111 comments posted · 6 followers · following 0
As for the other suggestion regarding House representation, reducing the number of Reps will REDUCE and not increase the degree to which the House is responsive to public opinion. Shorter terms or INCREASING representation (more voters per reps) are both a more appropriate solution to the problem Ron seeks to address.
I am sure you are familiar with the 1st Amendment's protection of religious freedom and so will not reiterate it here.
I will however point your attention to Article VI clause 3, which states:
"The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States. "
The purpose of this clause is to allow citizens to choose their own representatives WITHOUT REGARD TO RELIGIOUS AFFILIATION and to provide individuals OF ALL RELIGIOUS BELIEFS with the freedom to seek their redress of grievances by seeking public office.
So I guess your dilemma is whether you support our constitution or not.
And by the way, many of your other "requirements" are either permitted by the Constitution or directly violate it. But what the hell, "let's just throw the darn thing away " is apparently your preferred solution.
I'll go back to my lurking, now.
The more likely mode of altering the makeup of Congress is through the electoral process during which, of course, the will of the people is exercised.
The first two were proposals to the state of Virginia, but reflect thinking on the same issue at the national level in the years following the constitutional debates. The last is Madison's explanation of how/why our government was supposed to work.
Just a starting point
I would like to reiterate that while some of the evidence Dr. Stanley offered is somewhat correct, it is his conclusions (based on selective data gathering and incorrect inferences) that are wrong.
In short, the agreement among our Founding Fathers was that religion should be protected from government intrusion and that government should not be used to impose religion on others.
History is what occurred; fiction is what Dr. Stanley invents!