PEEK  
comments_image Comments

Chuck Norris Goes on the War Path for Red States

Self-described "black-belt patriot" wants to remove 385 representatives so small "red states" have the same influence as Cali.
 
 
Share
 

Chuck Norris is mad, hoppingly so, and is not afraid to use extra punctuation marks to express his rage.

If members of Congress are not relevant or improving Americans' lives, why do we elect and re-elect them into office?!

His answer to this interrogative exclamation is Grandpa Simpsonesque in its elegance: There are too many members of the House of Representatives. Please eliminate 385.

You see, the problem is, the current arrangement is bigoted against states where there aren't a lot of people, but what people that live there happen to be conservatives. Let us examine this thesis closely, as it is, in its own way, astonishing.

If you ever have heard the saying "too many cooks in the kitchen," then you know how I feel about Congress.

What about the saying "too many cooks spoil the broth"? You know, the actual one?

We have more representatives than we need and even many more than the Constitution requires. What many might not realize is that there is nothing ultimately sacred about the present number of people we have in the House of Representatives. Actually, the proper number of representatives from each state has been debated since our Founders' time. The Constitution endeavors to assure fairness and equity by requiring each state to have at least one representative, two senators and representation in the Electoral College. (At the other extreme, it states, "The number of Representatives shall not exceed one for every thirty Thousand.") So why not go with the fewest number allowed? It seems to me that in our day, in both House and Senate, fewer representatives by area would be more reasonable and effective than more representatives by population.

It is perhaps true that Chuck Norris knows how to kick people in an expert fashion, but that notwithstanding, he seems to be somewhat confused as to the actual purpose of The People's House, which some scholars hold is to, uh, represent the people by population. In this sense it is distinct from the Senate. However, in regards to the final sentence of the foregoing, I agree that we really ought to send fewer Representatives to the Senate, as that particular practice is confusing for everyone involved.

The current numbers in the House are stacked in discriminatory ways. For example, California has a large liberal voice with its 53 representatives. How fair is that for smaller, more conservative states that have between one and five representatives in the House?