Legislation that would support this policy
I would first try to force a vote on repealing the Permanent Apportionment Act of 1929 and then forcing a vote on growing the size of the house between 100-200 seats added to the next election of the House of Representatives. However I would prefer to pass a constitutional amendment that would force the House to apportion themselves every Census; with the enactment of the amendment forcing the house to apportion the House immediately after its adoption.
A Working Amendment to the Constitution addressing the House size:
Article —
After every Enumeration required by the first Article of this Constitution, the Congress shall apportion Representatives among the several States according to their respective numbers, by a uniform rule to be established by law.
And the Congress shall, from time to time, make such enlargement of the House of Representatives as the increase of the people and the circumstances of the Union may require; provided nevertheless, that no enlargement after any single Enumeration shall be fewer than ten Representatives, nor increase the whole number thereof by more than one hundred, unless a greater enlargement shall be judged necessary by two thirds of each House.
The Congress shall have no power perpetually to fix or limit the whole number of Representatives; nor shall any law concerning the apportionment thereof continue in force beyond the second Enumeration succeeding the enactment thereof, unless renewed by law.
No law continuing the existing proportion of representation without enlargement after two successive Enumerations shall have force, unless assented to by two thirds of each House respectively; and the reasons for the same shall be entered at large upon the Journals thereof.
And it shall be lawful for the Congress, by the concurrence of two thirds of each House, to make such reduction in the whole number of Representatives as may be judged necessary to preserve a due proportion between the Representatives and the people, and to promote the orderly deliberations of the House; provided nevertheless, that no such reduction after any single Enumeration shall exceed fifty Representatives, unless a greater reduction shall be assented to by two thirds of each House respectively.
And no law for such reduction shall continue in force beyond the first Enumeration succeeding the enactment thereof, unless renewed by law.
And in all laws concerning the apportionment of Representatives, due regard shall be had to the orderly deliberations of the House, to the convenient administration of the Government, and to the preservation of that confidence between the people and their Representatives upon which the republican principles of this Constitution principally depend.
What This Amendment Does:
1. Reapportionment After Every Census
"After every Enumeration required by the first Article of this Constitution, the Congress shall apportion Representatives among the several States according to their respective numbers..."
Meaning:
After every census, Congress must reapportion the House among the states according to population using a uniform method.
This constitutionalizes the principle that representation should be periodically reconsidered rather than ignored.
Effect:
This ensures that changes in population are regularly reflected in the composition of the House. States that gain population receive appropriate representation, while states that lose relative population cannot indefinitely retain disproportionate influence. It preserves the constitutional principle that representation should follow the people rather than historical circumstance.
Why It Is Important:
The legitimacy of representative government depends upon political power remaining connected to the people. Without regular reapportionment, representation gradually becomes detached from population realities, allowing historical arrangements to outweigh present conditions. This clause ensures that the House remains a living reflection of the nation rather than a relic of an earlier census.
2. The House Should Grow When the Nation Grows
"The Congress shall, from time to time, make such enlargement of the House of Representatives as the increase of the people and the circumstances of the Union may require..."
Meaning:
Congress is expected to enlarge the House over time as the population grows.
This is not an automatic formula. Congress still decides how much growth is appropriate.
The amendment creates a constitutional expectation of growth without mandating a specific ratio.
Effect:
This prevents the House from becoming increasingly distant from the people as the nation grows. It preserves the ability of future Congresses to adapt representation to changing circumstances while avoiding rigid constitutional formulas that may become unsuitable over time.
Why It Is Important:
A republic depends upon a reasonable connection between representatives and those whom they represent. If population grows indefinitely while representation remains fixed, districts become larger, representatives become less accessible, and public confidence may diminish. This clause preserves flexibility while ensuring that growth in population remains a constitutional consideration.
3. Growth Must Be Gradual
"...no enlargement after any single Enumeration shall be fewer than ten Representatives, nor increase the whole number thereof by more than one hundred..."
Meaning:
After a census:
-
Congress cannot increase the House by only 1 or 2 seats.
-
Any increase must be at least 10 seats.
-
Any increase is capped at 100 seats.
A larger increase is possible only if two-thirds of both houses agree.
The purpose is to avoid token growth and explosive growth.
Effect:
This provision ensures that growth is meaningful without being disruptive. It prevents Congress from technically complying with the amendment through insignificant increases while also protecting the House from sudden expansions that could impair deliberation, organization, and effective governance.
Why It Is Important:
Representation must evolve, but constitutional institutions must also remain stable. This provision balances those competing concerns by requiring genuine enlargement while preventing abrupt changes that could undermine the House's ability to function effectively.
4. Congress Cannot Permanently Freeze House Size
"The Congress shall have no power perpetually to fix or limit the whole number of Representatives..."
This is the amendment's central provision.
Meaning:
Congress cannot do what it effectively did with the permanent 435-member House.
A law setting House size is no longer allowed to become a permanent settlement.
Future Congresses must periodically reconsider the issue.
This clause directly attacks institutional stagnation.
Effect:
This is the amendment's principal safeguard. It prevents one generation from permanently determining the level of representation for all future generations. The size of the House remains subject to constitutional reconsideration as the nation changes, preserving the republican principle that representation must evolve with the people.
Why It Is Important:
No generation possesses the wisdom to permanently determine the representative needs of all generations that follow. A fixed House may become increasingly detached from demographic realities. This clause preserves the principle that representation must remain adaptable to the nation's future growth and development.
5. Apportionment Laws Expire
"...nor shall any law concerning the apportionment thereof continue in force beyond the second Enumeration succeeding the enactment thereof, unless renewed by law."
Meaning:
Apportionment statutes expire after two censuses unless Congress renews them.
Example:
-
Law passed in 2030
-
Census 2040
-
Census 2050
After the second census following enactment, Congress must reconsider the law.
The goal is to force periodic review.
Effect:
This provision prevents temporary arrangements from quietly becoming permanent constitutional settlements. It requires each generation to actively evaluate whether existing apportionment rules still serve the nation and its representative institutions.
Why It Is Important:
Many political arrangements endure not because they remain wise, but because they are never reconsidered. By requiring periodic renewal, this clause ensures that Congress remains accountable for the continued suitability of the apportionment system.
6. Refusing to Grow the House Requires a Supermajority
"No law continuing the existing proportion of representation without enlargement after two successive Enumerations shall have force..."
Meaning:
If Congress wants to keep the House the same size through multiple censuses, it cannot do so casually.
It needs:
-
two-thirds of the House,
-
two-thirds of the Senate,
-
and a written explanation entered into the congressional record.
This creates a constitutional bias toward eventual growth.
Effect:
Congress retains the power to conclude that enlargement is unnecessary, but only when a broad national consensus exists. This makes prolonged stagnation difficult while preserving flexibility for extraordinary circumstances. It also promotes transparency by requiring Congress to publicly justify its decision.
Why It Is Important:
The amendment does not assume that enlargement is always necessary. Instead, it requires that decisions against enlargement command broad support and public justification. This prevents Congress from leaving the House unchanged simply out of habit or inaction, while still allowing it to exercise sound judgment when enlargement is genuinely unnecessary.
7. The House May Be Reduced Only by Broad National Consensus
"And it shall be lawful for the Congress, by the concurrence of two thirds of each House, to make such reduction in the whole number of Representatives..."
Meaning:
Congress may reduce the size of the House, but only if, two-thirds of the House of Representatives agree and two-thirds of the Senate agree. A simple majority is insufficient.
The reduction must be justified as necessary to preserve a proper relationship between the people and their Representatives and to maintain the orderly deliberations of the House.
Effect:
This provision allows the House to be reduced when extraordinary circumstances make reduction prudent, while ensuring that no temporary majority may diminish representation for partisan or political advantage. Any reduction must command a broad national consensus and be grounded in constitutional considerations rather than mere convenience.
Why It Is Important:
Representative assemblies could become too small to represent the people adequately, but also too large to deliberate effectively. This provision recognizes both dangers. By requiring a supermajority, it protects representation from casual reduction while preserving the ability of future Congresses to maintain a proper balance between representation and effective government.
8. Shrinkage Must Also Be Gradual
"...provided nevertheless, that no such reduction after any single Enumeration shall exceed fifty Representatives..."
Meaning:
Even when Congress determines that a reduction is necessary:
-
reductions may not exceed 50 Representatives after a single census,
-
larger reductions require separate approval by two-thirds of each House.
Effect:
This prevents sudden contractions that could destabilize representation or concentrate political power too quickly. Just as growth is gradual, contraction must also proceed cautiously, preserving institutional continuity and public confidence.
Why It Is Important:
The dangers of excessive reduction mirror the dangers of excessive growth. A representative body that shrinks too rapidly may cease to reflect the diversity of interests within the nation. Gradual adjustment protects both stability and legitimacy.
9. Reduction Laws Automatically Expire
"And no law for such reduction shall continue in force beyond the first Enumeration succeeding the enactment thereof, unless renewed by law."
Meaning:
A law reducing the House is temporary.
After the next census, Congress must reconsider the reduction or affirmatively renew it.
The reduction cannot continue indefinitely through legislative inaction or habit.
Effect:
This provision prevents temporary decisions from becoming permanent constitutional settlements. It ensures that future Congresses remain free to determine whether the circumstances justifying a reduction still exist.
Why It Is Important:
One generation should not permanently determine the representative structure of future generations. By requiring renewal after the next census, this clause ensures that reductions remain subject to continuing public and legislative scrutiny.
10. Congress Must Consider Representation, Not Just Efficiency
"...due regard shall be had... to the preservation of that confidence between the people and their Representatives..."
Meaning:
When determining whether to enlarge, maintain, or reduce the size of the House, Congress must consider:
-
effective representation,
-
public confidence,
-
republican government,
-
orderly deliberation,
and not merely administrative convenience.
Effect:
This clause reminds Congress that the purpose of the House is not simply efficient administration. The House exists to maintain a close relationship between the people and their government. It places representation itself among the constitutional values that Congress must consider whenever it alters the structure of the House.
Why It Is Important:
The ultimate purpose of the House of Representatives is not efficiency but liberty. A representative assembly exists to preserve the people's confidence in their government and to ensure that public authority remains dependent upon public opinion. This clause places that republican principle at the center of every future apportionment decision.
Why the Amendment Includes a Reduction Clause
The amendment is principally concerned with preventing the House from becoming too small and too distant from the people. Nevertheless, it recognizes that representation requires balance.
Just as a House that is too small may inadequately represent the people, a House that is too large may become increasingly difficult to deliberate, organize, and govern effectively. The reduction clause therefore provides a constitutional mechanism through which future Congresses may address extraordinary circumstances that render the existing size of the House unsuitable.
The amendment allows the House to adapt not only to growth but also to significant changes in the circumstances of the Union. It ensures that future Congresses are not compelled to maintain a House whose size no longer bears a proper relation to the population it represents or to the practical requirements of legislative deliberation.
At the same time, the supermajority requirement, limits on the size of reductions, and expiration of reduction laws ensure that representation remains strongly protected against unnecessary contraction.
Why It Is Important:
This clause reflects a principle of republican government, which depends upon maintaining a proper balance between representation and deliberation. A legislature that is too small may cease to reflect the people faithfully, but a legislature that is too large may become disorderly, inefficient, and incapable of exercising sound judgment.
The amendment therefore guards against both extremes. It seeks neither the largest possible House nor the smallest possible House, but a House that remains proportioned to the people while preserving the capacity for orderly and responsible government. By allowing carefully controlled reductions only when supported by an overwhelming consensus of Congress, the amendment preserves flexibility without sacrificing the representative character of the House.
What the Amendment Is Really Trying to Accomplish
At its core, the amendment establishes four principles:
1. Representation should not be permanently frozen. Congress must periodically reconsider House size.
2. Growth should occur gradually. No explosive increases.
3. Shrinkage should be rare, deliberate, and broadly supported. Reductions require a two-thirds vote of both Houses, must proceed gradually, and must be periodically reconsidered.
4. Representation exists to preserve republican government. The House should remain close enough to the people to maintain public confidence and accountability while retaining the capacity for orderly deliberation.
In short, the amendment does NOT attempt to determine the "correct" size of the House. Instead, it creates a constitutional process that encourages gradual growth, discourages permanent caps, permits carefully controlled reductions when broadly supported, and prevents either sudden expansion or sudden contraction. That emphasis on balancing popular representation with stable government is very much in line with the Constitution's spirit of republican government and with Madison's understanding of representative institutions.
Policy: How we Repair the Government
My Plan to fix corruption and partisanship in the Federal Government
3
Repeal the 17th Amendment
The 17th Amendment, which shifted the election of U.S. Senators from state legislatures to direct popular vote, has deeply damaged states’ rights and the balance of our federal system.
Before its passage, senators were chosen by state legislatures to represent the interests of their states as sovereign political bodies. This structure created a vital check on federal power; if the federal government overreached, state legislatures could respond through their senators. By moving Senate elections to a direct popular vote, the 17th Amendment severed that direct tie between senators and their state governments.
Senators now campaign primarily to national parties, big donors, and broad public opinion, instead of being accountable first to the peoples' closest representatives in their own state capitols. This change has encouraged senators to think and act like national politicians rather than guardians of their states’ unique needs and constitutional powers.
The result has been a steady expansion of federal authority at the expense of the states. With fewer institutional incentives to defend state sovereignty, the Senate has become far more willing to approve federal mandates, regulations, and spending programs that intrude into areas once reserved to the states. Instead of serving as a shield for local self-government, the Senate often functions as a second national House of Representatives.
Restoring a strong role for state legislatures in the selection of senators would help return the Senate to its original constitutional purpose. It would strengthen states’ voices in Washington D.C., revive an important check on centralized power, and move our system back toward the Founders’ design of a federal government that is limited, balanced, and truly accountable to the people through their states.
Not only would it give states their check on central power and protect their sovereignty, repealing the 17th amendment would also create incentives for the citizens of each state to be more aware of state governance.
2
Nondelegation Doctrine: Reclaiming government power in the legislature
"It will be of little avail to the people, that the laws are made by men of their own choice, if the laws be so voluminous that they cannot be read, or so incoherent that they cannot be understood: if they be repealed or revised before they are promulgated, or undergo such incessant changes, that no man who knows what the law is today, can guess what it will be tomorrow."
-James Madison
Such is the Administrative State
The nondelegation doctrine is the simple idea that the branch of government trusted with making laws must not hand that power off to someone else.
In our system, Congress is supposed to write the rules that govern the American people, and each member of Congress is supposed to be accountable for those rules. When legislators must vote on clear, specific laws, voters can see exactly who supported what, and can reward or punish them at the ballot box. That direct line of responsibility is what keeps representatives honest and responsive.
When Congress delegates broad lawmaking power to independent agencies and unelected bureaucrats, that accountability breaks down. Instead of writing detailed laws, Congress often passes vague statutes that say an agency may regulate “as necessary” or “in the public interest,” and then lets regulators fill in the details. Those details are where the real rules—and real burdens on citizens and businesses—are created. Yet when those rules go wrong, members of Congress can point fingers at the agencies and claim they are not to blame.
The Founders would have found this practice appalling. They designed a system in which the legislative power was placed in the hands of the people’s elected representatives, not distant experts or permanent bureaucracies.
The Constitution vests “all legislative Powers” in Congress for a reason: so that lawmaking would be deliberate, transparent, and answerable to the people. Allowing Congress to give away that core power undermines the separation of powers and weakens the very idea of representative government.
Restoring a strong nondelegation doctrine would force Congress to do its job again: write clear laws, take clear votes, and stand openly behind the rules imposed on the American people. That would mean fewer vague mandates, less government by regulation, and more honest accountability to voters. In a constitutional republic, lawmaking should never be outsourced to agencies that the people cannot easily remove or replace.
1
Increase the Size of the House of Representatives
One of the first items mentioned in the U.S. Constitution is in Article 1 Section 2 Clause 3: "The number of Representatives shall not exceed one for every thirty Thousand..." Every check on power there after is based on the size of congress, including the Electoral College for the presidential election process. Congressional district size, is the most important check the people have on the Federal Government and the size has of each district has removed voters further and further away from their representative and in doing so took away our agency in government and our check on government power and over reach.
By increasing the House of Representatives the following would happen:
- Congressional Districts would shrink in size, forcing representatives to be more accountable to their constituents
- The bar for running for congress would be lower for regular citizens and allow more locally active people to run; creating much needed competition in politics and more rigorous elections
- Create incentives for representatives to protect their constituents' liberties and freedoms from lobbies and corruption
- Solve most of the bureaucracy by decreasing the size of "independent" agencies and departments via larger oversight by a larger number of elected officials. Decreasing the amount of unelected officials from controlling the levers of power.
4
Repealing the 16th Amendment
The concentration of money in hands of few is bound to foster tyranny of the worst kind.
Our Founders understood that one lever of power is money, and that if the federal government had no restraint on taxation, it would consume the liberties and freedoms of its people through overtaxation and theft of labor.
The original text of the constitution did not allow unrestricted direct taxation; such as that of wealth and income; however the 16th amendment circumvented this control and check on federal taxation power by giving to the federal government unbridled taxation power of direct means instead via income tax. The original text of the constitution only allowed for direct taxes, if said taxes were apportioned to the many states based on the most recent census; this acted as a check on power for both the states and the federal government. If the Federal government laid a direct tax it would not be a unilateral power but rather a discussion among the many states as to collect said tax.
The 16th amendment ended this check on central power by giving full rein of direct income tax to the federal government and thus concentrated the peoples wealth into the hands of the few; and where there is money there is corruption. Not to mention the sweeping power the words "from whatever source derived" gave the federal government to tax almost anything the people earned.
5
Gold Standard
For most of our history, the United States tied its money to gold, a real and limited asset that government could not simply create out of thin air. Returning to a gold standard would restore that discipline.
When every dollar must be backed by something tangible, it becomes much harder for politicians and central bankers to quietly inflate the currency, pick winners and losers, or hide the true cost of their policies behind complex monetary tricks.
Fiat currency invites corruption and abuse. When new money can be created with a keystroke, those closest to the printing press benefit first: big banks, well‑connected corporations, and the political class. Ordinary workers and savers pay the price later through higher prices, weaker purchasing power, and boom‑and‑bust cycles that destroy jobs and savings.
A gold standard limits this favoritism by forcing government to live within real economic constraints.
Sound money also protects liberty. When inflation quietly eats away at savings, families lose independence and become more dependent on government programs and debt. Under a gold standard, citizens can trust that the value of their work and savings will not be silently stolen through devaluation. Stable, honest money gives people the freedom to plan, invest, and build for the future without fearing that Washington will change the rules overnight.
The Founders deeply distrusted fiat money because they had lived through its disasters. Under the Articles of Confederation, paper “Continentals” were printed in huge amounts and quickly became nearly worthless. The Constitution reflects this hard‑earned lesson: it forbids states from making anything but gold and silver coin a tender in payment of debts.
The Founders understood that paper promises controlled by politicians are a dangerous tool that can be used to tax the people through inflation without their consent.
By moving back toward a gold‑backed currency, we would honor the Founders’ wisdom, reduce opportunities for corruption, and restore a monetary system that serves the people instead of the political and financial elite. Sound money is not just an economic issue—it is a cornerstone of limited government, personal liberty, and long‑term prosperity.
6
"Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."
-Benjamin Franklin
The Patriot Act was passed in the emotional aftermath of 9/11, when fear and urgency led Congress to trade away core constitutional protections in the name of security. While keeping Americans safe is a vital duty, the Constitution does not allow the federal government to ignore fundamental rights to achieve it.
The Patriot Act crossed that line, expanding federal surveillance and investigative powers far beyond what the Founders would have recognized as lawful or limited government.
The Fourth Amendment protects citizens from unreasonable searches and seizures and requires specific warrants based on probable cause. The Patriot Act weakened these safeguards by allowing broad, often secret surveillance of phone records, emails, financial data, and other personal information. This flips the presumption of innocence and treats ordinary Americans as potential suspects first, citizens second.
The Act also concentrates power in the executive branch and secret courts, undermining the separation of powers that is central to our constitutional design. When government agencies can monitor citizens with minimal oversight and little transparency, abuses become easier and accountability becomes harder. A free people cannot meaningfully hold their government in check if they do not even know when or how they are being watched.
Revoking the Patriot Act is not about being soft on terrorism; it is about being firm on the Constitution. We can and must protect our country while honoring the Bill of Rights and the limits on federal power. Ending the Patriot Act would restore proper respect for the Fourth Amendment, re‑balance power among the branches of government, and reaffirm that our liberties are not bargaining chips to be traded away in times of crisis.