Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Bush-The Mastermind behind 9/11? -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Rock_nj who wrote (7268)	7/13/2004 10:16:30 PM
From: Sidney Reilly	Respond to of 20039

A good point about Congress. But with say a thousand members the retirement packages would break us! That would have to be scaled back and that would be unpopular in Congress.

To: Rock_nj who wrote (7268)	7/14/2004 9:59:34 PM
From: Lazarus_Long	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 20039

The population of the US in 1789 was 3.9 million. They were represented by 59 House members. That's 661,000 population per member. THe population today is 292 million. That would require 441 members to represent them at the same ratio. Almost the same ratio, because currently the House has 435 members. So there has been no change there. There is another practical matter: If a legislature is too large, it is unwieldy and fractious. Little could be expected of Congress of, say, 10,000 members. Of course, more house seats would open the door to 3rd parties and other undesirables. The two major parties would rather keep the current system in place, that keeps them firmly in control. There are quite enough seats already that another party could establish if the people wished it to. the federal government could respect the will of the people when they vote for such things as medical marijuana. The federal gov't could respect the will of the people of, say, Mississippi, if they legalized child molestation. They wouldn't, though. The would claim a duty to protect the fundamental rights of innocents and intervene. Of course, as long as those laws don't take away other people's rights, like the old Jim Crow laws. Those Jim Crow laws were held valid by the states on precisely the grounds you are claiming: state's rights. Those rights were first upheld, then invalidated by the USSC with no intervening Constitutional amendment that changed the law. The USSC has upheld the right of the federal gov't to regulate drugs. The FDA has administratively held marijuana is a drug and claimed jurisdiction. Marijuana in fact does have deleterious effects on health. THe FDA has held that it has no legitimate medical uses and cannot be prescribed.