Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Politics' started by Salty, Dec 30, 2009.
We always complain about how our House of Reps vote.
What do you think?
Once a Congressman has voted on a bill, he should NOT be allowed to change his vote.
Also, the House allows at least 15 - 30 minutes for voting. The Max time allowed should be two minutes.
I got to meet my congressman, Ander Crenshaw, once as part of a group and he gave us a chance to ask him questions. I didn't ask him any, but one of the people asked him this very question. He said he votes his conscience and doesn't pay much attention to polls. He said that if people don't like how he votes they have a chance to vote for someone else every two years. I tend to agree with Mr. Crenshaw on this.
Just curious, often have you complained about how your congressman votes on an issue - but change your thinking on another issue.
So do you want him to be consistent or what?
Nobody else has any thoughts
Problem is the conflict between the 3rd and 6th choices. We have people in congress who don't want what is best for the US and/or their district/state.
They should vote the way I want them to vote.
I say let's go back to the original plan:
The House is elected by the people of their district (and for goodness sakes, get rid of the ridiculous gerrymandering!) They would represent those people in their voting...always allowing for those rare, but significant votes of principle (i.e., if I were a rep in a pro-choice district, they would need to get ready for disappointment...and I'd vote my conscience even if it meant being sent home).
The Senate (thanks to the repeal of the 17th Amendments) would be appointed by the legislatures of each state. They would look out for state's interests.
Not holding my breath, though...
I agree with this part. We need to be careful not to weaken federalism.
Agreement b/t Rbell & Paul: That's twice in a month!
'tis a miracle!
I agree with Paul, a politician should vote his conscience. We cannot simply vote for a man and depend upon him to do what is right for his district, state, country...
We are responsible as voters for the government we have. We should carefully look at all candidates and determine which candidate reflects our personal beliefs.
We see President Obama in office now, and many here do not like his political views. But, America knew his views before we voted for him. We are reaping what we sowed as a nation. It is our own fault.
Now this is a nail driver!!!!:BangHead::BangHead::BangHead::BangHead:
Time to bump, with the election drawing close
Agree with rbell. Even better to scratch the entire constitution and go back to the Articles of Confederation.
I was kind of torn by voting what the concensus is & voting on what is best for the district. Sometimes those are two different things. A "representative" is supposed to do just that, to "represent" the citizens that put him in office.
For example: If I were a congressman, if the majority of people wanted to have marijuana legalized, as a representative, I would have to vote to legalize it. Truthfully, I would have a hard time with this. This would be one of those things that bother my conscience. In a case like that, I would have to do what is best for my district & vote against it.
I believe that when people are using common sense, that we should represent their voice. In a case where people aren't using common sense, then I believe that a congressman should do what's best for his district, even if it isn't the popular choice.
By the way, is one's conscious fixed or does it vary according to circumstances? Does conscious evolve (change) over a person's life?
I agree with this!
It stands to reason that it changes over time since that of a child is different than that of an adult.
For some - whether one listens to it or not may be dictated by circumstances.
Situational ethics is the term.
They should vote only for what is authorized under the Constitution (under which they took an oath of office and by which they have no other claim to their position).
For Constitutional matters, they should consider the God-given rights of life, liberty, and property, and vote accordingly.
Virtually, this means that just about everyone in Congress should vote the opposite of what they do now.
That would be good, but at least heeding the Constitution (you know, the actual supreme law of the land by which they are legally bound) would be a vast improvement over the current status quo.
The status quo is always (1) more power and money to government, (2) more protection for incumbents, (3) fewer rights and less money to citizens.