THE CONSERVATIVE AGENDA

- The first unalienable right listed in the Declaration of Independence is Life. Life is sacred and should be protected. Any society that will not protect the life of the unborn is a society in decay.

- Prohibited from taking campaigning money from any source outside of the district he or she represents.

- Prohibited from taking any campaigning money or services from any business, entity or person other than a registered voter in their district.

- All campaign donations left unspent on campaign to be donated to a charity supporting families of soldiers killed in active duty.

- Supreme Court and Federal Appeals Court judges can be re-confirmed by the Senate for 1 additional 10 year term.

Pass a Constitutional Amendment requiring a balanced budget and Elimination of the National Debt.

- Budget deficits can only occur with 5/6 approval of the House and the Senate and with a Declaration of National Emergency by the President.

- Create a National Visitor Identity Card and Data Base for ALL visitors to the US, regardless of duration of stay or reason for visit.

Abolish the IRS and Enact a National Consumption tax aka ‘The Fair Tax’.

Completely remove Welfare, Medicaid and Medicare from the Federal Government.

- The Federal Government will only make direct monetary payments to soldiers and Civil Servants (retirement and health care included).

- Restrict the Federal Government’s role in education to developing and analyzing standardized testing for national comparisons.

"Besides, I don't see how fewer representatives causes overrepresentation of rural/suburban areas."

IT DOESNT over-represent the rural/burbs areas, it allows some rep.'s to come from those places.

Setting seats based on population would give most big cities several Congressmen, hell, some would have DOZENS!

What the hell would that do to "Pork" ? If they Represent only one City, they care about nobody else.

The rural areas would gain far fewer seats in % of the much greater number, they become totally powerless.

The RATS would control even the Red states.

You better crunch some numbers to see where all these new Congress critters will be coming from, before you think this is a good idea.

I still don't understand. The number of reps from rural areas would also increase. How would the proportion shift to the cities?

Take Montana, Wyoming, and South Dakota with populations of ~900K, ~500K, and ~750K. Right now, they each have one rep in Congress.

Increasing the number of reps to 1 per 100K would increase the number of reps from those states to ~9, ~5, and ~7-8, respectively.

So, "red territory" would also increase its representation. I don't see how "blue territory" representation would increase proportionally more than "red territory" representation. Unless the U.S. is more blue than red to begin with.

The only time, during the Constitutional convention, that George Washington offered an opinion as President of the convention was in support of increasing the proportion of representation from 1 per 40,000 to 1 per 30,000:

Mr. GORHAM said if it was not too late he could wish, for the purpose of lessening objections to the Constitution, that the clause declaring "the number of Representatives shall not exceed one for every forty thousand" which had produced so much discussion, might be yet reconsidered, in order to strike out 40,000 & insert "thirty thousand." This would not he remarked establish that as an absolute rule, but only give Congress a greater latitude which could not be thought unreasonable.

Mr. KING & Mr. CARROL seconded & supported the idea of Mr. Gorham.

When the PRESIDENT rose, for the purpose of putting the question, he said that although his situation had hitherto restrained him from offering his sentiments on questions depending in the House, and it might be thought, ought now to impose silence on him, yet he could not forbear expressing his wish that the alteration proposed might take place. It was much to be desired that the objections to the plan recommended might be made as few as possible. The smallness of the proportion of Representatives had been considered by many members of the Convention an insufficient security for the rights & interests of the people. He acknowledged that it had always appeared to himself among the exceptionable parts of the plan, and late as the present moment was for admitting amendments, he thought this of so much consequence that it would give much satisfaction to see it adopted

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.