A Roundhouse That Misses Its Mark

Over at Human Events, Chuck Norris tries to deliver a roundhouse that wildly misses its mark. Arguing that we can improve government by drastically shrinking the House of Representatives to a single Representative per state, Chuck completely misses the cattle drive by ignoring how and why the "House of Representatives" is based on proportional representation-- and why his idea of moving to static representation would not help the country.

First, for a little history.  We have a bicameral (or "two-house", for those of you from Dundalk) legislative setup because for over one hundred years, our government was setup on the premise that two distinct groups required legislative representation.  Often called the "Virginia Compromise", the bicameral approach addressed the concerns of large-population states and small-population states.  Why?  Well, the House of Representatives was created as the "People's House", to represent the people.  Hence, the proportional representation.

The Senate, however, was considered to be the more "deliberative" body, and would represent the state governments -- and thus, would utilize static representation, affording each state government equal representation in the Federal government.  Unlike members of the House of Representatives -- who were elected directly -- Senators would be picked in the manner determined by the states.

The result was imperfect -- but functional.  It resulted in a natural tension between the two houses of Congress that was self-regulating in how absurd they could be.

But all that changed with the passage of the 17th Amendment in 1913.  It was one of a series of Amendments passed by the Progressives -- the 16th (Income Tax), the 18th (Prohibition) and the 19th (Universal Sufferage), three of which turned out to be pretty damn destructive.

Now, Senators do NOT represent the states, they schlep around for political donations just like Representatives.  They prostitute themselves before the camera just like Representatives (think any Judiciary Committee Hearing).  And they whore themselves out to special interests, just like any Representative.

And the natural tension of the Congress is gone as well.  The tension that pushed the most fierce idealogues to the center to accept imperfect solutions to imperfect problems without compromising the rights of the individuals -- the people in "We the People" -- was gone.  The Seventeenth Amendment was a perfect example of "the road to hell is paved with good intentions". 

Thus, the inability of Congress to act authoritatively to pass laws that really matter has been stunted, because the people -- the taxpayers and voters -- have been removed from the equation.  Today, organizations like La Raza (representing mostly illegal immigrants and criminals) hold more sway over our elections than you and I.  Union leadership, wielding power they seize through compulsory dues and membership, wield more power than those compelled to join or contribute. 

Worse, we slip further and further from the John Adams ideal of a "nation of laws, not men".  Today, we are largely a nation of men. Whatever the leaders of Congress, or candidates for office think is all that is important, no matter how wrongheaded that might be.

Unfortunately, limiting the House of Representatives to a single elected representative per state would not fix this problem.  It would only center more power in the hands of fewer crooks and criminals, separated even more from taxpayers and voters, and more influenced by the thousands of businesses and organizations regulated by an over-energetic government that sees nothing as out of its reach.

Instead, we need a return to truly republican principles of a divided legislature, a prominant and robust focus on 10th Amendment principles, and severely limited government.  That would be a roundhouse that would hit home with power.