J. E. Quidam's Page
Gifts Received
J. E. Quidam has not received any gifts yet
Profile Information
- Are you interested in becoming an organizer in your area?
- No
- Tell us about your experience with alternative energy:
- None (other than driving a hybrid car).
- What excites you about this campaign?
- Increase awareness of need to build nuclear power plans.
- What do you want to do to help?
- Help increase general awareness.
Thirty-Thousand.org – restore political power to the citizenry
If we the people want to regain control of the federal House, then we need to regain control of our Representatives. Because the average congressional district in the U.S. consists of 700,000 people, the Representatives must raise millions of dollars every two years in order to finance their reelection campaigns. Of course, it is far easier for an incumbent to raise those amounts than it is for a challenger. Because of this barrier to entry, incumbent Representatives are assured of 90%+ reelection.
Please read the 15 Questions & Answers on Thirty-Thousand.org.
Please read the 15 Questions & Answers on Thirty-Thousand.org.
© 2013 Created by PickensPlan.
Powered by
Badges | Community Guidelines | Report an Issue | Terms of Service
Comment Wall (2 comments)
You need to be a member of PickensPlan to add comments!
Join PickensPlan
Marco
astrous@comcast.net
www.marcowrite.com/
In 1929, this number (435) was made permanent by an act of Congress. During the debates preceding that act, Missouri Representative Ralph Lozier stated:
“I am unalterably opposed to limiting the membership of the House to the arbitrary number of 435. Why 435? Why not 400? Why not 300? Why not 250, 450, 535, or 600? Why is this number 435 sacred? What merit is there in having a membership of 435 that we would not have if the membership were 335 or 535? There is no sanctity in the number 435 ... There is absolutely no reason, philosophy, or common sense in arbitrarily fixing the membership of the House at 435 or at any other number.”
The challenge posed by Representative Lozier in 1928 is still valid: is 435 a sacrosanct number or should it be subject to debate?
Many of those who framed and ratified the Constitution & Bill of Rights expected that the population of congressional districts would never exceed 50,000. Today their average size is 700,000; by 2100 their average size will be 1.3 million. As a result, it is no longer possible for federal Representatives to faithfully and honorably represent the diverse interests of their constituents. This could be the root cause of why our government has become “broken” and, in any case, violates the principle “That to secure these Rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just Powers from the Consent of the Governed” (from the Declaration of Independence).
Related to this matter is the fact that the very first amendment proposed in our Bill of Rights was never ratified. As proposed by the House, “Article the first” was intended to ensure that the district size never exceeded 50,000 people. While this amendment was in the Joint Committee, a subtle error was somehow introduced into it that rendered it inexecutable. It is not known when this error was eventually detected, but the amendment was ultimately ratified by all but one state. This very interesting and important story can be found at: TownHall.com
(That article contains links to supporting information.)
For additional information, please read the 15 Questions & Answers at Thirty-Thousand.org.
Thirty-Thousand.org is a non-partisan and non-profit 501(c)(3) organization.