The President and the Press

March 3, 2017March 3, 2017 Frank Kuchar

In one of his speeches, the president had this to say about the press:

“During this course of administration, and in order to disturb it, the artillery of the press has been levelled against us, charged with whatsoever its licentiousness could devise or dare. These abuses of an institution so important to freedom and science, are deeply to be regretted, inasmuch as they tend to lessen its usefulness, and to sap its safety; they might, indeed, have been corrected by the wholesome punishments reserved and provided by the laws of the several States against falsehood and defamation; but public duties more urgent press on the time of public servants, and the offenders have therefore been left to find their punishment in the public indignation.”

The animosity between President Trump and the main stream media is nothing new; it is as old as our Republic itself. In 1798 the Federalists, who held the majority in Congress, the White House (John Adams was president), and appointees to the SCOTUS, passed, signed and upheld the Alien and Seditions Act of 1798. Regarding free speech the Act contained this section:

“SEC. 2. And be it farther enacted, That if any person shall write, print, utter or publish, or shall cause or procure to be written, printed, uttered or published, or shall knowingly and willingly assist or aid in writing, printing, uttering or publishing any false, scandalous and malicious writing or writings against the government of the United States, or either house of the Congress of the United States, or the President of the United States, with intent to defame the said government, or either house of the said Congress, or the said President, or to bring them, or either of them, into contempt or disrepute; or to excite against them, or either or any of them, the hatred of the good people of the United States, or to stir up sedition within the United States, or to excite any unlawful combinations therein, for opposing or resisting any law of the United States, or any act of the President of the United States, done in pursuance of any such law, or of the powers in him vested by the constitution of the United States, or to resist, oppose, or defeat any such law or act, or to aid, encourage or abet any hostile designs of any foreign nation against United States, their people or government, then such person, being thereof convicted before any court of the United States having jurisdiction thereof, shall be punished by a fine not exceeding two thousand dollars, and by imprisonment not exceeding two years.”

Fast forward to the administration of the “revered” Abraham Lincoln. You may be shocked to learn that the great champion of liberty repeatedly trampled on the Constitution and the freedoms guaranteed in the Bill of Rights. In regards to freedom of the press, he did tolerate criticism of himself and his policies, but only to an extent. For example, in May 1864, two newspapers in New York, the Journal of Commerce and The World, ran a fake news story that Lincoln was going to issue a presidential order to draft 400,000 men into the army. Lincoln ordered the two papers shut down and the publishers arrested and imprisoned. In addition, he had the agency that had transmitted the story, the Independent Telegraph System, shut down and its property seized by the military.

Yet today, because President Trump calls out the media for its failure to live up to its obligation to honestly report the news, or does not call on certain media outlets for questions in a press conference, he is excoriated by both the press and the progressives in Congress who are calling for his impeachment because they claim his actions make him an enemy of the first amendment. Those individuals are simply showing their hypocrisy and ignorance of history and an understanding of constitutional principles.

There are many other examples I could give in addition to the two I have provided above, but clearly President Trump’s criticisms hardly reach even the hem of the garment of the examples I cited. And that presidential quote I began with? It was part of President Thomas Jefferson’s second inaugural address. You see, the more things change, the more they remain the same.

-March 3, 2017

Health Insurance, Obamacare and Government

January 25, 2017 Frank Kuchar

Congress and our new President are pushing to “repeal and replace” Obamacare. I wholeheartedly applaud the goal of repealing Obamacare. However, the greater issue surrounds its passage to begin with and the follow up notion of “replacing”.

Obamacare is a clear violation of the statement laid down by James Madison in Federalist 45 that “The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined.” Nowhere in the Constitution’s enumeration of the federal government’s powers is there any hint of a reference to its operation in the realm of health care. Consequently, from this basic truth, Obamacare is unconstitutional and on that ground demands repeal.

However, that same principle also demands that Congress and President Trump not seek any kind of “replacement” by the federal government. The proper role of the government in healthcare from the standpoint of the Constitution is no role at all. If anything, it could be argued that the power of Congress to regulate commerce among the several states would authorize it to pass legislation which would allow insurance companies located in one state to “sell” its services in all other states. This commerce clause in Article I Section 8 was inserted to prevent the states from charging tariffs on goods sent into them from other states, and in a sense insurance services could be likened unto an importation of a product from one state into another. Hence, Congress legislating that all states allow insurance companies in one state to sell in another would be within its constitutional purview. (It seems such action should be unnecessary as Congress didn’t have to pass legislation requiring states to allow Chevrolet or Ford to send their products from Michigan and other locations to all of the other states, so why should it be required to force states to allow insurance companies to “sell across state lines”?)

Those who oppose this move of repealing the so-called “Affordable” Care Act claim that access to health insurance is a “right”. I have addressed this matter in previous essays in more detail, but simply put, a “right” is something that has always been and will always be – something neither created nor granted by man. Obviously, a cursory examination of the history of health insurance indicates that it fails this basic premise of “rights.” The concept of health insurance is less than 100 years old and has changed and been modified considerably since its introduction into our society. Therefore, access to health insurance cannot be a right in the same vein as the right to life, liberty and property. There is a reason why companies that provide health insurance coverage options to their employees style it as a “benefit”, administered by their “Benefit Department”. Benefits are something that can be given and taken back, unlike rights which cannot be.

I would hope that Congress and President Trump will indeed repeal Obamacare in its entirety and then butt out and allow the free market to provide a variety and innovative options from which we can choose coverage that is both affordable and appropriate for our individual needs.

-January 27, 2017

“Not the Government We Fought For”

January 6, 2017January 6, 2017 Frank Kuchar

In his Notes on the State of Virginia, Query XIII Thomas Jefferson left us an astute observation about liberty and government. It contains a warning about how corruption and subsequent tyranny can and will creep into government – even one that is a representative government chosen democratically by the people.

Unfortunately, as we observe what is transpiring in all three branches of our current crop of leaders, especially the actions of the outgoing administration, I think we would do well to read and reflect upon his entire essay in this Query.

“4. All the powers of government, legislative, executive, and judiciary, result to the legislative body [in the Virginia Constitution of 1776]. The concentrating these in the same hands is precisely the definition of despotic government. It will be no alleviation that these powers will be exercised by a plurality of hands, and not by a single one. 173 despots would surely be as oppressive as one. Let those who doubt it turn their eyes on the republic of Venice. As little will it avail us that they are chosen by ourselves. An elective despotism was not the government we fought for; but one which should not only be founded on free principles, but in which the powers of government should be so divided and balanced among several bodies of magistracy, as that no one could transcend their legal limits, without being effectually checked and restrained by the others. For this reason that convention, which passed the ordinance of government, laid its foundation on this basis, that the legislative, executive and judiciary department should be separate and distinct, so that no person should exercise the powers of more than one of them at the same time. But no barrier was provided between these several powers. The judiciary and executive members were left dependant on the legislative, for their subsistence in office, and some of them for their continuance in it. If therefore the legislature assumes executive and judiciary powers, no opposition is likely to be made; nor, if made, can it be effectual; because in that case they may put their proceedings into the form of an act of assembly, which will render them obligatory on the other branches. They have accordingly, in many instances, decided rights which should have been left to judiciary controversy: and the direction of the executive, during the whole time of their session, is becoming habitual and familiar. And this is done with no ill intention. The views of the present members are perfectly upright. When they are led out of their regular province, it is by art in others, and inadvertence in themselves. And this will probably be the case for some time to come. But it will not be a very long time. Mankind soon learn to make interested uses of every right and power which they possess, or may assume. The public money and public liberty, intended to have been deposited with three branches of magistracy, but found inadvertently to be in the hands of one only, will soon be discovered to be sources of wealth and dominion to those who hold them; distinguished too by this tempting circumstance, that they are the instrument, as well as the object of acquisition. With money we will get men, said Caesar, and with men we will get money. Nor should our assembly be deluded by the integrity of their own purposes, and conclude that these unlimited powers will never be abused, because themselves are not disposed to abuse them. They should look forward to a time, and that not a distant one, when corruption in this, as in the country from which we derive our origin, will have seized the heads of government, and be spread by them through the body of the people; when they will purchase the voices of the people, and make them pay the price. Human nature is the same on every side of the Atlantic, and will be alike influenced by the same causes. The time to guard against corruption and tyranny, is before they shall have gotten hold on us. It is better to keep the wolf out of the fold, than to trust to drawing his teeth and talons after he shall have entered.“

I fear we now have the “wolf” in the midst of our “fold”, and as that old saying goes, “Now is the time for all good men to come to the aid of their country.” It is time we ceased to be sheeple and instead stood up and defended our liberties being devoured by these “wolves.”

-January 6, 2017

Article IV and the Antiquities Act of 1906

December 30, 2016 Frank Kuchar

President Obama just used his “pen” again to nationalize large swaths of federal land in the western states, removing them from development, as well as hundreds of millions of acres of the ocean from exploration. This action raises a number of constitutional issues.

First is the issue of just who has the constitutional right to these lands and seas? Laws have been passed regarding federal authority over these areas, but the larger question remains, are they constitutional? Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution lists the properties that the federal government has the authority to own, and all of these areas addressed by President Obama (and many presidents prior to him) are not included in that specific list. So if the federal government has no right to these lands/seas, then it has no authority to dictate to the states how the land may or may not be used. The lands belong to the states within whose boundaries they lie; to argue that they ceded ownership to the federal government and therefore legitimizes federal ownership does nothing to change the fact that the Constitution says nothing about such ownership rights.

When President Jefferson sought to acquire what came to be known as the Louisiana Purchase, he had such grave misgivings about the constitutionality of such an acquisition that he pushed for a constitutional amendment that would grant federal ownership to such properties. In 1803 Jefferson wrote “The General Government has no powers but such as the Constitution gives it… it has not given it power of holding foreign territory, and still less of incorporating it into the Union. An amendment of the Constitution seems necessary for this.” The land belongs to the states. The ocean shore out to the international limit belongs to the states. It is they who have the constitutional authority over those areas and not the federal government.

This brings us to Article IV, Section 3 of the Constitution. It states that “The Congress shall have Power to dispose of and make all needful Rules and Regulations respecting the Territory or other Property belonging to the United States.” Furthermore, Article VI, clause 2 goes on to state that “This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof;…shall be the supreme Law of the Land.” Any law, therefore, which the enforcement of or granting of powers is in conflict with the Constitution is not “in Pursuance of” the Constitution, and must of necessity be null and void.

The Antiquities Act of 1906 was passed to preserve archeological sites on public lands from looters. It gave the President absolute authority to single-handedly designate any federal public lands as national monuments, and thus protect it from looters. This Act is the basis for President Obama’s actions, and yet this law clearly flies in the face of the Constitution’s granting to Congress and Congress only the “Power to dispose of and make all needful Rules and Regulations respecting the Territory or other Property belonging to the United States.”

The states should stand together and nullify this unconstitutional Act and take back those lands and seas that rightfully belong to them, with the exception of those few constitutionally authorized properties that Article I, Section 8 grants to the federal government.

-December 30, 2016

Why Congress MUST Stay in Session

December 9, 2016 Frank Kuchar

In most instances I would say the less time Congress is in session, the safer our freedom and liberties are. However, for the upcoming holiday break and the time between the swearing in of the new congress and the inauguration of President-elect Trump, this is not the case – at least for this year.

My concern is the vacancy on the Supreme Court left by the unfortunate passing of Justice Antonin Scalia. In March of this year President Obama fulfilled his constitutional duty of nominating Merrick Garland to fill that vacancy on the court. However, the Senate has stated they will not take up deliberations on confirming his appointment, which is both their constitutional responsibility and prerogative. This leaves us at a stalemate over the vacancy.

So what’s this got to do with Congress taking its traditional holiday adjournment and the break between their swearing in and the presidential inauguration? Article II, Section 2, Clause 3 of the Constitution states that “The President shall have Power to fill up all Vacancies that may happen during the Recess of the Senate, by granting Commissions which shall expire at the End of their next Session.” In addition, Article I, Section 5, Clause 4 states that “Neither House, during the Session of Congress, shall, without the Consent of the other, adjourn for more than three days, nor to any other Place than that in which the two Houses shall be sitting.”

Should both houses of Congress agree to adjourn for more than three days during either of the two time periods I’ve mentioned, then President Obama could appoint a liberal, progressive judge to the Supreme Court without the consent of the Senate, and that individual would sit on the court until a new Congress is elected in 2018, at which time the Senate could confirm or deny confirmation, in which case that individual would be removed from the Court and President Trump would be free to nominate a conservative replacement. Indeed, there are some in the Democrat caucus in Congress that are encouraging President Obama to do just this. Yet if Congress remains in session he could not constitutionally make any appointments.

Hopefully the Republicans will not be so arrogant to think that President Obama would not do this or that if he did, they could undo the appointment in 2019. There are two serious dangers with this thinking. First, President Obama has shown in the past that he is indeed willing to make controversial recess appointments. In January 2012 he appointed three liberal, pro-union individuals to the National Labor Relations Board and it wasn’t until June 2014 that the Supreme Court ruled unanimously that the appointments were illegal. By then, however, those three individuals had done much damage in their rulings.

Second, consider what would happen if the Republicans fail to maintain their majority in the Senate in the 2018 elections. Then the Democrat-controlled Senate would confirm the appointment and that justice would have his/her life-time appointment to the Court. Not only this, but even if the Republicans maintained their majority status in the Senate in the 2018 elections, that would still give the Court a liberal majority for two years, during which time much mischief could be done to our Constitution, our freedom and our liberties.

So, there you have it. It is imperative that Congress put the wellbeing of the country and the future of the Supreme Court above their desire to “take a break” from their elected duties. Many in our military won’t be home for the holidays because of their duties in service to our country; why should members of Congress be any different?

-December 9, 2016

Trump Protesters, BLM and the First Amendment

November 25, 2016November 27, 2016 Frank Kuchar

“Congress shall make no law…abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”

So reads the first amendment to our Constitution, guaranteeing us the right to speak without reprisal or restriction by the federal government. It is this right to which appeal is made by those protesting across our land to the election of Donald Trump to be our next President and of those in the so-called “Black Lives Matter” movement against alleged police brutality against black Americans.

But, is their appropriation of this part of the amendment correct? Yes, they have the guaranteed right to speak, but that right must be put into the context of the remainder of the amendment as well as the broader principle of “rights.”

All of our rights must be put into their proper perspective and hierarchy. For example, in regards to speech, you have the right to speak freely about someone else, but you do not have the right to libel and/or slander them so as to cause them harm. In the case of many of these protests, not only are they voicing their displeasure verbally, but they are also rioting and causing damage and destruction to the personal property of others. This is where their freedom of speech comes to a screeching halt as it violates the broader picture of the freedom and rights of others.

Furthermore, when put in context with the remainder of the amendment, they are even further off-base. In the exercising of their right to free speech, they are assembling into groups to voice their grievances. Yet, the amendment states that we are guaranteed the right to peaceably assemble, which by exclusion would mean we do not have the right to assemble and commit acts of anarchy as many of these “Trump” and BLM protesters are doing.

Second, the amendment guarantees the right to a “redress of grievances” from the government. Yet with the “Trump protesters” there is no grievance to be redressed. The government has done nothing for which a redress is warranted. The election was held per the guidelines contained within the Constitution, so there is no wrong, legally or constitutionally, to be absolved. As for both groups I have mentioned, if redress is to be sought, I would point them to the example of the approach described within our Declaration of Independence. In it Jefferson point-by-point, in a respectful manner, set forth the grievances the colonies had with King George III and in the end declared their wish to be independent of his rule. Such obviously resulted in the violence of war, but the intention behind the declaration was that a peaceful resolution to the separation of the colonies from England could be found.

With the right to the freedom of speech, as with all rights, comes responsibilities and limitations. Determination should first be made as to whether or not what you are protesting is indeed a grievance. Second, are the protests being made in a peaceable manner, and third, is the approach to resolving the grievance the legitimate way in which to express the it? These are the sober and constitutionally-minded questions that those protesting today need to ask themselves.

-November 25, 2016

Term Limits Isn’t Enough

November 4, 2016 Frank Kuchar

Thanks to their corruption and lack of identity with those they represent, a vast majority of Americans want to have term limits imposed upon members of Congress. We have, as a people, reached the point described by the Baron Charles de Montesquieu in his monumental work The Spirit of the Laws, written in 1748:

“…if the legislative body were continuously convened,…if the legislative body were once corrupted, the ill would be without remedy. When various legislative bodies follow each other, the people, holding a poor opinion of the current legislative body, put their hopes, reasonably enough, in the one that will follow; but if the legislative were always the same, the people, seeing it corrupted, would expect nothing further from its laws; they would become furious or would sink into indolence” (Book 10, Part II, chapter 6).

The Anti-Federalists, during the debates over the ratification of the Constitution in 1787-1788, had picked up on this warning and asserted that in time, without limitation on members of the House and Senate, America would evolve into the corrupt government we have today. The Federalists, led by Madison’s defense of the Constitution’s structure of the House in The Federalist Papers, argued that those who sought the office of a Representative would do so out of the noble desire to serve, and then only briefly for the people would not tolerate those who would seek to make it a profession by which they could enrich themselves. Obviously, on this matter, the Anti-Federalists “had it right.”

One of the issues that Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump has made part of his campaign is to push for Congress to send to the states for ratification an amendment to the Constitution to limit the length of years individuals can serve in Congress. However, unlike others who have pushed for term limits, he has added another ingredient that must be included else term limits, by themselves, will not end the corruption but instead, abet it.

The other side of the term limit coin that Trump has added is the limitation and/or prohibition of former members of Congress becoming lobbyists after they leave office. During the time of our founders, they referred with disdain to those we call lobbyists as “stock jobbers”, and were against allowing these kind of individuals from influencing those in power. Trump suggests that former members should be prohibited from becoming lobbyists for at least 5 years after leaving office, but I would suggest he should go further and make it a lifetime ban.

The reason this is necessary and why term limits alone will not end corruption is that in a representative’s or senator’s final term, he/she would be a “lame duck” and therefore more interested in “paving the way” for their future rather than serving the interests of the people. Thus they would be more inclined than ever before to do favors for those they hoped would employ them when their term was up.

We’ve had enough of the “pay to play” not so “merry-go-round” with the Clintons to last us a lifetime – we don’t need to create an environment that would encourage it. Term limits – yes, an unfortunate remedy which I have reluctantly come to embrace, but only if we have the other side of the coin put in place along with it.

-November 3, 2016

The Press is Biased and Corrupt – So What?

October 28, 2016 Frank Kuchar

That might well be our response to the revelations now being manifested in the publication of the emails of Hillary Clinton and her campaign. Everyone knew in their hearts this to be the case so when it is now revealed to be fact, the feeling might well be “so what?” Yet this is not a proper response for it implies an attitude of indifference, and what we have learned about our press should disturb us greatly.

The role of the press in a free society was of paramount importance to our founders, so much so that it was repeatedly stressed in their debates and insisted upon having it protected within a bill of rights. So it was that the first amendment to our Constitution guarantees to us that “Congress shall make no law…abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press;”

What is the meaning, then, of maintaining freedom of the press? When the Virginia convention ratified the Constitution, those in opposition insisted that their ratification report include recommended amendments to be considered as changes to the Constitution once it was put into effect. The 16th proposal stated the importance they felt was the role of a free press: “…that the freedom of the press is one of the greatest bulwarks of liberty, and ought not to be violated.” The Anti-Federalist “Centinel”, on October 5, 1787, described the freedom of the press as “that grand palladium of freedom, and scourge of tyrants.” The aim was to ensure that the government would not interfere with the free discourse of ideas and information, even when it was critical of the policies of the government. In short, the press was to be a watchdog against government abuses and threats to the liberties and freedom of the people.

Yet Madison wrote of an even greater threat to the destruction of this role of the press. In the closing remarks of his “Observations on the ‘Draught of a Constitution for Virginia'”, published on October 11, 1788, he stated “the Exemption of the press from liability in every case for true facts, is also an innovation and as such ought to be well considered. This essential branch of liberty is perhaps more in danger of being interrupted by local tumults, or the silent awe of a predominant party, than by any direct attacks of Power.” So for the press to be totally free, the concept should incorporate not only the principle of freedom from outside censorship, but also freedom from bias and collusion.

Sadly, today, Madison’s fear has come to pass. We have a press (encompassing all mediums) that could be said to be in “awe of a predominant party”, i.e. the Progressives in the Democrat party, insomuch as not only are they in “awe” but have thrown in with them. No longer are they the “bulwark of liberty”, the “grand palladium of freedom”. Our press today is well described in the words of Thomas Jefferson who, though an ardent defender of the principle of freedom of the press, had this to say about the press of his time in a letter to Walter Jones in 1814:

“I deplore… the putrid state into which our newspapers have passed and the malignity, the vulgarity, and mendacious spirit of those who write for them… These ordures are rapidly depraving the public taste and lessening its relish for sound food. As vehicles of information and a curb on our funtionaries, they have rendered themselves useless by forfeiting all title to belief… This has, in a great degree, been produced by the violence and malignity of party spirit.”

Yes, deplorable indeed is the term that more aptly applies to our modern-day media rather than to the citizens whose freedom is put in peril by the failure of the press to fulfill its duty as a censor to those in power.

-October 28, 2016

When Rule of Law Vanishes

October 21, 2016 Frank Kuchar

Law, in a free society, is nothing more than the rules by which the citizens of a society have agreed (either democratically or through representation in a republican form of government) to live by so as to respect and preserve the inalienable rights of all citizens. In order for law to achieve this goal it must be applied equally and fairly to all citizens regardless of status or position within the society. If the rule of law ever fails in a society, then it will no longer be civil as it will ultimately descend into anarchy and then tyranny.

What we are witnessing in our country as revealed in the leaked emails of the Hillary Clinton campaign, the DNC and other government agencies such as the FBI, is the utter contempt for the rule of law. From these emails we are learning that those individuals in these groups believe and act as though laws regarding their conduct in elections and government functions do not apply to them. As a result many in our society now have even less confidence in and therefore less feeling of affection and loyalty to the government. When this happens then more and more citizens will develop a lack of respect and adherence to the rule of law, and societal structures will begin to crumble.

Our founders emphasized the importance of the people having confidence in their government and their representatives in order to maintain a representative government based upon free principles. William Findley, an Anti-Federalist from Pennsylvania who was later the first Representative to be given the title “Father of the House” due to his long service in Congress, wrote “…for as a republican government rests on the people’s confidence, whatever weakens that confidence saps the foundations of the government.”

A final point that we are learning in these emails is just as alarming, namely that our media is, as many have suspected, not fulfilling its role as a check against government abuses and violation of law. The founders emphasized how critical it was in a free society that the press be the people’s watchdog in order for freedom and liberties to flourish.

The guarantee of the freedom of the press in our first amendment means free from government control and censorship. Whenever a free press coludges with the government or certain ones in power, then it ceases to be a free press and instead becomes a propagandist arm of the government which is a characteristic of totalitarian regimes and not that of a free country.

Justice is not served when those in government and powerful positions are not held accountable to the rule of law as other citizens would be. When the people’s designated watchdog turns on them, then all confidence in it and the government withers away. When that process runs its course then the question becomes, will people rise up and revolt to reassert their rights or will they meekly submit the the darkness of despair and tyranny. As King Solomon succinctly stated in the book of Proverbs, “By justice a king gives a country stability, but one who is greedy for bribes tears it down.” Far too many of our leaders and leader-want-to-bes should take that nugget of wisdom to heart.

-October 21, 2016

Do We Need More Representatives in Congress?

October 8, 2016 Frank Kuchar

Before you dismiss me as having lost my mind, let me take you back to the debate over the ratification of our Constitution over this very question. During the Constitutional Convention in 1787 there was much debate over how many representatives were to compose the House of Representatives. The final compromise was for each state to have no less than one representative and that there would be a limit of no more than one representative for every 30,000 citizens (which was a reduction in the original ceiling of 40,000 that had been proposed). As a result, for a population of around three million the first House of Representatives was set at sixty-five (interestingly, James Madison had argued for double that number).

In the ensuing debate in the papers during the ratification process those who opposed the Constitution as it was written repeatedly argued that this ratio allowed for too few representatives. Patrick Henry in his speech on June 7, 1788 during the Virginia Ratification Convention argued that the style of the language in Article I Section 2 was too vague and would be subject to future manipulation. The Anti-Federalist Robert Yates, a delegate from New York who used the pseudonym “Brutus”, wrote a scathing essay (Essay # IV, November 29, 1787) on this matter:

“The small number which is to compose this legislature, will not only expose it to the danger of that kind of corruption, and undue influence, which will arise from the gift of places of honour and emolument, or the more direct one of bribery, but it will also subject it to another kind of influence no less fatal to the liberties of the people, though it be not so flagrantly repugnant to the principles of rectitude…A farther objection against the feebleness of the representation is, that it will not possess the confidence of the people.”

The number was increased as the population of the country grew until The Permanent Apportionment Act was signed into law on June 18, 1929 which set the number at our current level of 435, based upon the 1910 census. Those who opposed this Act argued it was unconstitutional, but the law stood, and the current method of reapportionment was adopted in 1941. Obviously the objection of Patrick Henry over the vagueness of the wording in the Constitution proved to be true.

In Federalist #56, James Madison took on this argument of too few representatives, and in it made this observation: “It is a sound and important principle that the representative ought to be acquainted with the interests and circumstances of his constituents.” So the question is, given our population today and the number of representatives allotted, can this principle hold true?

We now have a ratio of approximately 700,00 citizens for each representative. Consider the fact also that according to many recent reports as much as two-thirds of a representative’s day is devoted to fund-raising for his/her party as well as his/her own re-election efforts. Given also the amount of time spent away from their districts and the sheer number of constituents, how can they possibly fulfill Madison’s dictum? The answer is, they can’t, despite the best efforts of some to do so; it just isn’t humanly possible.

This is part of the reason it is also hard for a challenger to defeat a well-entrenched, well-funded incumbent. I know from personal experience as I tried to do so twice, in the 2012 and 2014 GOP primaries. In my case I had to cover two and a half counties while holding down a full-time job and relying on a small group of loyal un-paid volunteers who also had full-time jobs. In such instances, reaching 700,000 people requires more time and money than an average citizen can muster, and so it is that those elected tend to be individuals who are well-connected or who have worked their way up the political ladder, building their name recognition and “war chest” of funds along the way. Such was not the intention of our founders in their vision of what the House of Representatives would be.

By increasing the number of representatives you reduce this ratio, making it more likely that citizen-statesmen could arise and be more ” acquainted with the interests and circumstances of his constituents.” As for The argument that too many would make it difficult to pass legislation, etc, I say “Good”! We have too many laws encroaching upon our freedom and liberties that exceed the constitutional boundaries of the general government anyway. Admittedly, too many representatives would make the Congress unwieldy. What that number ought to be I do not know, but it should be more than one for every 700,000 citizens.

-October 7, 2016