Posted on 06/27/2013 8:03:20 AM PDT by The Old Hoosier
...“If government were a matter of will upon any side, [the constituents’], without question, ought to be superior,” Edmund Burke once said. “But government and legislation are matters of reason and judgment, and not of inclination; and what sort of reason is that in which the determination precedes the discussion, in which one set of men deliberate and another decide, and where those who form the conclusion are…miles distant from those who hear the arguments?”
Burke further argued that “your representative owes you, not his industry only, but his judgment; and he betrays, instead of serving you, if he sacrifices it to your opinion.” ...
(Excerpt) Read more at conservativeintel.com ...
Proposed cure: All political contributions must be ANONYMOUS. Congressmen can't sell influence if they don't know who is buying. But the citizen donor still retains the right to support those he feels will act in his best interest.
Very appropriate are the quotes from various people who have used this thought and variations of this phrase over the last two centuries (none are attributed to Jefferson, however). Here’s sampling:
John Philpot Curran in a speech upon the Right of Election (1790), published in Speeches on the late very interesting State trials (1808):
It is the common fate of the indolent to see their rights become a prey to the active. The condition upon which God hath given liberty to man is eternal vigilance; which condition if he break, servitude is at once the consequence of his crime and the punishment of his guilt.
From http://www.thisdayinquotes.com/2011/01/eternal-vigilance-is-price-of-liberty.html...
Speaking to members of the Massachusetts Anti-Slavery Society [on January 28, 1852], [Wendell] Phillips said:
“Eternal vigilance is the price of liberty; power is ever stealing from the many to the few. The manna of popular liberty must be gathered each day or it is rotten. The living sap of today outgrows the dead rind of yesterday. The hand entrusted with power becomes, either form human depravity or esprit de corps, the necessary enemy of the people. Only by continued oversight can the democrat in office be prevented from hardening into a despot; only by unintermitted agitation can a people be sufficiently awake to principle not to let liberty be smothered in material prosperity.”
…in a biography of Major General James Jackson published in 1809, author Thomas Charlton used the same words, just in a different order. Charlton wrote that that one of the obligations of biographers of famous people is
“fastening upon the minds of the American people the belief, that ‘the price of liberty is eternal vigilance.’”
…an article in the May 2, 1833 edition of The Virginia Free Press and Farmers' Repository says:
“Some one has justly remarked, that ‘eternal vigilance is the price of liberty.’ Let the sentinels on the watch-tower sleep not, and slumber not.”
In an introduction to the 1965 radio version of his novel Brave New World, [Aldous] Huxley said:
“Eternal vigilance is not only the price of liberty; eternal vigilance is the price of human decency.”
Proposed Cure: Get the government out of so many damned things that it requires lobbying in the first place.
The problem with term limits is that NOBODY would be on our side. If US Senators and HOR knew that they actually had to earn a living after their limited time in the DC fog, they’d spend every minute of it selling out, in order to prepare for their futures.
I think 12 years total is good for both representatives and senators.
Sometimes I think we need to put the word “Romanian” in front of “term limits.”
The number of seats in the House of Representatives is set by statute, and steadily increased until about 100 years ago, when Congress stopped increasing it.
The cap had four primary drivers. First House leaders felt that a House of 500 or 700 members would be expensive, uncongenial, and hard to manage. Second, with the Senate’s longer terms, fixed smaller number, and power over appointments, a larger House would make it even harder for individual members of the House to have competing influence. Third, newly-created seats inevitably were apportioned to the fast-growing urban areas of the country; in a pre-Baker vs. Carr situation, the cap helped rural members retain the advantage of their relatively less populous districts. Fourth, adding more seats in the House would dilute smaller state’s very significant advantage in the Presidential Electoral College.
With the exception of rural vs. urban, all of these continue to apply today.
After Byrd was wheeled in for someone else to cast his vote for him, a friend of mine had what I thought was an excellent idea.
At the start of each session, within one weeks time period, require the Senators and Representatives to enter a room unaided and go to a podium / microphone no less than 13 feet distant from the door to read the Constitution and the Bill of Rights out loud.
If they can not do that, they are not physically and/or mentally able to perform their duties and are then removed from office.
The problem is, how do you end gerrymandering? What rules do you put in place?
While safe districts are a problem; the underlying problem with the house is the limited number of representatives. The ratio of people to representative has grown to the point where it is easier to buy the representative then to sway the people to your point of view.
If we had say a representative for every 100,000 people:
1. There would be too many to buy.
2. Districts would be small enough that everyone could have face time with there rep.
3. Running for office would not cost as much and money would have less influence.
4. Districts would get better representation.
To do this would require online voting so that the representative wouldn’t have to leave their district.
This would also reduce cost.
The Representative should not be a career with a retirement.
Good point. Populations aren’t evenly distributed in the states. For instance in Michigan we have Detroit districts that are a few dozen square miles but the 1st district encompasses the entire upper peninsula and maybe a 3rd of the lower peninsula.
I think gerrymandering is really only effective around urban borders.
Ban them from being within 100 miles of DC for life.
How about a square mile approach:
Take the state’s population from last census and determine the number of congressional districts. Determine average number of citizens per district. This becomes the “target” population for each district.
Create a grid of the state using square miles that starts (coordinates 0,0) at the state capital or within 1/4 mile of the capital building front door. Determine the number of citizens per square mile.
Start with the most populated square mile. Each district to be labeled in the number it was created.
If there are not enough citizens to come within 5% of the target citizens per district, then from the adjacent (touching by a side - diagonal does not count) districts, add the next most populated square mile until the citizen count within the district come within 5% of the target per district. If the proposed added square mile would exceed the target by 5%, that square mile can not be included. If the list of available square miles is exceeded and the number still does not come within the 5% target, the next round of available and adjacent (touching by a side) square miles, become available to add to the district.
Once that is done, the process is repeated with the next most populated square mile in the state. The last district would then “pick up” all remaining square miles.
To “clean up” a district, a swap to/from a touching district is allowed but it must be based on whole square miles subject to the following rules:
No sub-dividing of square miles.
No swap is allowed if that swap would result in a district with less than 95% of the target population number.
No swap is allowed that would separate a square mile from the rest of the district
Multiple swaps are allowed however, no swapping after a district has traded 10% of it’s original set of square miles, excluding the final district.
Courts may review but only to make sure that the rules are followed. No consideration is given to race, economics, county or city lines, or any other consideration. If the judge determines that the rules are not followed, the districts remain as they are and the whole map is thrown out - start over.
Just my .02
Limit the amount of damage politicians can do by limiting the amount of time they have to do it.
Allow the legislative branch to meet for only two weeks every quarter. During that two weeks, the legislators pay will be equal to the pay he would receive at his non-government job for the same time period.
Limit the amount of damage politicians can do by not allowing them to insulate themselves from their own actions.
Any law, rule, code, decree, regulation, treaty, benefit, or executive order that applies to citizens will apply equally to legislators.
Any law, rule, code, decree, regulation, treaty, benefit, or executive order that applies to legislators will apply equally to citizens.
Amen to that as well.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.