On September 14, the U.S. House Judiciary Subcommittee on the Constitution will hold a hearing on HR 5388, the bill to increase the size of the U.S. House by one (a seat which would go to Utah) and also give the District of Columbia a voting member.
On September 14, the U.S. House Judiciary Subcommittee on the Constitution will hold a hearing on HR 5388, the bill to increase the size of the U.S. House by one (a seat which would go to Utah) and also give the District of Columbia a voting member.
Making Congress larger could be a good idea.
The state legislature of New Hampshire is about the same size as Congress, and partly because of its size, it doesn’t get a lot of bills passed, and doesn’t have such a behemoth of a government that liberties have been curtailed and poverty strengthened.
If Congress were to be, say, doubled, conceivably it would be even more cumbersome and thus less able to pass tyrannical legislation.
Then again, consider the financial costs: Members of Congress cost us a heck of a lot just by existing.
With staffs and salaries and perks and bennies, each of the miserable beings is a terrible burden.
Enlarging Congress would be a good idea, but ONLY if the scope of the government is reduced and Congress returns to being the proper part-time body it was meant to be.
And giving the District of Columbia a member is an even worse idea, for several reasons.