The House as it was meant to be

The idea has merit. I just see it causing the House to be so chaotic that nothing would ever get done. Then again, that isn't so much a bad thing......

Something's gotta get done. I just ain't quite sure what.

the less that gets done, the fewer of our rights we lose and the less of our money gets spent. Ultimately, I think what would get done are things that are necessary and what would not get done are the ridiculous notions that we see come out of a Washington insulated from the American People.

I like the idea and like Crawfish said it would be ganglionic but nothing getting done would be better than some of the things pushed onto us.

That there Constitution has a lot of good ideas in it. Right?

I told you I was afraid of the mulit-Euro system but, hey, this two party deal ain't working out so well either. Like the English wit asked, "How do you like taxation WITH representation?"

This 4000 member system might actually streamline the major bills. The members might realize that they need to cooperate to get ANY bill passed. Also, if a voter thinks his vote will be worth more (which it will when the pol has to kiss EVERYONE's behind) he'll likely participate more. 30,000 is like a small town voting for mayor - the pol must pay attention to win and the voter knows it.

Okay, let's get Crawfish elected and go back to the constitutional provision for congressional reps.

Man, this had never, ever occurred to me.

What an interesting idea!

Upside: The Framers wanted government to be divided and difficult. I don't think they ever envisioned such an activist government that could pass laws willy-nilly interfering in everyone's lives such as we have now, right down to telling us what light bulbs we have to buy.

Downsides: Can you imagine the expense of having 10,000 Congressmen? And their staffs? Yikes! Because bear in mind, the representation is based on the Census, not the number of registered voters.

The cities would be disproportionally represented. NYC alone would have about 250 Congressmen, which would represent about 40% of all of those from NY state.

But it's a truly interesting idea.

Although I am a big fan of congress doing nothing, the current method known as the "Method of Equal Proportion" adopted in 1941 has already passed muster in the SOTUS on two separate occasions.

IMO, it would require a constitutional amendment to achieve a change. Question: How earmarks can 4000 congressmen stuff into any given omnibus bill?

I am replying to your follow up comment on the Catholic church blog I wrote.
I want to assure you that there was not the slightest anger toward the wonderful people of the RC church, but I was aiming at the false doctrines that enslave these people. To forbid priests and nuns to marry is against the Bible itself.
1 Cor 9:5 Do we not have a right to take along a believing wife, even as the rest of the apostles and the brothers of the Lord and Cephas/Peter?
There are many enslaving doctrines in the RC church and I feel an urgency to set the record straight so that all people can enjoy the freedom in Jesus Christ. Thanks for your kind reply.

It may become like British Parliament....a cacaphony of chaos. We may be fighting this fight in the wrong place. Maybe it's the cultural war and not the political war that we should consider first. What do you think?

Dave, the culture war is the biggie, but we had a framework, built by our founders, who dreaded the establishment of a "ruling class" insulated from the masses. (to a certain degree). I kind of think we need to fight on both fronts.

Yes SGT, they probably would require an amendment since they have not been following this for so long. It would require some sort of earmark legislation for this to have any chance of working. I actually came across the idea when i was looking through the Constitution to see whether the Line Item Veto was specifically forbidden, (from a conversation at Crawfishes Swamp), and thought I'd throw it out.

To both of you, it would clearly take some thought, and would be unlikely to pass through the house since it dilutes their own power.

SP, thats what I like too, the undeniable connectedness of people to their Rep. And there would have to be some creative planning to get bills through, no way something like Amnesty would get half the people to go for it, and if it did, any of us could afford to run against the incumbent, if they were just representing a small number of voters.

Brian, I do think there is a practicality problem if you do it on census...4,000 Reps sounds like chaos, 10,000 sounds like a mob at a soccer game. Of course, eventually, you get back to the problem of the Reps being too distant if you don't let it grow past a certain point.