10,000 Members of Congress Justified by 74,079 Volunteer Mormon Missionaries

by Robert John Stevens, June 29, 2016

Below are comments I left today for the Mises.org article The US Should Have 10,000 Members of Congress:

While the Founding Fathers remained alive, the population per representative remained consistent with the U.S. Constitution’s mandate of 30,000 citizens per congressional representative; hence, the wise ratio was designed to endure not just for constituent representation but to limit the powers and spending of the executive branch.

If the ratio continued the USA wouldn’t be 19.3 trillion in debt or have fought so many unconstitutional wars of aggression.

The cost of 10,000 members of Congress is small compared to the cost of runaway government spending and interventionism. Unaffordable? The Mormon Church ratio of members to volunteer missionaries is 211 (15,634,199 members to 74,079 missionaries). If 74,079 Mormon missionaries volunteer to work for free, supporting themselves from their own savings for eighteen months to two years, surely the United States can elect 10,000 representatives, or 1 to every 30,000 citizens, who love the U.S. Constitution enough to serve for two years at their own expense.

The Founding Fathers were correct to establish at least 30,000 constituents per congressional district. It would have saved trillions of dollars, kept the middle class wealthy, limited the power of the Executive Branch and preserved the U.S. Constitution—the basis of the most successful government in history.

I find it ironic that Mormons not only believe Jesus Christ raised up the Founding Fathers and inspired them to create the U.S. Constitution, but their member-to-missionary ratio of 211 to 1 is an indisputable case study that correct U.S. constitutional representation ratio can and must be restored.

See LDS Facts and Statistics

Jason Chaffetz for House Speaker? Promoting Political Advancement as a Strategy for Re-Election

by Robert John Stevens, October 2, 2015

Positioning an incumbent as a candidate for a higher office is an age-old political strategy that repeatedly fools citizens. Delegates will ask those who run against the incumbent, “If they get the position, isn’t that good for us?”

Answers could include, “Do you want them to represent you or take another job?” “If you are unhappy with their organization as the majority of citizens are, and believe their organization is criminal, I’ll fight against them promoting those within whom they trust.”

Had the states ratified the first amendment to the Bill of Rights, we may still be enjoying proper representation. It probably won’t be restored until long after a collapse; collapses are often followed by prolonged extreme hardships and bloody wars. Then if citizens are successful in retaking their government they may restate correct principles, restore proportional representation and constitutional government.

The very first article of the U.S. Bill of Rights detailed proportional representation but it was never ratified by the states!

James Madison knew proportional representation was essential. Why didn’t wasn’t this ratified by the states? Today most citizens believe many if not all the 435 members of the U.S. Congress have been bought.

After the first enumeration required by the first article of the Constitution, there shall be one Representative for every thirty thousand, until the number shall amount to one hundred, after which the proportion shall be so regulated by Congress, that there shall be not less than one hundred Representatives, nor less than one Representative for every forty thousand persons, until the number of Representatives shall amount to two hundred; after which the proportion shall be so regulated by Congress, that there shall not be less than two hundred Representatives, nor more than one Representative for every fifty thousand persons.—Article the first, Bill of Rights Transcript

In other words, James Madison knew proportional representation was so important that he listed it as the first article. By not ratifying it, the states sealed the fate of the U.S. Congress to be eventually purchased and controlled by banksters, crooks and conspirators—as we’ve seen in the 21st century.

FULL TRANSCRIPT: RAND PAUL’S FIRST HOUR OF FILIBUSTERING THE PATRIOT ACT

I have been asking for a while to have a full day and have five or six amendments that Senator Wyden and I could put forward and have a full-fledged debate over whether or not the bulk collection of our records is something we should continue to do. Now, I think if you look at this and you say where are the American people on this, well, there has been poll after poll. Well over half the people, maybe well over 60% of the people think the government’s gone too far. But if you want an example of why the Senate or Congress doesn’t represent the people very well or why we’re maybe a decade behind, I’ll bet you it’s 20% of the people here would vote to stop this, to truly just stop it. At the most, where is it 60% or 70% of the public would stop these things.

You’re not well represented. What’s happened is I think the congress is maybe a decade behind the people. I think this is an argument for why we should limit terms. I this is an argument for why we should have more turnover in office, because we get up here and we stay too long and we get separated from the people. The people don’t want the bulk collection of their records. And if we were listening, we’d hear that. The vote in the house, while I don’t think the bill is perfect and I think it may well continue bulk collection, was over 300 votes to end this program, to say we’re no longer going to have bulk collection.

If they come into your house there is no ability for you to complain. In fact, sometimes they are now coming into our houses without us knowing about it. This is called a sneak and peek warrant. And like everything else the government says we’ll be over run with terrorists if we don’t let the government quietly sneak into your house when you’re gone and put listening devices, search through your papers and read all your stuff while you’re gone.

New Bill–Congress Must Represent People, Not Party

Dear Senators Lee, Paul and Cruz:

Please change the public discussion to focus on the virtuous idea that the government no longer represents the people and therefore must be replaced by those who are accountable to the people. For example, as you know, Campaign for Liberty claims 70% of Americans want the Fed audited yet government won’t allow it.

I realize democracy doesn’t work and that is why our Founding Fathers set up a republic, but a republic doesn’t work if representatives are bought by lobbyists, threatened by a rogue executive branch, no longer accountable the Constitution, and free to commit and cover up crimes after promised immunity and protection.

So can you introduce a bill to require the Congress to represent the people? This will surely stir up discussion!

Even if members of Congress voted as directed by their state legislators, it is much more difficult for conspiring men to control 50 state legislating bodies than 535 voting members of Congress. If “All politics is local”, as often said by former Speaker of the U.S. House Tip O’Neill, wouldn’t mandating state legislator approval be a step in the right direction?

I also realize I may not have the right solution but I think my proposal, if discussed by you, Senators Lee and Cruz, could lead to something that could work.

Best Regards,

Robert Stevens
CEO WriteExpress Corporation
Provo, Utah