creators.com opinion web
Liberal Opinion Conservative Opinion
Chuck Norris
Chuck Norris
14 Feb 2012
Why I Chose Newt Over Santorum

In 2008 — when my wife, Gena, and I were on the campaign trail backing former Arkansas Gov. Mike … Read More.

7 Feb 2012
Waging War on the Trifecta of Tyranny

As a six-time undefeated middleweight world karate champion, I have a pretty good idea what makes a warrior. … Read More.

31 Jan 2012
Proof Voters Are Smarter Than Media and Washington Elite

I think the mainstream media and Washington elite think the majority of voters just fell off the turnip truck.… Read More.

Honey, I Shrunk the Congress!

Share Comment
I think it's time to let Congress feel our election fury this November. As reflected in the latest Rasmussen Reports, "Just 9 percent (of Americans) say Congress is doing a good or excellent job." It is the first single-digit approval rating for Congress in Rasmussen's history, and it makes Bush's 30 percent approval rating seem like a stat to boast. The study went on to explain: "Just 12 percent of voters think Congress has passed any legislation to improve life in this country over the past six months. That number has ranged from 11 percent to 13 percent throughout 2008."

Even The Associated Press reported last week, in the story "Congress mostly going through the motions for now," that "some fights of the 110th Congress have lost their oomph in the waning months before the November elections, with both parties content to run out the clock on messy matters."

If members of Congress are not relevant or improving Americans' lives, why do we elect and re-elect them into office?!

If you ever have heard the saying "too many cooks in the kitchen," then you know how I feel about Congress. We have more representatives than we need and even many more than the Constitution requires. What many might not realize is that there is nothing ultimately sacred about the present number of people we have in the House of Representatives. Actually, the proper number of representatives from each state has been debated since our Founders' time. The Constitution endeavors to assure fairness and equity by requiring each state to have at least one representative, two senators and representation in the Electoral College. (At the other extreme, it states, "The number of Representatives shall not exceed one for every thirty Thousand.") So why not go with the fewest number allowed? It seems to me that in our day, in both House and Senate, fewer representatives by area would be more reasonable and effective than more representatives by population.

The current numbers in the House are stacked in discriminatory ways. For example, California has a large liberal voice with its 53 representatives. How fair is that for smaller, more conservative states that have between one and five representatives in the House? I believe just as we have one governor per state, we should consider reducing Congress to one representative and two senators per state (the minimum the Constitution requires). If one representative works for Alaska, Delaware, Montana, North Dakota, South Dakota, Vermont and Wyoming, why can't it work for the rest of the states? Here's a movie we all can star in: "Honey, I Shrunk the Congress!"

I agree with the rationale of James Madison, a member of the Continental Congress and our fourth president, who advocated keeping the number of representatives within limits:

"Nothing can be more fallacious, than to found our political calculations on arithmetical principles.

Sixty or seventy men, may be more properly trusted with a given degree of power, than six or seven. But it does not follow, that six or seven hundred would be proportionally a better depositary. And if we carry on the supposition to six or seven thousand, the whole reasoning ought to be reversed."

If we follow Madison's advice and have fewer representatives, then they couldn't put the blame for their incompetence upon other members of Congress. There would be less gridlock. They probably would get more done. Plus financially speaking, reducing Congress would save us at least $200 million, if you consider all their staff, overhead, travel, pension plans and other perks. And if we didn't like how the few represented us, we would have an easier time correcting their voices or disposing of them. Just a thought.

Bottom line: It is "we the People" who have power over the government, not them over us. They are called to protect our pursuit of life, liberty and happiness, not vice versa. And if they don't, the Declaration of Independence states, in no uncertain terms, that we are "to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for (our) future Security." It's time to replace most members of Congress with "new Guards" who do the following:

-- Uphold the Constitution and Bill of Rights.

-- Protect Americans' inalienable rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

-- Promote less government.

-- Fight for fewer taxes.

-- Demand balanced budgets.

-- Secure our borders.

-- Reduce our national deficit, debts and dependence upon other nations.

Disappointment with modern-day government and the preservation of our Founders' America is exactly why I've just completed my book "Black Belt Patriotism," which you can pre-order now on Amazon.com. It will be released in September through Regnery Publishing. It is my critique of what is destroying our country and how we can rebuild it and restore the American dream. I wrote the book because, as that famous "Network" line goes, "I'm as mad as hell, and I'm not going to take this anymore!"

To find out more about Chuck Norris and read features by other Creators Syndicate writers and cartoonists, visit the Creators Syndicate Web page at www.creators.com.
COPYRIGHT 2008 CHUCK NORRIS
DISTRIBUTED BY CREATORS SYNDICATE INC.


Comments

2 Comments | Post Comment
Another thought-provoking article, Chuck, thanks - I've pre-ordered your book, btw.
Proverbs 28:2 states "For the transgression of a land many are the princes thereof: but by a man of understanding and knowledge the state thereof shall be prolonged." This scripture increasingly describes the problem and the remedy for the UK and evidently the US as well. Once again, I note that it is interesting how your Declaration of Independence goes back to Magna Carta (Great Charter), 1215, drafted to bring an errant monarch to heel. The framers of the Declaration of Independence were learned men and probably had Magna Carta in mind when they wrote against despotism, whether from an individual king or an overbearing parliament - England's greatest statesman, Oliver Cromwell, fought against the same kind of tyranny when he dissolved the corrupt 'long' (sitting) parliament in 1653.
Article 61 of Magna Carta - the famous enforcement clause - requires four of the quorum of barons to take any grievances or petitions to the monarch, and admonishes the people to rise up against the monarch if and when such grievances are not corrected:
"And if we [i.e. the king, using the 'royal plural'] shall not have corrected the transgression…within forty days, reckoning from the time it has been intimated to us…the four barons aforesaid shall refer that matter to the rest of the five and twenty barons, and those five and twenty barons shall, together with the community of the whole realm, distrain [seize goods from] and distress us in all possible ways, namely, by seizing our castles, lands, possessions, and in any other way they can, until redress has been obtained as they deem fit."
It's almost as if those Medieval barons and the Archbishop of Canterbury, Stephen Langton, who actually wrote the Charter, had July 4th 1776 in mind...
Comment: #1
Posted by: Alan O'Reilly
Wed Jul 16, 2008 9:20 AM
Mr. Norris; there is a reason why the congress does not work for the people. It isn't supposed to. Long ago the house of representives limited their number for their own ease; but the effect has been more and more people represented by a relatively small number. The Constitution offers a number, purely a suggestion it seems, for no less than one representative for every thirty thousand. Fair enough. One man may fairly and accurately represent 30 thousand, and have some idea who they are and what their concerns might be. The reason happiness with congress has evaporated over the years is that more and more it reflects our will less and less. Every birth and every new citizen cuts our representation by just so much. The Senate makes no pretense of democracy. The small states have the same Senators as the large. But the people's house should answer to the people's voice like a good and obediant dog. You know house districts are gerrymandered to support one party or the other, and this results in vast numbers having no representative of their choice because some districts are given to the party in power, hands down, with a reliable majority. Considering that there is only one body in congress that was intended to be democratic, and to express the will of the people, isn't it strange to hope for solutions from that body once it has been cut off from democracy? What ever is the number today in house districts, perhaps 280000; they are first of all divided, and then too great in number to be well represented by single representatives. The division of this people is not the fault of the people, but of our parties which are an unofficial part of our constitution. They win and we lose. And what it takes to overcome the inertia of party when change is needed is so great a force as to make revolution inevitable. Is that what the right wants? Is that what the left wants? I think we all just want our democracy to work, and the wrench of party has it all jambed up. Sweeney
Comment: #2
Posted by: James A, Sweeney
Wed Jul 16, 2008 10:37 AM
Already have an account? Log in.
New Account  
Your Name:
Your E-mail:
Your Password:
Confirm Your Password:

Please allow a few minutes for your comment to be posted.

Enter the numbers to the right:  
Creators.com comments policy
More
Chuck Norris
Feb. `12
Su Mo Tu We Th Fr Sa
29 30 31 1 2 3 4
5 6 7 8 9 10 11
12 13 14 15 16 17 18
19 20 21 22 23 24 25
26 27 28 29 1 2 3
About the author About the author
Write the author Write the author
Printer friendly format Printer friendly format
Email to friend Email to friend
View by Month
Judge Napolitano
Judge Andrew P. NapolitanoUpdated 16 Feb 2012
Austin Bay
Austin BayUpdated 15 Feb 2012
Michelle Malkin
Michelle MalkinUpdated 15 Feb 2012

19 Apr 2011 Holy Week, Holy Shariah? (Part 1)

17 Mar 2009 Sexting, Seduction and Spring Breaks

2 Dec 2008 The Most Overlooked News Story of 2008