Sent: Thursday, February 27, 2014 4:20 PM
Subject: Article the First - restoring representation to the people
Comment: I found another article on this very important subject:
We Need Representation to Return the Government to We the People
by Rev. Robert
A. Vinciguerra
20
September 2013
In 1791 the first ten amendments to the
Constitution, known as the Bill of Rights, went into effect, having
been ratified by two thirds of states. One of the original articles in
the Bill of Rights, the first one, was not ratified. It is this
article that can save America.
It is a
little known fact that there were originally twelve amendments proposed. What
we know today as the First Amendment was really the third proposed.
Had all
twelve been passed the NRA would be an ardent lobby for Fourth Amendment
rights. There would be rallies to “Restore the Sixth.” The Third Amendment
would grant freedom of religion.
The first
two articles, however, were not passed. One of them, having to do with
congressional raises, would be ratified in 1992, a full 203 years after its
1789 proposal. What was at the time the second proposed amendment is now the
Twenty Seventh Amendment.
Article the
First
Today the
federal government is run by an elite two party system that acts as one party
more often than not, catering only to corporations and the special interests
that fund their campaigns. They are locked in perpetual war, fighting not for
what is in the best interests of their constituents, but what is in the best
interest of their party and their party’s big donors.
Even before
the Constitution was adopted this outcome was feared. The Founding Fathers
foresaw population growth and the potential for corruption in the government. They
knew that for a people to be free that they must govern themselves. The people
of the republic must elect representatives to congress; people who literally
represent the community from which they were elected.
The
original size of the House of Representatives was to be only sixty five, with
Article I, Section 2 only prescribing that there be not
more than one representative per 30,000 citizens. This was so disturbing to the
anti-federalists that James Madison penned Federalist No. 55, in which he declared
the anti-federalist concerns to be moot, because, among other things, the
number of total representatives was to increase every ten years following the
census.
When it
came time craft the Bill of Rights, it was feared that the number of
representatives might not increase with the growing population. Therefore they
crafted an amendment to the constitution that was so important that it was put
first. Article the First, as it is known, caps the size of a congressional
district to 50,000.
However,
there was an error in the final language that invalidated the calculations. It
needs to be corrected and ratified. The correct version reads as such:
Article the
first... After the first enumeration required by the first article of the
Constitution, there shall be one Representative for every thirty thousand,
until the number shall amount to one hundred; after which the proportion shall
be so regulated by Congress, that there shall be not less than one hundred
Representatives, nor less than one Representative for every forty thousand
persons, until the number of Representatives shall amount to two hundred; after
which the proportion shall be so regulated by Congress, that there shall not be
less than two hundred Representatives, nor less than one Representative for
every fifty thousand persons.
Size of the
New House
The effect
of recognizing and honoring the ratification of
Article the First would provide great benefits to citizens of the United
States.
The House
of Representatives would be forced to increase in size from the current
arbitrary number of 435 to over 6,100. This is not a matter of increasing the
size of government. It’s not solving the problems of government with “more
government.” It’s placing the control of the government correctly in the hands
of the actual people.
The number
of 435 was settled on in 1911. Up until that time, every ten years, following
each enumeration, the House of Representatives added new seats. But we haven’t
added any new seats in over 100 years.
At the
time, Republican Representative Edgar Crumpacker of
Indiana, who chaired the House Committee on the Census argued against freezing
the number of House seats:
“Members are…
supposed to reflect the opinion and to stand for the wishes of their
constituents. If we make the ratio [of persons per Representative] too large
the idea of representation becomes attenuated and less definite. The personal
interest of the voter in his representative becomes less important to him, and
we may lose something of the vital strength of our representative form of
government.”
Indeed, he
was correct. With a population of over 313 million only 435 people is far too
few, leaving one representative per 721,609 people. To contrast, Great Briton
enjoys one representative per 96,523 citizens in their lower house alone. The
tiny state of New Hampshire, having the largest lower chamber of any state at
200 members, achieves one representative per approximately 3000 people.
Asking for
one representative per 50,000 citizens and increasing the size of the House of
Representatives to over 6,100 members is not unreasonable, especially when
considering that there are already over 15,000 people running Congress, and we
only elected a small fraction of them.
Beneficial
Effects
Despite the
large number and the addition of members, gridlock would ease, not escalate.
The reason why the current House stagnates as it does is because a few
individuals have enormous power through financial backing, the backing of their
party, and the power of their personality. One voice among 6,100 is much less
powerful than one in 435.
With
Article the First in place, our representatives would actually represent us.
Imagine having the cell phone number of your representative. Knowing
them from the neighborhood, having gone to school
together. They would not be beholden to a faceless special interest and
they would need not fear reprisals from such. They would only have a duty to
their neighbors who elected them. Special interest
groups and lobbyists would not be able to afford to buy off enough congress
members to make a difference.
Gerrymandering
congressional districts would be a thing of the past. It would be impossible to
draw a legislative district that stretches hundreds of miles negate the voting
power of one block or another as physical size of districts would become too
small.
Up until
1911, there were twenty third parties in the United States that, at given
times, controlled over five percent of the House. With 6,100 representatives,
third party candidates would be viable because constituencies would have a
choice between more than two candidates including a third party that better
represents them, therefore breaking the two-party system and forcing the
compromise among them. Along those lines, it would be increasingly difficult
for a fraction of a party to hold the rest of the party at ransom,
rather they could break off into their own, more ideologically pure, party.
As it
stands today, each congress member has 27 assistants. The overwhelming majority
of our law makers are not elected. This requires a lot of money, as do
elections where over 700,000 people are voting. With more members of congress actually
doing the work, there would be less of a need for staff.
With a
smaller constituency, the cost of an election would drop by 70 percent or more.
The need for national or outside groups to fund elections decreases
exponentially. Congressmen and women would be able to fund their campaign from
donors in their own districts alone. There would still be money in politics,
but the “big spenders” are unlikely to spend more than twice as much on
elections than they currently are, and at that price,
they could not afford to own enough members of congress to have significant
influence.
America
Needs More Representation and Less Politicians
Increasing
the size of the House of Representatives is the one thing that allows all other
things to happen; less partisanship, a stronger Constitution, a Congress that
is in check by those who represented them, and overall, an America where
freedom is self-determined by people, not by politicians.
Ratifying
Article the First is only one method of increasing our representation to the
point where the federal government will function. Perhaps 6,100 reps, as the
amendment prescribes, is too many. Maybe another
number, like 3,130, a little under one representative
per 100,000 citizens, would be a better start. Congress has the power to
increase the number of representatives at any time. However, this is unlikely
to happen because it definitely means each individual member losing power and
influence.
At this
time, however, Article the First has already been ratified by eleven states,
(some argue that Connecticut did ratify it, making it technically the law of
the land), leaving 27 more to go.