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: Lazarus_Long who wrote (7333)	7/15/2004 8:26:37 AM
From: Rock_nj	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. Well, that's an interesting way to spin the numbers to make your point. But perhaps a more appropriate comparison might be to compare how much dilution has occurred since the House reached its current 435 members. I'm sure the dilution in representation has been great over this period. 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. That's an interesting anti-democratic argument. One way or another, the votes have to be cast and the totals will determine whether a bill passes or fails, be it 435 votes or 10,000 votes. Such a large legislative body would only be unwieldy for those who seek to control it, such as lobbists and other fat cats. Democracy works, no matter how many participate. We do tally all the tens of millions of Presidential votes in a single day (usually, not counting 2000), no reason why with computers and modern technology Congress can't be expanded and votes properly counted for each bill. As far as fracticousness goes, who said that's necessarily a bad thing? We don't live in a Parlimentary system where fracticions sometimes make governemnt unwieldy and unstable. If anything, our lack of fracticions makes our government stale and prone to gridlock, as it's easy for the two major parties to keep bills they don't like off the floor and out of the public spotlight. Congress will meet for the entire session and the President will serve his/her entire term, no matter how many parties are involved. Our government doesn't collapse due to lack of coalitions. So that's a moot issue in the U.S. 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. Really? How many third party candidates have actually won a seat in Congress over the past 100 years. A handfull? Right now, I believe Bernie Sanders of VT is the only one. Some of those who won, weren't even allowed ot take their seats, because their politics were too controversal. I believe there was a case in the early 20th Century where a Socialist from Wisconsin won a Senate seat there and the legislator wouldn't let him take his seat and serve his term. 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. There you go again, blowing things out of proportion, and insulting the people of Mississippi in the process. As if the people in Mississippi would actually be in favor of such an immoral law. Please use better more realistic examples to make your arguements. 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. Isn't this the same FDA that denied for years that cigarette smoking could lead to serious illnesses like cancer? The FDA is not above politics and influence peddling. I agree that marijuana prohibition is the law of the land right now, and we need to respect that fact. But, it's about as weak a justification for a law as is possible. Especially, when a far more damaging substance such as alcohol is fully leagal. If they want to make alcohol illegal again to level the playing field with marijuana, then perhaps the FDA and other MJ prohibitionists would have a leg to stand on while making their arguments. Obviously, the people in many western states no longer buy those anti MJ arguments. VT just passed a medical marijuana law. Once 30 or more states pass medical marijuana laws, it will be impossible for the FDA and federal government to ignore the will of the people. We're not talking about mass killing weapons or something obviously immoral like child molestation. You're arguements are weakened by bringing such irrelevant comparisons to the table.