Do we need additional Congressmen?

[Salty]

The COTUS called for 1 representative for every 30,000 Americans. In the First congress had 65 representatives. By 1820, Congress was up to 165. Currently with 435 members the ratio is about 1:700,000. If we went by the original in the COTUS - we would have about 10,000. Granted that would be a bit too much. In this Congress the bottom 24 States/Commonwealths only have a total of 62 representatives. At the other end - the top 9 S/C have over 50% of Congressmen! In addition the top 2 S/C have more representation the bottom 24 S/C

Granted - S/C with bigger population should have more Congressmen - But it does seem to be lopsided.

Thus my recommendation — Increase the House to 600 members. (would only effect 7 S/C). However no S/C shall have no more than 10% of the total # of representatives and each S/C shall have no less than two representatives. The remainder of the number shall be divided equally by population. Thus the ration would be about 1:500,000

For those who are concerned about the cost - With 435 members, the payroll is about 75,690,000 per year. An additional 165 members would increase the payroll by 28,710,000 for a total of 104,400,000 per year. The annual budget of the US is about 4 trillion dollars. Thus the salaries - would be about 0.000025 of the budget - aka - a drop in the budget.

Another thing, the “political leaders” ie majority and minor party leaders will not receive any additional pay. Only the Speaker of the House and Senate pro-tem should be given that extra allowance. Also, I would have no problem with the Speaker of the House to be elected by nationwide popular vote.

Any other suggestions?

 

[Reynolds]

Congress is the house and the Senate. You are improperly using the term "Congress".

 

[Salty]

Congress is the house and the Senate. You are improperly using the term "Congress".

You should have capitalized the "H" for House.

Now that we have played silly games -
lets discuss the OP

 

[KenH]

I see no good reason to add even more filthy, corrupt members of the lump of fallen, filthy, corrupt humanity that we are a part of to the U.S. House of Representatives.

 

[Salty]

I see no good reason to add even more filthy, corrupt members of the lump of fallen, filthy, corrupt humanity that we are a part of to the U.S. House of Representatives.

I think that was uncalled for! There are many Congressmen with high standards.

 

[KenH]

I think that was uncalled for! There are many Congressmen with high standards.

Romans 3:9-18 What then? are we better than they? No, in no wise: for we have before proved both Jews and Gentiles, that they are all under sin; as it is written,
There is none righteous, no, not one:
There is none that understandeth,
There is none that seeketh after God.
They are all gone out of the way, they are together become unprofitable;
There is none that doeth good, no, not one.
Their throat is an open sepulchre;
With their tongues they have used deceit;
The poison of asps is under their lips:
Whose mouth is full of cursing and bitterness:
Their feet are swift to shed blood:
Destruction and misery are in their ways:
And the way of peace have they not known:
There is no fear of God before their eyes.

 

[canadyjd]

IMO, no need for more congressmen.

What we do need is….

1. Term limits (6 terms house/one term Senate.
2. Flat tax rate: 10% personal/15% corporate
3. Balanced budget amendment to COTUS. Super majority required to deficit spend.
4. Age limits (min and max) 40 for house/ 59 for Senate/ 55 Pres and vice Pres/ 60/80 for SCOTUS
5. A return to focus in States rights in all social issues.

Sorry, not really trying to hijack your thread, but it’s all connected.

peace to you

 

[Salty]

IMO, no need for more congressmen.

What we do need is….

1. Term limits (6 terms house/one term Senate.
2. Flat tax rate: 10% personal/15% corporate
3. Balanced budget amendment to COTUS. Super majority required to deficit spend.
4. Age limits (min and max) 40 for house/ 59 for Senate/ 55 Pres and vice Pres/ 60/80 for SCOTUS
5. A return to focus in States rights in all social issues.

Sorry, not really trying to hijack your thread, but it’s all connected.

Not a problem - as they can be connected.

1- Yes term limits - but senate should be 2 terms -
or a maximum of 16 years total between the two houses
or no govt paid retirement
Flat Tax - PROVIDED it is via Automatic Electronic Tax
The Transaction Tax | equality, simplicity, transparency

and with the AET - no forms - no tax witholding, ect - would decrease the IRS by about 90% -- (and yes - regardless, we will still need an IRS.

Balance budget is good -but could be suspended in time of declared war

Age limit - fine as it is - no need for maximum age.

I am a strong 10th amendment guy!

As far as additional congressman -

Virtually one State - California has as much say as the bottom 20 S/c!!!

 

[KenH]

Virtually one State - California has as much say as the bottom 20 S/c!!!

And Alaska and several other small population States have as many U.S. Senators as California.

The House represents the people. The Senate represents the States, which is why the 17th Amendment should never have happened.

 

[Salty]

And Alaska and several other small population States have as many U.S. Senators as California..

and that is the purpose of the Senate

The House represents the people. The Senate represents the States, which is why the 17th Amendment should never have happened.

I agree with you on the 17th!
But in the House- I dont like seeing 1, 2 or 3 large S/c having too much power.

 

[KenH]

and that is the purpose of the Senate




I agree with you on the 17th!
But in the House- I dont like seeing 1, 2 or 3 large S/c having too much power.

Those with the most people, and since the House represents the people, get the more representatives. We don't need two Houses nor two Senates. That is why the 17th Amendment is so egregiously bad - it moved the Senate toward being more House-like.

But any system that has fallen, filthy sinners choosing their rulers from among themselves is problematic. Thankfully, God is absolutely totally sovereign, so no one gets into a position of power - by being voted in or any other method - except as it has been ordained by God.

 

[Reynolds]

You should have capitalized the "H" for House.

Now that we have played silly games -
lets discuss the OP

I did. Auto correct un capped it.
It is not silly. There's a distinct difference between Congress and The House.

 

[Salty]

I did. Auto correct un capped it.
It is not silly. There's a distinct difference between Congress and The House.

Lets talk about the OP - period!

 

[Reynolds]

The House is to allocate representation strictly by population.
No need to mess with COTUS.

 

[Bible Thumpin n Gun Totin]

No, states with vast numbers of illegals are overcounted and are diminishing the representation in Congress of U.S citizens. We need to reduce the number of congressmen, or reallocate the existing number to U.S citizens only.

 

[Salty]

fully agree with American Citizens only

But when Trump wanted to ask for citizenshiop

Supreme Court blocks 2020 census citizenship question in setback for Trump admin | CNN Politics

 

[KenH]

fully agree with American Citizens only

But when Trump wanted to ask for citizenshiop

Supreme Court blocks 2020 census citizenship question in setback for Trump admin | CNN Politics

Probably would have to amend the U.S. Constitution as Amendment 14, Section 2, does not mention citizenship, just numbers of individuals:

Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed.

 

[37818]

And Alaska and several other small population States have as many U.S. Senators as California.

The House represents the people. The Senate represents the States, which is why the 17th Amendment should never have happened.

The House is to represent the us the People.
The Senate is to represent the States. The vote for the Senators should be returned to be elected by state legislatures.

 

[37818]

Probably would have to amend the U.S. Constitution as Amendment 14, Section 2, does not mention citizenship, just numbers of individuals:

Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed.

No. people under the jurisdiction of a State are given equal protections under the law. Not just the citizens.

 

[AustinC]

The answer to the OP is...

No