|
Sir;... When the house limited its number, and single handedly limited democracy in America, it was the Supreme Court that passed on it, as in the case of Montana, which narrowly missed having two representatives, and so had half the representation per person as other states... If the number of representatives had been doubled, they may have had three quarters of the representation of other citizens... If that number of representatives had remained as it was written in the constitution, Montana might have had every representative they had coming... More importantly, it is easier to represent any group that is smaller than large... One man can represent two men better than he can represent four, and represent four better than eight... To have huge districts divided even 60/40, leaves great numbers in this land without representation of their choice... Those who lose, left without representation, who are often denied representation year after year after year are the losers in society, and to me it is not better if that group cut out by districts, are republican or are democrat, because their injury is the country's injury, and is a loss to all of us...Now, these changes were made, these limits on the house number, to ease the management of the House... Has it improved government, and has the management of the house ever been the goal of our constitution??? When the Supreme court passed on the changes made by the house it said that the house could make the rules it ran by, in U.S. Department of Commerce v Montana, 503 U.S. 442 (1992)... Now; if it says changes must pass the constitution they are playing to the money, which wants a powerful, compact group of lifer politicians that once bought, can stay bought... Term limits is not the solution.... One of our most popular presidents pledged to run for only one term after Mckinley's assasination, and he said later: I would cut off my hand right there, pointing to his wrist, if I could take back that written statement... He was popular with everyone but his own party hierarchy, and the good he did America, his party set about immediatly to reverse...Term limits are not the answer that democracy is... The power lost by the house when the members increased their own individual power was also lost to the people, and was gained by both the rich, and the presidency... It might be an army in the house of representatives, it might be a mob, and it might be a Civl War in a mop bucket; if -it held to a sensible proportion to the people.. Our government; which should seek to represent all people directly, has made itself the slaves of party, and of partisanship...The problems we face today are the result of too little of democracy, of too little self government, because no one who must suffer the stupidity of government would vote for the situation they must now endure...We did not vote for this... We went along with little choice but to go along, or get it on... We have kept the peace to see ourselves brought to the brink of hell.. And things might change, but our chances of avoiding a real hell in this land are slight indeed...Thanks...Sweeney
Comment: #2
Posted by: James A, Sweeney
Sun Nov 16, 2008 8:42 AM
|
- 
- 
- 
