Get back to two houses

The Washington Times Daily - - EDITORIAL -

If Pres­i­dent Trump made a blun­der dur­ing his cam­paign, it was that he placed all his em­pha­sis on the pres­i­dency and did not ask for new Repub­li­can mem­bers of Congress from the new pa­triot move­ment. We sent the same es­tab­lish­ment Repub­li­cans to Wash­ing­ton, and we are get­ting the same squishi­ness and pre­emp­tive sur­ren­der to so­cial­ist, statist, to­tal­i­tar­ian Democrats we got be­fore.

Yet the an­swer is not term lim­its. Some of the great­est mis­chief done by Congress has been in lame-duck ses­sions by politi­cians who were no longer ac­count­able to the vot­ers. I fear that term lim­its might turn ev­ery ses­sion of Congress into a lame-duck ses­sion. A bet­ter ap­proach would be to limit ev­ery rep­re­sen­ta­tive to once again rep­re­sent­ing no more than 30,000 peo­ple, which Alexan­der Hamil­ton claimed was the op­ti­mum num­ber.

Cur­rently each rep­re­sen­ta­tive “rep­re­sents” some 750,000 peo­ple. This would give us a House with 10,00011,000 mem­bers, but I be­lieve our mod­ern meth­ods of com­mu­ni­ca­tion would make this vi­able. Among the ad­van­tages there would be Con­gres­sional districts that would once again be more or less ho­moge­nous; cam­paigns could be run on fairly mod­est bud­gets; con­stituents would find it far eas­ier to hold their rep­re­sen­ta­tives ac­count­able and a sin­gle spe­cial in­ter­est would have to cor­rupt over 5,000 peo­ple in or­der to be suc­cess­ful.

As for the Se­nate, I rec­om­mend re­peal­ing the 17th Amend­ment, which was a se­ri­ous mis­take. It essen­tially changed the Se­nate into a glo­ri­fied House of Rep­re­sen­ta­tives whose mem­bers serve longer terms. Since 1918 the states have not had any­one in Wash­ing­ton truly rep­re­sent­ing them.

THOMAS M. CRAW­FORD Lau­rel

Newspapers in English

Newspapers from USA

© PressReader. All rights reserved.