Posts Tagged ‘House of Representatives’

Canadian Flag

My correspondence with a radio host who is featuring a guest discussing the global warming scam, suggesting that Canada is putting pressure on the U.S. to adopt the Kyoto Protocol and other such schemes:

As for Canada pressuring the U.S. to do anything, that’s like a beaver pressuring an elephant to do something, in sticking with the comparative metaphor we Canadians are raised with.

Recall that it was your House of Representatives that passed a cap-and-trade bill back in 2009 — something that didn’t even pass our House when the Conservatives were in a minority position with the Liberals and two avowed socialist parties.

Now, with a Conservative majority government, there is almost no chance of a cap-and-trade bill being passed for the next four years.

I can’t imagine that Canada would be pressuring the U.S. too hard even under a Liberal government, since when we ratified the first accord, our Liberal Prime Minister quickly gave an exemption to the auto sector, we were generating twice the per capita amount of (new) greenhouse gases than the U.S. was, and the tar sands were ramping up their production, so our government was never sincere about it to begin with. Here, treaties are ratified without a vote in the House and Senate, so it was the case of our PM doing what he wanted for political reasons.

Read Full Post »

U.S. House of Representatives

The U.S. Constitution provides for a maximum of one Representative for every 30,000 inhabitants of the United States, and a minimum of one representative per state, in proportion to the decennial (every 10 years) enumeration of the population.

The Office of the Clerk of the U.S. House of Representatives states on their FAQ:

7. What is the size of the House of Representatives and how is it determined?

The current size, 435 Members, of the House of Representatives, was established by Public Law 62-5 on August 8, 1911 and took effect in 1913.

Article 1, Section 2 of the Constitution provides for both the minimum and maximum sizes for the House of Representatives.

In 1913, the population was estimated to be 97,225,000, which resulted in one Representative for every 218,908 inhabitants. By 2010, the census population count was 308,745,538, which resulted in one Representative for every 709,759 inhabitants.

Only India has a lower degree of representation in its popular legislative chamber. However, the U.S. House could have half its current number of Representatives, and still be constitutional.

Therefore, not only have successive Congresses been tolerant of the status quo, much to the satisfaction of lobbyists who progressively get more value for their lobbying dollars, but so is the Constitution that brought Congress into existence.

Read Full Post »

Lew Rockwell

Perhaps Gary North, the prolific and stalwart LewRockwell.com writer, should consider keeping his articles on his own site, if he hopes to retain any of his limited government credentials.

This week alone, LRC has published at least two pro-state articles.

Here’s one from yesterday, lamenting offshoring, the loss of American manufacturing jobs, and the removal of Depression-era Glass-Steagall banking regulations.

Here’s one today, calling for an increase from the current 435 elected Representatives in the House to 8200.

“anti-state” indeed!

Read Full Post »

On Infowars.com today, I saw the shocking headline “Barney Frank: We Are Trying On Every Front To Increase The Role Of Government.”

That’s not a controversial statement to anyone who has been following the number and nature of the bills that have been tabled and passed in the House of Representatives since January 2009. However, it would be quite the open admission from a prominent American politician, and I was therefore surprised. It would be red meat even to many politically centrist Americans.

Sure enough, he did say that.  And more. The full quote was, “We are trying on every front to increase the role of government in the regulatory area.”

Those four extra words make all the difference in the world, in terms of what Rep. Frank said. It’s the difference between openly declaring what has been and is taking place overall, for quite some time, versus what is taking place now, in a specific area. Very few would argue that total government non-regulation of credit default swaps (one of the most speculative financial instruments ever devised), is a good thing. The world-wide derivative meltdown of 2008, stemming in large part from unregulated credit default swaps, would indicate otherwise.

I agree with one commenter on the Infowars.com post that their quotation is misleading. But don’t let that make you rely on Rep. Frank or any other American politician openly declaring what you already know to be true. Namely, what your government and representatives have been doing for quite some time — trying on every front to increase the role of government.

Read Full Post »