Tag: change congress

Federalist No. 58

Warning: Undefined array key "adf" in /home4/hpvcxhmy/public_html/wp-content/plugins/similarity/similarity.php on line 69

Warning: Undefined array key "sim_pages" in /home4/hpvcxhmy/public_html/wp-content/plugins/similarity/similarity.php on line 70

I was tempted to not closely read Federalist No. 58 because I already knew that the assumptions it contained, however accurate they may have been in the 18th century had been rendered obsolete int he 20th century. For the first 120 years of our history the size of the House was expanded as the population grew. In fact, it was expanded 10 times in those 120 years with each expansion averaging over 30 new seats.

Had that trend continued we would have a house of over 700 members today. Instead 98 years ago, in 1911, the size of the house was expanded for the last time to 435. Aside from a temporary expansion when Hawaii and Alaska became states and the potential of adding two new seats in order to give a voting seat to Washington D.C. our population has more than tripled in the last century while our House size has stagnated. It’s time for use to force Congress to do what the founders intended by augmenting the size of the House as our population increases. We should require that Congress not ignore this action in the future by adding a Constitutional amendment stipulating a maximum number of people to be represented in a congressional district. (The Founders were wise enough to stipulate a minimum in the Constitution.)

Thankfully I did choose to read the whole of Federalist 58 and I found this one caution to the idea of unchecked expansion of the size of the house:

Experience will forever admonish them that, on the contrary, AFTER SECURING A SUFFICIENT NUMBER FOR THE PURPOSES OF SAFETY, OF LOCAL INFORMATION, AND OF DIFFUSIVE SYMPATHY WITH THE WHOLE SOCIETY, they will counteract their own views by every addition to their representatives. The countenance of the government may become more democratic, but the soul that animates it will be more oligarchic. The machine will be enlarged, but the fewer, and often the more secret, will be the springs by which its motions are directed.

This should not stop us from returning to the practice of expanding the size of the House in proportion to the growth of the population, but we only need look to the way that public opinion is so fickle in raging against a $165 Million bonus while standing silent in response to bailouts one thousand times as large and spending proposals (which are each another 5 times larger than the bailouts) to recognize that the caution remains true. While we are expanding the House we should not get so carried away that we dilute the power of individual representatives within the House. At least we have the Senate in place with it’s smaller size to help mitigate the potential weaknesses of a House too large. It’s time to once again have one legislative body where the representatives are connected to their constituents rather than being concceted to their chamber.

Tags change congress, documents, federalist, history

National

Two (or more) Wrongs Don’t Make a Right

Post author By David
Post date March 20, 2009
No Comments on Two (or more) Wrongs Don’t Make a Right

I was listening to Peter Schiff’s Wall Street Unspun for this week and he said something that cemented a change of perspective I had been considering regarding the AIG bonuses. I had been thinking about this idea of taxing the bonuses at 100% and relizing that it amounted to an ex post facto law – which is specifically forbidden in the Constitution. What Peter said was that Congress was wrong to bail AIG out in the first place and that if they hadn’t AIG would not be able to pay these bonuses now. Secondly, he said that if they had wanted to stop the bonuses they should have done so up front by making it a condition of receiving their bailout money. (He also accurately pointed out that the excuse that these bonuses should not be necessary to reatain AIG employees in this economy – few people would leave their jobs in a climate of rapidly rising unemployment and smart companies should be avoiding the employees from the division that crippled a company the size of AIG.)

Between the Constitution and the logic of Peter Schiff I realized that as much as I dislike the fact that these bonuses are being paid I cannot support Congressional action to tax them back after the bonuses have been paid and after the bailouts have been given. Simply stated, Congress is acting immorally anytime they try to change the rules after making their promises – it’s solid proof that they should not have made those promises in the first place.

Tags bailout, change congress, money, taxes, unconstitutional

National

Federalist No. 57

Federalist No. 57 contains a statement describing the proper goals of any constitution boiled down to two simple points:

The aim of every political constitution is, or ought to be, first to obtain for rulers men who possess most wisdom to discern, and most virtue to pursue, the common good of the society; and in the next place, to take the most effectual precautions for keeping them virtuous whilst they continue to hold their public trust.

In defending the provisions in the proposed Constitution the following defense was sound in theory but two centuries of growing experience has led to a Congress that is masterful at the art of public obfuscation:

the House of Representatives is so constituted as to support in the members an habitual recollection of their dependence on the people. Before the sentiments impressed on their minds by the mode of their elevation can be effaced by the exercise of power, they will be compelled to anticipate the moment when their power is to cease, when their exercise of it is to be reviewed,

The members of the House are always aware of their impending re-election bids so they carefully craft the perception of what they are doing by hiding legislation and casting votes in a way that makes them look good back home even when they are working for the opposite results on some issues when the cameras are not around.

Next I find our present society perfectly captured:

what is to restrain the House of Representatives . . . above all, the vigilant and manly spirit which actuates the people of America, a spirit which nourishes freedom, and in return is nourished by it. If this spirit shall ever be so far debased as to tolerate a law not obligatory on the legislature, as well as on the people, the people will be prepared to tolerate any thing but liberty.

(emphasis added)

The numbers in the latter part of this paper regarding the number of people electing a member of congress are almost comical today. In 1788 we might have trusted that two members of congress would feel connected and answerable to 60 Thousand constituents but there is little doubt today that one member of congress may easily feel little connection with 600 Thousand constituents (a small district).

Tags change congress, documents, federalist, history, house

culture National State

Federalist No. 51

Of course the importance of checks and balances in our government is a well known concept as discussed in Federalist No. 51. What I had not previously realized was that splitting the Congress into two houses was a part of the effort on checks and balances. I had always understood that choice to simply be a compromise between the power of large state and small states.

In republican government, the legislative authority necessarily predominates. The remedy for this inconveniency (sic) is to divide the legislature into different branches; and to render them, by different modes of election and different principles of action, as little connected with each other as the nature of their common functions and their common dependence on the society will admit.

Today some may argue that the legislative authority does not predominate in our government. Closer inspection of our government shows that it does still dominate which is why the concentration of interest in the executive branch by individuals and news organizations is so effective at confusing the electorate and allowing a Congress with 10% approval rating to have a 90% success rate among incumbents. (At a state level the same results can come by focusing on the governor over the legislature.)

Those who would argue that Congress does not dominate the actions of our government can only have an argument if they claim that the parties have come to dominate the government rather than arguing that another branch of government has come to dominate.

Tags change congress, checks and balances, parties, separation of powers

culture National technology

D-TV Switch

That would be D as in "Delay " not D as in digital.

I have had the opportunity to drive to work for the last couple of days and have been listening to the radio as they discussed this issue. I used to wonder why television stations should be forced to switch to digital signals. Now I recognize that Congress has been holding them back from switching to digital signals exclusively. That leaves me with the question of why it is so important that everybody be able to receive a television signal.

I know I’m odd in the fact that I never watch television (since the middle of 2000), but I really don’t understand why television stations should be forced to serve people through analog. Some will argue that television is an important news source. I argue that the "news" that comes on television is somewhere between uninformative and misinformative most of the time. Some will argue that the entertainment is important. Though I find little television entertainment worth watching (yes, I still do have a vague idea of what’s offered), none of it is necessary and why should Congress be involved in mandating our entertainment options? (I can’t seem to find that section in my pocket Constitution.) Next thing you know, Uncle Sam will be giving away 5 free movie tickets per person per year – like they do in New Zealand (I may be wrong on the exact quantity).

Considering what I heard about how much cheaper it is for stations to broadcast in digital I would bet that, if left to themselves, the television broadcasters would figure out a way to offer the financial incentive necessary to get their customers to switch to digital. But that would be a free market and <sarcasm>we wouldn’t want to try that – free market’s aren’t stable.</sarcasm>

Tags change, change congress, free markets, laws, media, television

National

Orrin at the Bully Pulpit

As soon as I read the title, D.C. voting act is best way to ensure that Utah gets its 4th seat, I knew we were in for more misinformation. To then go to the article and find that it was written by Senator Hatch was a pleasant surprise – I had been afraid that it was another editorial board capitulating to his "expertise."

Most of the article reiterates the arguments that got me writing last time but there are a few new twists that should be corrected. Many, like me, argue that due to our high growth Utah is assured of another seat after the 2010 census. Orrin answers that "Utah is the fastest-growing state since 2007, but not since the last census." That is damning to the very bill he’s peddling. Look at the language of the bill – it adds an extra seat for D.C. and for "the state next in line for a seat." That was Utah in 2000, but since we are not the fastest growing state since 2000 maybe it’s not Utah in 2010 – we could immediately lose our extra seat after the census if Utah really was not growing as fast as we thought.

America’s founders did what the bill would do today. Virginia and Maryland ceded land for the District in 1788. Until the District was formally established in 1800, Congress treated Americans living on that land as if they still lived in a state so they could be represented in Congress.

We should clarify that between 1788 and 1800 the founders treated Americans living in those ceded lands as if they still lived in the state which had ceded the land – not as an independent political entity – so they could be represented in Congress. That’s more like the idea being promoted by Rep. Chaffetz.

Apparently Orrin thinks that Congress has authority over the Constitution:

. . . the courts have ruled that Congress can use its legislative authority over the District "in all cases whatsoever" to accomplish there what the Constitution accomplishes for states.

It is true that Congress has legislative authority over the District "in all cases whatsoever" but Congress does not have authority to redefine the Constitution simply because it involves the District. The Constitution talks about apportioning tazes among the citizens of the states, but it does not prohibit Congress from taxing the district over which they have exclusive legislative authority. It does not allow Congress, however, to stipulate the nature of Congress – that requires a Constitutional Amendment. That’s what we need, an amendment removing the cap on the size of Congress and stipulating a maximum size (in population) for a Congressional District. At the same time this amendment could grant voting representation to the citizens of any territory which pays federal taxes (or any other generic designation that would encompass D.C.).

Tags amendments, change congress, Deseret News, fourth seat, issues, Orrin Hatch

National State

Pursue a Real Solution

I have been staunchly opposed to this expansion of the House of Representatives to grant D.C. a voting representative. The political compromise of giving a balancing seat to the Republicans (for Utah) until the next census doesn’t make the move any more legal. Despite what some people may believe I am not opposed to D.C. having a voting representative, but I am opposed to giving D.C. special treatment. As the House of Representatives was intended to represent the people of the United States it would make sense to amend the Constitution to state that:

The House of Representatives shall be composed of members chosen every second year by the people of the several states, districts, and territories of the United States. (changes in bold)

To that ammendment I would add (perhaps as a separate section) the stipulation that:

The size of the House of Representatives shall be determined by the decennial census and the number of Representatives shall not exceed one for every thirty thousand nor fall below one for every two hundred thousand, but each state shall have at least one Representative; (changes in bold)

Such an amendment would provide a legal remedy to the non-voting status of D.C. but would also fix the same issue faces by other U.S. territories. At the same time it would reverse the arbitrary limit on the size of the House of Representatives that was enacted in 1911. This would all be done without resorting to political deal-making in which the deal makers (like our beloved Senator Hatch) feel free to ignore the law of the land in the name of whatever they deem as good.

I have already talked about Thirty-Thousand.org but I was surprised to learn of other groups that oppose Public Law 62-5 (as that bill is known). There was even a good article about it in the Daily Kos back in 2006 (which is where I picked the upper bound at 200,000). Back then the Republicans were in control of both houses of Congress, now that Democrats are in control I doubt that the Daily Kos would be very supportive of such a change since it’s their party that is holding the concentrated reins of power now.

I would like to see all those who are interested in returning to population based representation start working with DC Vote to encourage them to push for a full and legal solution to their issue rather than sadling us with the illegal, “politically expedient” half measure they have been pursuing. Perhaps reminding them that they would be able to get three or four voting members of Congress might pursuade them to take up the banner.

Tags amendments, change congress, Constitution, electoral college, unconstitutional

National

Expand Congress

I was very excited to be introduced to Thirty-Thousand.org. The first introduction on the site states an obvious fact:

435 can not faithfully represent 300,000,000 Americans.

Our constitution designed the House of Representatives to represent the people of the United States (while the senate was meant to represent the states as soverign powers within the union). The number of representatives was intended to expand or contract with the population. In 1913 the Congress capped the number of Representatives at 435 which would be apportioned according to the relative population of the states. This is what causes situations where Utah and North Carolina are essentially competing with each other for a representative (which is what happened in 2000). The result is that representatives can never be truly equal among states. For example, California has 18 times as many representatives in Congress as Utah, but they only have 15 times the population of Utah.

When the Constitution was being constructed the founders settled on 30,000 as the minimum number of people that each district should have (hence the name of the site). Considering the advances in communication I believe that a representative could possibly be expected to represent more than 30,000 people so I would be open to choosing a new number for our modern congressional districts, but I am confident that the number should only be a small fraction of the 700,000 that the average congressional district contains now. The result of returning to the original practice would be that each state would receive the number of representatives that their population warranted without issues of deciding which state was more deserving of "that last seat"

The more I have thought about this the more I realize that it could also address two other issues that I care about. Those who would like to see the electoral college abolished should try expanding the electoral college by expanding the house of representatives. This would increase the chances of the electoral college reflecting the outcome of the popular vote – especially if the states were to discontinue block voting in the electoral college. Also, if the representatives were apportioned not simply according to populate but according to voting population it would provide incentive for people to take their voting seriously since voting in low numbers could lower the number of representatives that would be sent from low voting areas for ten years (I’m assuming that apportionment of representatives would still be based on the decennial census).

We should return to a system where the number of representatives is based on the population of the state and not on the relative population of the state compared to the population of other states. This would bring us closer in line with the constitution in a very important way and has the potential of other very positive side effects.

Tags change congress, electoral college, ideal

State

Reason To Be Anti-Incumbent

Post author By David
Post date October 16, 2008
4 Comments on Reason To Be Anti-Incumbent

I found this little exchange to be insightful from Congressman Bishop:

. . . the two 1st District candidates snapped at each other, with Bowen accusing Bishop of taking $26,000 in the past four months from the radioactive-waste-storage company.

"I did not take $26,000, I took $28,000," Bishop fired back. "And that’s not company money, I can’t take that. It’s from individuals who work for EnergySolutions. And it’s not my biggest source of revenue."

Only someone who is comfortable in Washington D.C. could swallow the idea that dozens of individuals from EnergySolutions contributing $28,000 to the campaign is not a significant endorsement from the company as a whole or that they would do so without believing that the Congressman was working in the interests of the company that pays them.

I wondered who the biggest source of revenue was for Rep. Bishop and I found this list at OpenSecrets. It has Energy Solutions as the top source of revenue although it lists under $17,000 so it must not be current.

I wish I had all the facts, but I have enough to choose. If Rep. Bishop believes what he said then he’s not the kind of man I want representing me. If he does not believe what he said, then the fact that he said it means he is not the kind of man I want representing me.

I am definitely voting for Morgan Bowen – worst case scenario is that I’ll want to replace him in 2010. I’d say there’s more than a 50% chance that I’ll still want him in 2010.

Tags 2008, change congress, Morgan Bowen, public service, Rob Bishop, Salt Lake Tribune

National

Government Gray Area

When the House voted down the bailout on Monday I was very surprised by the result, but I was not particularly surprised to hear that of the Representatives facing close re-elections, only two voted in favor of the bailout. This looks like a blatant reminder that the primary concern of elected officials tends to be keeping their jobs rather than showing leadership. I say that while acknowledging that I feel strongly that rejecting the bailout was the right choice. The urgency with which the bailout was pushed makes me immediately wary. Government should never work that fast on anything of importance – except in cases of our nation being attacked. In other words, the members of the house did the right thing, but it appears that they did it, in most cases, for the wrong reason.

Today the Senate is set to vote on the bailout bill – despite the fact that they have no Constitutional authority to appropriate money except in concurrence with the House. Unlike the House, where every member is facing re-election, 2/3 of our Senators are insulated from an immediate election. Because of this I expect that the bailout bill will pass in the Senate as Senators feel more free to lead with re-election not being an immediate issue for most of them. I have not been able to read a draft of the Senate version of the bailout, but assuming that they have not written a new bill from scratch I fully expect that they will do the wrong thing for the right reasons.

I’m really not sure which is worse, but our options in Congress (when we have options) seem to be that our elected officials do the right thing for the wrong reasons, or the wrong thing for the right reasons.

UPDATE 11:00am: There is no way that any Senator will have read the full text of this bill – it is 451 pages long. I have no idea why it is so long because as of the parts I have read nothing of significance has changed. In fact, the page numbers for the entire first section of the bill (which contains the bulk of the substance) appear to be unchanged. None of the issues I raised with the House bill have been addressed in any way.

Tags bailout, change congress, government, money