Robert Frost Essays - The Road Not Taken, Robert Frost, Choice

Robert Frost Essays - The Road Not Taken, Robert Frost, Choice Robert Frost Robert Frost Do not follow where the path may lead... Go instead where there is no path and leave a trail. -Robert Frost Everyone is a traveler, choosing the roads to follow on the map of their continuous journey, life. There is never a straight path that leaves one with but a sole direction in which to head. Regardless of the original message that Robert Frost had intended to convey, his poem, The Road Not Taken, has left its readers with many different interpretations. It is one's past, present and the attitude with which he looks upon his future that determines the shade of the light that he will see the poem in. In any case however, this poem clearly demonstrates Frost's belief that it is the road that one chooses that makes him the man who he is. And sorry I could not travel both... It is always difficult to make a decision because it is impossible not to wonder about the opportunity cost, what will be missed out on. There is a strong sense of regret before the choice is even made and it lies in the knowledge that in one lifetime, it is impossible to travel down every path. In an attempt to make a decision, the traveler looks down one as far as I could. The road that will be chosen leads to the unknown, as does any choice in life. As much he may strain his eyes to see as far the road stretches, eventually it surpasses his vision and he can never see where it is going to lead. It is the way that he chooses here that sets him off on his journey and decides where he is going. Then took the other, just as fair, and having perhaps the better claim. What made it have the better claim is that it was grassy and wanted wear. It was something that was obviously not for everyone because it seemed that the majority of people took the other path therefore he calls it the road less travelled by. The fact that the traveler took this path over the more popular, secure one indicates the type of personality he has, one that does not want to necessarily follow the crowd but do more of what has never been done, what is new and different. And both that morning equally lay in leaves no step had trodden black. The leaves had covered the ground and since the time they had fallen no one had yet to pass by on this road. Perhaps Frost does this because each time a person comes to the point where they have to make a choice, it is new to them, somewhere they have never been and they tend to feel as though no one else had ever been there either. I kept the first for another day! The desire to travel down both paths is expressed and is not unusual, but knowing how way leads on to way, the speaker of this poem realizes that the decision is not just a temporary one and he doubted if I should ever come back. This is his common sense speaking and acknowledging that what he chooses now will affect every other choice he makes afterward. Once you have performed an act or spoken a word that crystalizes who you are, there is no turning back, it cannot be undone. Once again at the end of the poem the regret hangs over the traveler like a heavy cloud about to burst. He realizes that at the end of his life, somewhere ages and ages hence, he will have regrets about having never gone back and traveling down the roads he did not take. Yet he remains proud of his decision and he recognizes that it was this path that he chose that made him turn out the way and he did and live his life the way in which he lived. I took the road less trvaeled by and that had made all the difference. To this man, what was most important, what really made the difference, is that he did what he wanted, even if it meant taking the road less traveled. If he hadn't, he wouldn't be the same man

Members of the House of Representatives

Members of the House of Representatives There are 435 members of the House of Representatives. Federal law, passed on Aug. 8, 1911, determines how many members are in the House of Representatives. That measure raised the number of representatives to 435 from 391 because of population growth in the United States.   The first House of Representatives in 1789 had only 65 members. The number of seats in the House was expanded to 105 members after the 1790 Census, and then to 142 members after the 1800 headcount. The law that set the current number of seats at 435 took effect in 1913. But it isnt the reason the number of representatives has been stuck there. Why There Are 435 Members   Theres really nothing special about that number. Congress regularly increased the number of seats in the House based on the nations population growth from 1790 to 1913, and 435 is the most recent count. The number of seats in the House has not been increased in more than a century, though, even though every 10 years the census shows the population of the United States grows. Why the Number of House Members Hasnt Changed Since 1913 There are still 435 members of the House of Representatives a century later because of the  Permanent Apportionment Act of 1929, which set that number in stone. The Permanent Apportionment Act of 1929 was the result of a battle between rural and urban areas of the United States following the 1920 Census. The formula for distributing seats in the House based on population favored urbanized states and penalized smaller rural states at the time, and Congress could not agree on a reapportionment plan. After the 1910 census, when the House grew from 391 members to 433 (two more were added later when Arizona and New Mexico became states), the growth stopped. That’s because the 1920 census indicated that the majority of Americans were concentrating in cities, and nativists, worried about of the power of foreigners, blocked efforts to give them more representatives, wrote Dalton Conley, a professor of sociology, medicine and public policy at New York University, and Jacqueline Stevens, a professor of political science at Northwestern University. So, instead, Congress passed the Permanent Apportionment Act of 1929 and sealed the number of House members at the level established after the 1910 census, 435. Number of House Members Per State Unlike the U.S. Senate, which consists of two members from each state, the geographic makeup of the House is determined by the population of each state. The only stipulation spelled out in the U.S. Constitution comes in Article I, Section 2, which guarantees each state, territory or district at least one representative. The Constitution also states that there can be no more than one representative in the House for every 30,000 citizens. The number of representatives each state gets in the House of Representatives is based on population. That process, known as reapportionment, occurs every 10 years after the decennial population count conducted by the U.S. Census Bureau. U.S. Rep. William B. Bankhead of Alabama, an opponent of the legislation, called the Permanent Apportionment Act of 1929 an abdication and surrender of vital fundamental powers. One of the functions of Congress, which created the census, was to adjust the number of seats in Congress to reflect the number of people living in the United States, he said. Arguments for Expanding the Number of House Members Advocates  for increasing the number of seats in the House say such a move would increase the quality of representation by reducing the number of constituents each lawmaker represents. Each House member now represents about 700,000 people. The group ThirtyThousand.org argues that the framers of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights never intended for the population of each congressional district to exceed 50,000 or 60,000. The principle of proportionally equitable representation has been abandoned, the group argues. Another argument for increasing the size of the House is that is would diminish the influence of lobbyists. That line of reasoning assumes that lawmakers would be more closely connected to their constituents and therefore less likely to listen to special interests. Arguments Against Expanding the Number of House Members Advocates for shrinking the size of the House of Representatives often argue that the quality of legislating improves because House members would get to know each other on a more personal level. They also cite the cost of paying for salaries, benefits, and travel for not only the lawmakers but their staffs.