voting is permitted.

Gaea Vindice

dynamite anthrax supreme court white house tea party jihad
======================================
West of 89
a novel of another america
https://www.smashwords.com/books/view/161155#longdescr

It defines the upper limit,

It defines the upper limit, not the lower. The last part about one per state is for new states to guarantee them a Representative. There is more to the article, specifically defining the number of Reps per state if ratified and before a census would have taken place. "The Number of Representatives shall not exceed one for every thirty Thousand" I tend to think that if followed, Reps could be very easily taken to task by their constituents. Enforce this rule, and enact term limits and easier recall provisions, and things would change in a hurry. Of course, this is why it's not likely to ever happen.

Read that again.

If the number of reps shall not exceed one for every thirty thousand that means that the LOWER limit for the SIZE of the district is 30,000. People are getting confused as apparently our Founders did in the conference committee which is why we never got Article the First as an amendment.

Having more than one for every 30,000 people would mean the districts would be SMALLER than 30,000. Currently, districts are 500K-1M. Thus we have no more than one for every 30,000. A state of 4.5 million COULD have as many as 150 representatives, but no MORE. Congress however gets to set the actual number and so it has fixed it at LESS. Currently my state with this population has 7 representatives. Thus there is not more than one representative for every 30,000. (to violate this would mean 151 representatives)

That means the states can

That means the states can still send reps up to the limit. For example, in Wisconsin we have a population of about 6 million.

So Wisconsin can send 2000 reps to congress.

The Founding Fathers never envisioned that states would throw away their basic rights.

The power to limit the number of reps is with the states, it was never delegated to the federal congress.

Thomas Jefferson 1796, 1800, 1804; James Madison 1808, 1812; Ron Paul 1988, 2008, 2012; Rand Paul 2016.

..........

.......

Case for Bigger government on Lew Rockwell.

http://www.lewrockwell.com/podcast/?p=episode&name=2008-11-1...

Mentions http://thirty-thousand.org/ also.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
A Way for Trey Grayson searchers to find Rand Paul
http://www.treygraysonforsenate.com
Trey Grayson For US Senate 2010 in Kentucky.

SD Ron Paul liberty Operation up an running.
http://www.southdakotaforliberty.com/

Donate here https://rally.org/southdakotaforliberty/donate
Volunteer for Phone from Home here http://www.southdakotaforliberty.com/node/4

Where's The Paper?

More immediate change needed
http://www.wheresthepaper.org/

Question - Unratified Size Amendment Leagally Alive?

The Original Bill of Rights had as its True 1st amendment an amendment that would set the size as one per 50 thousand for today. That would be 6000 members of the house of represenatives.

Could this unratified amendment be passed today? It looks like yes becase the true second proposed amendment is now the 27th amendment passed in 1992.

It would be interesting if some smaller states started passign this unratified amendment from 1789 and brought the issue to a head.

http://www.usconstitution.net/first12.html

Update - Different Versions and Clerical Errors

This article points out that there are different versions of this "alive" amendment. That is what is what confusing these posts - different versions.

http://thirty-thousand.org/pages/QHA-04.htm

they do a better job of analyzing this

Yes, it is still alive, but useless.

It is worded wrong at the end. The word "more" should be the word "less."

If we passed the amendment, nothing would change. Read it again and do the math. Once with "more" and once with "less."

I am reading it like a Computer

I am a computer geek.

I am reading it as an else clause since it is the last part of the sentence.

Unratified Amendment 1 = [ nor more than one Rep for every 50,000 ]

My interpretation = [ 1 Rep can not represent more than 50,000 people ]

Where are all of you getting

Where are all of you getting this information? Article I, Section 2 states: "The Number of Representatives shall not exceed one for every thirty Thousand, but each State shall have at Least one Representative" http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html#A1Sec2

The number 435 was set in the early 20th century arbitrarily and unconstitutionally. The argument at the time was that anymore would make the federal government too unwieldy. See Public Law 62-5 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_Law_62-5

They had no authority to do this yet the people have never spoken up. With a population of approximately 307M, the number off Reps should 10,230+.

Am I Backwards in my interpretation

I thought the Original Constituion was worded the opposite way of what eveyone wnats in this thread. - So in theory the house could declare that there are only 50 represenatives if they wanted to.

So that is why the the original bill of rights had a proposed amendment to reverse the logic to the upside in counting. This amendment was not ratified.

google [ Article the first ]

And my point is that the amendment is still out there so smaller states could start to ratify it to bring the issue to a ehad.

term limits

"yet the people have never spoken up."

And from conversations with average folks on the street, the people are distracted and think term limits will somehow fix the problem.

Indeed. It is far past time

Indeed. It is far past time We the People see past their foolish distractions and demand, or force, a return to the Constitution. No matter what FNC is espousing about the 'silent majority', we are the true silent majority. Less than a 50% voter turn out should be proof of this. Voting for me has been pointless ever since I turned 18. Perhaps George Carlin was right when he said "Voting is pointless". However, we all have no choice I think. It is now or never to restore Liberty. We either succeed now to educate the general populous about true Liberty or the U.S. will succumb to decades of tyranny similar to that of the USSR of the 20th century. We must speak up now to educate the people or be resigned to the same fate. This, of course, would be the best case scenario, with the last days of Hitler's Germany the worst case. We can succeed, but we must be prepared to speak the truth, no matter how unpopular. It is a wonderful thing to see so many people actually willing to listen to our ideas, but we are in a fight against the old lies espoused by Bush, et al. People are not given to change or new ideas, but they can be persuaded by truth when presented in a manner not easily dismissed. Of course, I think, all of you know this in spirit. And I am glad to call you brothers and sisters.

In Liberty,
Mike S.

They make a lot more

I think they are around the $250K mark

Congresman make 175k base salary. The party leaders make more

as does the Speaker (about 243k). Committee chairs get paid more also.

Part of their 1million budget each is to pay for staff. With districts of 30k-50k they don't need a staff at all, and only need franking and printing privileges.

house of reps pay

house of reps pay should be the mean income of districts income. if the mean income is 30,000 thats what you get paid . if it's 100,000 thats what you get paid . i also think we would see less career politicians and more people doing there civic duty,not to mention they would be forced to promote more industry(wealth creation) in there districts.

rawhead

Public servants should serve for free.

Because surely there is one good man or woman from each district that would gladly represent their district on their own dime.

Volunteer Congressmen would be the way to go, and Volunteer Senators and Volunteer Presidents, and so on to the extent you can find qualified people to serve.

.

Debra Medina for Texas Governor 2010!

Rand Paul for US Senate in Kentucky!

Ron Paul 2012, Join or Die!

DONT TREAD ON ME

AN APPEAL TO HEAVEN - WASHINGTON'S CRUISERS

welcome the oligarchy

if you only have the super rich that can afford to not get paid for two years you will have what we have now. you need common people not just the elite. folks with skin in the game.

rawhead