Do You Believe There Are Enough Representatives?

[Waiting2BwithHim]

History Lesson for the President

By Betsy McCaughey, Ph.D., CP Op-Ed Contributor

January 17, 2014|10:13 am

Congressional speeches are generally hot air, politicians blathering to a largely empty chamber. But on January 9th a discussion in the House of Representatives soared above that mediocrity. For those Americans who worry that Congress no longer cares about preserving the Constitution, the words below will provide reassurance that there are a few people with backbone in Washington D.C.

Congressman Tom Rice (R - South Carolina) and several of his 29 co-sponsors defended their resolution calling on the House of Representatives to sue President Obama in order to compel him to "take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed," as the U.S. Constitution commands. They cited his changes to Obamacare by fiat, his defiance of U.S. immigration law, and his waiving the federal work requirement for welfare benefits.

In the past, the Supreme Court has ruled that Members of Congress cannot sue the president, and that power struggles between the branches must be resolved politically, rather than by judges. Therefore, Resolution 442 has an uphill battle. But the resolution's backers expressed the bedrock principles of this nation, and addressed our gravest danger. Their words are worth remembering. President Obama is the danger the U.S. Constitution was written to prevent, because he repeatedly seizes more power than the Constitution allows a president to have.

Rep. Tom Rice:

"Our Founders, Mr. Speaker, designed a system of government based upon a separation of powers. The legislative branch enacts the laws and the executive branch, the President, enforces those laws. They did that to protect our very, very fragile freedom. We cannot allow those separations to be eroded. One man who can both make the laws and enforce the laws is more a monarch than a President.

"Article II, section 3 of the Constitution requires, in part, that the President take care to faithfully execute the Nation's laws. In 1792, when George Washington was faced with enforcing an unpopular whiskey tax, he wrote in a letter that:

 

"It is my duty to see that these laws are executed. To permit them to be trampled upon with impunity would be repugnant to that duty.'

"President Obama, on the other hand, has, throughout his administration, picked and chosen which laws or parts thereof he wishes to enforce. … This is not a Republican issue. This is not a Democrat issue. It is not a Tea Party action. This is not for messaging. H.R. 442 merely recognizes that no American, including the President, is above the law."

Rep. Rob Woodall (R - Georgia):

"I think about one of my favorite Democratic Senators, Robert Byrd from West Virginia--a champion of article I of the Constitution. He was a Democrat second; he was an American first, defending the Constitution against Presidents, Republican and Democrat, who would take the people's power from Capitol Hill and take it down to the executive branch."

Rep. Ron DeSantis (R - Florida):

"So this was a huge issue for the Founding Fathers. Clearly, it would not have been acceptable to stand up at the Constitutional Convention and say, Yes, the President is going to have the authority and duty to enforce the laws; but if there are laws he doesn't like, he will be able to delay provisions or ignore provisions as he sees fit, as long as it is consistent with his overall purpose or political agenda. That would not have been acceptable to anybody at the time.

"Can you imagine if when John Adams succeeded George Washington, he just started delaying provisions related to the bank of the United States or the Jay Treaty? Imagine when Jefferson came in. He ran against the Alien and Sedition Act. Some of those were just allowed to expire, but they went in and repealed a core portion of the Alien and Sedition Act. They didn't just ignore it. The provisions that expired, expired; and then they repealed the provisions that were still in effect.

"That is the way it is supposed to be done. They would never have allowed John Adams or Jefferson to come in and just willy-nilly enforce what they wanted to and not enforce what they didn't want to."

These history lessons should be familiar to our constitutional lawyer President.

 

http://www.christianpost.com/news/history-lesson-for-the-president-112848/

[JustinM]

True words spoken in vain to a President and electorate that no longer cares for or recognizes the authority of the Law. 

 

They want to be ruled by man?  Soon enough they will get more than they bargained for. 

 

Absolute power won't be as discriminate as they want it to be, it grows, expands, and oppresses indiscriminately.

[other one]

Do You Believe There Are Enough Representatives?

 

yes I do.....   but I'm not happy with the liberal  ones we have.

[JustinM]

If we go by what the US Constitution allows for, we are well short of Constitutional Representation.  Doesn't the US Constitution allow for a representative for every 20,000 people?

[other one]

If we go by what the US Constitution allows for, we are well short of Constitutional Representation.  Doesn't the US Constitution allow for a representative for every 20,000 people?

I'd have to look that up.

 

 

edited to add:

 

 

Section. 2.

The House of Representatives shall be composed of Members chosen every second Year by the People of the several States, and the Electors in each State shall have the Qualifications requisite for Electors of the most numerous Branch of the State Legislature.

No Person shall be a Representative who shall not have attained to the Age of twenty five Years, and been seven Years a Citizen of the United States, and who shall not, when elected, be an Inhabitant of that State in which he shall be chosen.

Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons. The actual Enumeration shall be made within three Years after the first Meeting of the Congress of the United States, and within every subsequent Term of ten Years, in such Manner as they shall by Law direct. The Number of Representatives shall not exceed one for every thirty Thousand, but each State shall have at Least one Representative; and until such enumeration shall be made, the State of New Hampshire shall be entitled to chuse three, Massachusetts eight, Rhode-Island and Providence Plantations one, Connecticut five, New-York six, New Jersey four, Pennsylvania eight, Delaware one, Maryland six, Virginia ten, North Carolina five, South Carolina five, and Georgia three.

When vacancies happen in the Representation from any State, the Executive Authority thereof shall issue Writs of Election to fill such Vacancies.

The House of Representatives shall chuse their Speaker and other Officers; and shall have the sole Power of Impeachment.

Edited February 6, 2014 by other one

[Шарон]

I'm all for less government, so I think we have plenty of Reps as it is, in fact...too many. 

[1x1is1]

Do you mean representatives by title.......or representative that represent?

[other one]

we don't have too many representatives or senators, but we have way way way too many Federal Employees and agencies.

 

 

EPA, half of Department of Defense, Department of Education and the like have way to much power and way too many people and some of them shouldn't even exist.  Should be handled by the States if the States decide they are needed.

[JustinM]

 

If we go by what the US Constitution allows for, we are well short of Constitutional Representation.  Doesn't the US Constitution allow for a representative for every 20,000 people?

I'd have to look that up.

 

 

edited to add:

 

 

Section. 2.

The House of Representatives shall be composed of Members chosen every second Year by the People of the several States, and the Electors in each State shall have the Qualifications requisite for Electors of the most numerous Branch of the State Legislature.

No Person shall be a Representative who shall not have attained to the Age of twenty five Years, and been seven Years a Citizen of the United States, and who shall not, when elected, be an Inhabitant of that State in which he shall be chosen.

Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons. The actual Enumeration shall be made within three Years after the first Meeting of the Congress of the United States, and within every subsequent Term of ten Years, in such Manner as they shall by Law direct. The Number of Representatives shall not exceed one for every thirty Thousand, but each State shall have at Least one Representative; and until such enumeration shall be made, the State of New Hampshire shall be entitled to chuse three, Massachusetts eight, Rhode-Island and Providence Plantations one, Connecticut five, New-York six, New Jersey four, Pennsylvania eight, Delaware one, Maryland six, Virginia ten, North Carolina five, South Carolina five, and Georgia three.

When vacancies happen in the Representation from any State, the Executive Authority thereof shall issue Writs of Election to fill such Vacancies.

The House of Representatives shall chuse their Speaker and other Officers; and shall have the sole Power of Impeachment.

 

Thanks, so it's 30,000.  I knew it was a rediculously low number compared to the population we have now.  That would be 10500 representatives.  I like the last statement though.  The House of Representatives shall have the sole Power of Impeachment.

[Guest]

That 30,000 number is intended to be a limitation, not a recommendation. We certainly do not need 10,000 representatives. I am not concerned that we do not have enough representatives, we have a few representatives, who do not represent enough.