| |
| A “People’s House” or an oligarchy? |
View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message
|
| JEQuidam |
 Posted: Mon May 26, 2008 6:04 am Post subject: A “People’s House” or an oligarchy? |
 |
|
Forum Freshman
Joined: 25 May 2008
Posts: 42
Location: Dunwoody, Georgia
|
Many people do not realize that our total number of congressional districts (and therefore our total number of Representatives in the U.S. House) has been limited to 435 ever since 1913 (except for a four-year period when it was temporarily increased to 437).
In 1929, this number (435) was made permanent by an act of Congress. During the debates preceding that act, Missouri Representative Ralph Lozier stated:
“I am unalterably opposed to limiting the membership of the House to the arbitrary number of 435. Why 435? Why not 400? Why not 300? Why not 250, 450, 535, or 600? Why is this number 435 sacred? What merit is there in having a membership of 435 that we would not have if the membership were 335 or 535? There is no sanctity in the number 435 ... There is absolutely no reason, philosophy, or common sense in arbitrarily fixing the membership of the House at 435 or at any other number.”
The challenge posed by Representative Lozier in 1928 is still valid: is 435 a sacrosanct number or should it be subject to debate?
Many of those who framed and ratified the Constitution & Bill of Rights expected that the population of congressional districts would never exceed 50,000. Today their average size is 700,000; by 2100 their average size will be 1.3 million. As a result, it is no longer possible for federal Representatives to faithfully and honorably represent the diverse interests of their constituents. This could be the root cause of why our government has become “broken” and, in any case, violates the principle “That to secure these Rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just Powers from the Consent of the Governed” (from the Declaration of Independence).
Related to this matter is the fact that the very first amendment proposed in our Bill of Rights was never ratified. As proposed by the House, “Article the first” was intended to ensure that the district size never exceeded 50,000 people. While this amendment was in the Joint Committee, a subtle error was somehow introduced into it that rendered it inexecutable. It is not known when this error was eventually detected, but the amendment was ultimately ratified by all but one state. This very interesting and important story can be found at: TownHall.com for red people, or at DailyKos for blue people. (Both articles are identical and contain links to supporting information.)
_________________
It was supposed to be our House.
Thirty-Thousand.org |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
| jackson33 |
| Posted: Mon May 26, 2008 8:26 am Post subject: |
|
|
Forum Professor
Joined: 10 Oct 2006
Posts: 1273
|
JEQ; First welcome to this forum (from an occasional poster) and I hope your 'website' will not limit your contributions...
Intent of the framers (founders) of the American Government (USA) are often taken out of context, trying to some how adjust what societies were over the years since, IMO.
Since your issue relates to the 'HoR' and some notion of a Oligarchy; The founders, W/O exception were a group of individuals, who dominated government from the days of the 'Federation' (Federalist Papers) to the Declaration of Independence, to the Constitution and the running of the fledgling government until about 1826. Their concerns were and to some degree ours today, are against 'Monarchy' or family control over the 'people', W/O representation and the rights individuals should poses in the control of that government, but with limits...
The original 1st amendment and not ratified by the States, has still been obeyed and probably for its merits over being accepted. The 435, was simply where additional membership would seem counter productive to reasonable management of those peoples affairs and in the one chamber of one of the three branches. In 1910 and today, the House Chamber, was and is not very productive for its purpose OR additional membership would add chaos to an already chaotic situation. Tens of thousands of 'Original Bills' even 'Constitutional Amendments' have been formed, passed the House and never again heard of, since 1910. A total membership of 800 or 1000, would only have added to that chaos.
In that 1st amendment "After which shall be regulated by Congress" and "Not less than 200 (House membership), nor more than one for every 50k persons (no requirement to limits one could represent) have been obeyed, though Congress could have at anytime, pretty much done what they wanted.
Slightly off topic, is just who government representation was meant for at the time of our founding or whom that represents today. White, male, land/business owners and now every man/woman over 18. This is not an insult to the founders, who felt these people would have the interest of the nation in mind, over the self interest of non vested citizens. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| JEQuidam |
| Posted: Mon May 26, 2008 8:45 am Post subject: |
|
|
Forum Freshman
Joined: 25 May 2008
Posts: 42
Location: Dunwoody, Georgia
|
| jackson33 wrote: |
| The 435, was simply where additional membership would seem counter productive to reasonable management of those peoples affairs and in the one chamber of one of the three branches. |
The fundamental question remains: should 300,000,000 American citizens be allowed to have more than 435 congressional districts? If not, then why not?
| jackson33 wrote: |
| In that 1st amendment "After which shall be regulated by Congress" and "Not less than 200 (House membership), nor more than one for every 50k persons (no requirement to limits one could represent) have been obeyed, though Congress could have at anytime, pretty much done what they wanted. |
Caution is required before you rely upon Article the first as it is finally worded: it contains an inexplicable mathematical defect which not only renders it inexecutable, but also was not in either the House or Senate versions from which that amendment was ostensibly drawn (by the Joint Committee). This onion has many layers and I implore you to peel them back before reaching any more conclusions relative to Article the first. A link to a full report (PDF) is provided on this web page:
http://www.thirty-thousand.org/pages/QHA-04.htm (No ads or pop-ups.)
| jackson33 wrote: |
| Slightly off topic, is just who government representation was meant for at the time of our founding or whom that represents today. |
But there is still one group they intended to be well represented in the federal House: the "yeomanry" and members of the "middling classes." This was viewed as a fundamental need to control the artistocracy that was expected to dominate the Senate. (Plenty of quotes are available to substantiate that point.)
_________________
It was supposed to be our House.
Thirty-Thousand.org |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| jackson33 |
| Posted: Mon May 26, 2008 10:19 am Post subject: |
|
|
Forum Professor
Joined: 10 Oct 2006
Posts: 1273
|
JEQ; 'Diminishing returns'; So long as the representation is equal between the populace, the count from each segment total is meaningless, to a point and then from the effectiveness. I would argue 'density' of population should be limited, if for no other reason than the system allows manipulation to control representation from the State level to the Federal.
However, the states do have certain rights, even if contrary to powers of less populated states. The founders were concerned about rural domination of government over urban. It slowly changed and conceivable, in time a few major metropolitan areas, will or could control Federal Government.
If understood a minimum of 50k, not for each 50k, then mathematically it could and has been achieved. I understand your comments, but find it hard to believe the founders expected population would increase to the limits they have, BUT made it clear, as in all amendments, that CONGRESS had the authority to amend (under process) and the Executive to enforce any Constitutional dictate, out of necessity. Rather than ratifying the amendment, I feel the States realized that potential, rather than the mathematical inconsistency of the time.
I can find you as many 'quotes', indicating the fear of middle or lower class participation in Federal Government. In short, the founders preferred State Legislatures to choose Federal Representation. Again, even the Congressional members would come from property owners (vested members of the community). The executive entirely from state legislatures. Keep in mind, the Constitution and the Federal Government involved 13 sovereign states, under one government, not the direct ruling or control of about 1 to 2 million people, during the time.
The original arguments for Senate terms were, lifetime and 5 year terms, based on the short history of the Federalist Government (5 yr) and historic democratic societies (lifetime). They chose 6 year terms, from Madison's arguments to Hamilton, who argued against the aristocracy form.
Were ignoring the 'checks and balance' of government which quite clearly could have and did not take action on the limitation of representation from the people to the 'Peoples House"... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| JEQuidam |
| Posted: Mon May 26, 2008 10:34 am Post subject: |
|
|
Forum Freshman
Joined: 25 May 2008
Posts: 42
Location: Dunwoody, Georgia
|
| jackson33 wrote: |
| So long as the representation is equal between the populace, the count from each segment total is meaningless, |
In fact, the congressional districts are quite unequal across the nation, with some nearly twice as large as others (in population size). The federal House operates in egregious violation of one person one vote.
| jackson33 wrote: |
| I understand your comments, but find it hard to believe the founders expected population would increase to the limits they have, |
Perhaps not but, at the rate of 1 Rep per 30,000, they expected the there to be 400 Reps by 1840 (Federalist #55). That's only 35 less than we have today.
| jackson33 wrote: |
| I can find you as many 'quotes', indicating the fear of middle or lower class participation in Federal Government. |
I would like to see those quotes. I've read all the debates surrounding this particular issue, and I saw no such quotes opposing middle class participation in the federal House.
Are you opposed to allowing 300,000,000 Americans to have more than 435 congressional districts?
_________________
It was supposed to be our House.
Thirty-Thousand.org |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| jackson33 |
| Posted: Mon May 26, 2008 11:21 am Post subject: |
|
|
Forum Professor
Joined: 10 Oct 2006
Posts: 1273
|
JEQ; The USA is not a pure democracy, either in any State and especially not in the Federal. There is no mention of democracy IN the Constitution and all referance made by the founders, go to representation. One person, one vote was not practical then (most denied to begin with) and not practical today.
The purpose of House Representation, as mentioned was lost in the maze of opinions from relatively few people in the teens (1910 22m) and would be completely useless today with 300 million. Folks with passion toward government, would be best served at directing their efforts to the state, they live in.
And we still have one President, VP and each State as they joined the Union has the same 2 senator limit. The very process from 1/30k to 1/50k, shows an intent. Do you honestly think, a thousand folks could be taken from the currently eligible electorate and offer legislation and do the duties allocated the House in any more effective ways, than the 435 do today. I don't think so and if tried, compromise would take on new meaning, not necessarily good for the National Interest. Frankly, I feel public scrutiny of the Federal Government, individually or through media and now the Internet is counter productive.
Lets establish that the Founders were elitist for their time, but needed the people to establish and confirm the system for governing they proposed.
The Federalist Papers, were written to promote and get this agreement from those involved. They also lived in fear of revolt, which during this time in history was common and not very many really wanted to be part of another Union of States, with or without representation. Delaware or RI (?), never even had a State Constitutional Convention (other 12 did) and was happy with the 2 Senators and 1 Representative. The others didn't just jump aboard and had to be convinced, State Rights would be preserved.
No, I don't oppose more than 435 districts, nor do I oppose a lessor limit.
I do oppose one city or metropolitan area, having more representation than the total of five or six STATES. Adding or subtracting membership, will not solve this problem or add influence from the general public to the end result of any issue. The 435 seems to have worked however and during some turbulent times. WWI and II, the depression, Viet Nam and so on...
What is you think 800, 1000 or more individuals could accomplish over those 435, who are today dominated by a handful with the seniority to demand following party lines, not district wishes...Better yet, what is your agenda. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| JEQuidam |
| Posted: Mon May 26, 2008 12:40 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Forum Freshman
Joined: 25 May 2008
Posts: 42
Location: Dunwoody, Georgia
|
| jackson33 wrote: |
| The USA is not a pure democracy, either in any State and especially not in the Federal. There is no mention of democracy IN the Constitution... |
Agree. Nor is there any mention of democracy in my postings. You are the first to bring this up, and I don't understand why.
| jackson33 wrote: |
| Do you honestly think, a thousand folks could be taken from the currently eligible electorate and offer legislation and do the duties allocated the House in any more effective ways, than the 435 do today. |
Yes I do believe that. And obviously you don't.
| jackson33 wrote: |
| Lets establish that the Founders were elitist for their time, |
Many were not elitist, as evidenced by their commentary during the debates, but of course you are entitled to your opinion.
| jackson33 wrote: |
| The Federalist Papers, were written to promote and get this agreement from those involved. . |
Agree, which is why the representations provided therein are frequently a basis for Supreme Court decisions
| jackson33 wrote: |
| I don't oppose more than 435 districts, nor do I oppose a lessor limit. I do oppose one city or metropolitan area, having more representation than the total of five or six STATES. . |
We already have that; for example, there are seven states that have only one Representative each.
| jackson33 wrote: |
| Better yet, what is your agenda. |
My "agenda" is to return political power to the U.S. citizenry. Conversely, I suspect that your "agenda" is to protect the status quo and preserve elite rule. Do not be concerned, there are many who share your sentiments; especially the special interests and the lobbyist industry.
_________________
It was supposed to be our House.
Thirty-Thousand.org |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| jackson33 |
| Posted: Mon May 26, 2008 1:57 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Forum Professor
Joined: 10 Oct 2006
Posts: 1273
|
Yes, NOW I am more aware from where you come. A short visit to Civility Forums and you latest post...
Most advocating democracy style government, try to use 'The Peoples House' to demonstrate the founders, wishes. The founders were the elite of the times and the power in each State. All 56 signers were not or are not considered the founding fathers, IMO somewhat correct, as leaders of any movement should be given credit or in many cases the blame, for that movement. Ironically the least to fit this character trait, was probably
Washington. Basically a self educated military person who happened to be well respected by those true elitist. Adams, Jefferson were attorneys and most involved State affairs for long periods of time. Franklin, probably the true patriot of Independence was well known, in a variety of fields. If you give a name; I am sure there is a link to royalty in Europe, someplace and for most part some wealth.
I'll try this, which is where I should have started; Madison was interested in setting standards for both the elected person and the electorate that voted, far beyond what the Constitution finally settled on. The problem, as I have mentioned, was an eventual ratification which many States would not if the STATE RIGHT, to govern both Candidates and voter eligibility, were interfered with. "Universal Suffrage would have been unthinkable to most of the founders, as well as State Governments" This by John Reiniers, Hernado Today News Feb. 2008 and a good many individual historians from 1800 on...The dissenting votes (summery) in most every SC ruling, has followed this track, including Westberry v Sanders 376 US1, a northern Georgia District Case.
The founders in establishing 'State' participation, were concerned not only to people, but what States contributed to the total. The power of what you propose for Urban, Metropolitan Areas, although somewhat there today, would suggest control over federal government should come from that segment alone. Basically this is what ended another large Union of States called the USSR.
The POWER of the citizenry, under a representative government has not been harmed, IMO. If anything, the results of proportioning under the limits of 435, has increased effect, not decreased. Its not a 'status quo', so much a reasonable history of working. As explained, if it were 250, 400 or 600 under a party affiliation, the outcome and this is historically accurate, that outcome would still be the parties elite to determine. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| JEQuidam |
| Posted: Mon May 26, 2008 2:19 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Forum Freshman
Joined: 25 May 2008
Posts: 42
Location: Dunwoody, Georgia
|
| jackson33 wrote: |
| Most advocating democracy style government, try to use 'The Peoples House' to demonstrate the founders, wishes.... |
Perhaps so, but I do not favor so-called "direct democracy". I am an ardent supporter of our republican form of government.
_________________
It was supposed to be our House.
Thirty-Thousand.org |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| kojax |
| Posted: Mon May 26, 2008 3:21 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Forum Ph.D.
Joined: 27 Mar 2007
Posts: 1058
|
| JEQuidam wrote: |
| jackson33 wrote: |
| The 435, was simply where additional membership would seem counter productive to reasonable management of those peoples affairs and in the one chamber of one of the three branches. |
The fundamental question remains: should 300,000,000 American citizens be allowed to have more than 435 congressional districts? If not, then why not?
|
The reason it was done is that the presidency was getting too powerful, thus ruining the three-way checks and balances.
The sheer number of people in congress makes it too easy to divide them and too hard for them to agree on things, and they only wield any power what-so-ever when they are able to come to agreement. You'd be amazed how easy it is to kill a bill, and how hard it is to pass one.
If you increase the number past 435, congress will become proportionally less powerful, and then the president will easily walk all over them, and the people won't hardly be getting any say at all. In fact, I'd advocate trying to trim the number back down toward 200 or so. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| jackson33 |
| Posted: Mon May 26, 2008 5:24 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Forum Professor
Joined: 10 Oct 2006
Posts: 1273
|
Also in 1913, Amendment 17 was ratified, taking from State Legislatures the power to choose Senators, giving it to the electorate (the voters). Many feel this was a direct violation to the Constitution, which I would argue correct, but from necessity correctly done to equalize the public participation. Give and take (compromise) from the Congress, as intended by the founders...
Generally those that argue 'voters or electorate' participation, ignore this issue, knowing the founders were concerned with 'total' public decision in the outcome of INTERNATIONAL ISSUES. JEQ, has placed the value of House member participation ahead of the total Congressional power structure, which had already been injured.
kojax, the presidency was probably weakest during this 1900-1920 period.
WWI was probably a commercial venture and after the 1861-65, strong armed presidency, Lincoln had to follow (Civil war) and the controversial Spanish/American 1898 war, where the basic State Militia protection failed, Congress was the power. In fact the very issues were discussing reflect this weakness.
435, was the number, when Congress took action and for years when Congress refused to act. (1910-27), many think and probably correct in violation to the Constitution. Example of Congressional power in that time period. Retroactive government mandate, to my knowledge, had never been practiced prior to Clinton's tax hikes, n 93 or so... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| JEQuidam |
| Posted: Tue May 27, 2008 7:08 am Post subject: |
|
|
Forum Freshman
Joined: 25 May 2008
Posts: 42
Location: Dunwoody, Georgia
|
| kojax wrote: |
| If you increase the number past 435, congress will become proportionally less powerful, ... |
Why?
There are seven states which only have one Representatives each; that is one Rep against two Senators and one Rep against one President. If each of those states had a dozen or so Representatives, that would only further empower the constituencies of those states.
_________________
It was supposed to be our House.
Thirty-Thousand.org |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| JEQuidam |
| Posted: Tue May 27, 2008 7:12 am Post subject: |
|
|
Forum Freshman
Joined: 25 May 2008
Posts: 42
Location: Dunwoody, Georgia
|
| jackson33 wrote: |
| Also in 1913, Amendment 17 was ratified, taking from State Legislatures the power to choose Senators, giving it to the electorate (the voters). Many feel this was a direct violation to the Constitution, which I would argue correct, but from necessity correctly done to equalize the public participation. Give and take (compromise) from the Congress, as intended by the founders... |
I believe that the 17th amendment should be repealed if we can substantially increase the number of congressional districts.
_________________
It was supposed to be our House.
Thirty-Thousand.org |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| jackson33 |
| Posted: Tue May 27, 2008 10:30 am Post subject: |
|
|
Forum Professor
Joined: 10 Oct 2006
Posts: 1273
|
My "agenda" is to return political power to the U.S. citizenry. Conversely, I suspect that your "agenda" is to protect the status quo and preserve elite rule. Do not be concerned, there are many who share your sentiments; especially the special interests and the lobbyist industry.[/quote]
And then you say, appeal the 17th A, in order to remove power from the people, giving it back to politicians...then adding House Districts, the least powerful segment of US government. You should know that under the founders 'Republican Form' of representative government, in a Union of 13 or 50 States, most purpose (issues) you wish addressed (people issues) were not in fact part of or address by the documents, those authors offered. Health Care, Education, Housing Issues or whatever the 'Issue of the Day', may be.
However you have slipped and 'AGENDA' has become your cause. Special Interest & Lobbyist? You have some interest, I am sure and those interest are being relayed daily in Washington by one group or another. If you own stocks, have a 401k program, have Insurance on your home, car or have a savings account, the Company's you deal with directly or indirectly earn money, with your money and you had better hope they are one of these people. However Business for profit are not the largest groups; By expenses, they are The NRA, AARP, National Federation of Independent Business, Israel Affairs, Association of Trial Lawyers, AFL-CIO and the US Chamber of Commerce...in that oder. In some manner their interest are your interest and they are there to protect our interest on a daily basis, which by the way are financed by the PEOPLE.
In arguing Constitution Intent, many times its hard to understand the differences from those days and today environment, social or economical.
While I detest the 'living breathing' notion of our Constitution, it seems to me that some change was expected. Not only was a method to change and/or alter mentioned with process, but in fact the very principles involved made changes while in the government they formed. There are a good many fundamental causes for the success of this nation over the 200+ years, which have been circumvented by laws, said to be in our interest, avoiding the Constitution itself. House Membership, by population and the 17 A, were properly addressed and changed, by the elected officials, both IMO, under proper procedure according to that constitution... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| JEQuidam |
| Posted: Tue May 27, 2008 10:38 am Post subject: |
|
|
Forum Freshman
Joined: 25 May 2008
Posts: 42
Location: Dunwoody, Georgia
|
| jackson33 wrote: |
| And then you say, appeal the 17th A, in order to remove power from the people, giving it back to politicians... |
I believe that the power of choosing the Senators should be returned to the state legislators. In conjunction with that, I believe that 300,000,000 American citizens should be allowed to have more than 435 congressional districts.
You have made clear your opposition to all that, but feel free to continue to belabor your points. I'm not able to follow all your other rantings but if others in this forum can then all the more power to you.
_________________
It was supposed to be our House.
Thirty-Thousand.org |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
  |
Goto page 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 Next |
Page 1 of 5 |
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
|
|
