Duty of a Congressman
Do you think it is the duty of a congressman to vote for what he feels is the right way to vote or to vote for the way his constituents want him to vote?
|
I think that depends. In most cases, at least in theory, voting his belief would already be voting the constituents' belief, since that is why he was elected.
However, there are other cases (base closings, spending cuts, etc.) where the question becomes much harder to answer. |
I think that a congressman should vote how they feel to be right. We have a representative gov't in the US for a reason. For that to work properly, congressmen have to vote for what's best for their state/country and not what will get them reelected.
|
In theory, but only in theory, a Congressman is elected because the people trust him/her to do the right thing. In this case, it would make sense for the Congressman to vote in the manner they thought proper. In the real world, of course, constituents get angry when their representatives vote otherwise than they would have. Compounding the difficulty is the fact that gauging public opinion through widespread polls is expensive and can only be conducted on the most important issues. Thus, sometimes representatives don't even have the option of following pubic opinion.
The problem is this: the people trust the Congressman to vote his/her conscience if and only if the Congressman votes the interest of the constituency. Ah, paradoxes... |
I think you are referring to the ongoing conversation regarding whether pandering and aquiescence should absolve the Democrats for Regime Change (DRC), from authorizing war...but why should it? Isn't the basis of the Left's criticism of the Bush Administration regarding Iraq that the American people were deceived?
Maybe they've only been listening to one side of the argument. Here's another: Who is Lying About Iraq? Quote:
Lawrence Wilkerson, Colin Powell's chief of staff had this to say (and he was praised by the Left for attacking the war not long ago): Quote:
As for the aluminum tubes: Quote:
Kenneth Pollack, who served on the National Security Council under Clinton, said this about a 2002 meeting: Quote:
You should read the whole article. |
Are you going to turn every thread in politics into something about how the democrats thought saddam had wmd? Because i think we get the point.
|
Quote:
Do you wish to engage the point, or have the Democrats left you speechless too? |
In a perfect world our polititians would be people who serve for a few years, putting their private lives and occupations on hold, for the betterment of their fellow citizens. In theory this would attract the best and the brightest and they should be leaders and vote what they think is best for us all.
In the real world, only those with connections and access to the two major parties have any chance of winning. This does not attract many people with integrity or leadership qualities as evidenced by the current crop of weak statesmen/women that are in power. |
Quote:
I'll bite though. How does this argument usually go? Something like: "It is obvious that george bush likes raping puppy dogs who are being forced to rape kittens while bathing in the blood of american soldiers, he also participates in some sort of diabolical plot involving the illegal selling of the world's petroleum reserves to aliens." Right? Is that what you expected? The standard response is usually something along the lines of, "Well, teddy kennedy and bill clinton also expressed the urge to rape puppy dogs who are being forced to rape kittens all while bathing in the blood of american soldiers and participating in some sort of diabolical plot involving the illegal sale of the world's petroleum supply to aliens so nannananna booboo." That's just paraphrasing though. What do you think about the duty of a congressperson who isn't involved in raping puppy dogs who are being forced to rape kittens while bathing in the blood of american soldiers, and participating in some sort of diabolical plot involving the illegal selling of the world's petroleum reserves to aliens? I think that a congressperson generally has to walk a fine line, balancing the whims of the easily persuaded sheeplike majority of their constituents with the solutions that actually might solve a problem or two. |
I would hope that congressman would have been elected by telling the truth and having support from those who agree. If this were the case, the way the congressman feels is the way his voters feel. If this isn't the case, then either the voters made a mistake, or the congressman made a mistake.
Powerclown, please try to control yourself. This thread is a general thread about political theory, it is not necessarily about any real world happenings. Did you notice in my above statement that I didn't mention Bush or Republicans or conservatives or 911? No one elses did either. Quote:
|
Quote:
DJtestudo hit the original question on the head, as a congressperson you tend to get elected on a platform whether it is strictly your own, or the party line. |
Quote:
If I'm forced to choose a side in a War not of my own making, I wish to be on the winning side, which is why I favor The West. In my opinion, the duty of my congressman - in matters relating to foreign policy and national security post 9/11 - should be to support/reject legislation integral to the well-being of the country. Specifically, I am for further coordinating our intelligence gathering services, and wish for my representatives in Congress to diligently address the matter, instead of running for the nearest political cover by philosophically morphing into something else when the going gets tough. I probably ask for the impossible, but the alternative is fascism/communism, and communism is, of course, perfect for preprogrammed ants - but not human beings. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
I must therefore ask: In the best of all possible worlds, would you rather be an ant, or a Communist? |
--- and there's a deeeeeeraaailllllllllll by powerclown, he nets ... negative ONE MEEEELION POINTS.
I believe that I elect a representative to represent MY (and obviously my fellow consituents) beliefs, not so he or she can present their own agenda. If I wanted an agenda, I'd run myself. I want them to represent those who elected them, and nothing more. |
Quote:
Ok, I'll be good now. :p |
Quote:
Quote:
|
Quote:
;) , -bear |
Quote:
Keanu Reeves is a bad mamma-jamma. Are you sure you aren't referring to Fahrenheit 9/11? :p |
A congressman's duty is to represent to the best of his ability the voices of his constituents. It is not to play party politics, it is not to curry favor with the president, press or anyone else not in his district.
That is why we elect them to give voice to the people they represent, and to preserve and protect the Constitution, the rights given and the voices of those who elected him. |
All times are GMT -8. The time now is 06:07 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Search Engine Optimization by vBSEO 3.6.0 PL2
© 2002-2012 Tilted Forum Project