Suppose a few congressmen wanted to start a high speed AMTRAK line from Washington, DC to Los Angeles. The only stops would be Charleston, WV; Louisville, Ky; St. Louis,MO; Oklahoma City; Amarillo, Tx; Albuquerque, NM, Phoenix,AZ and LA.
If this was approved - only residents in nine States/Commonwealths would be affected. For arguments sake, lets say that would be 12% of the US population.
On the positive side - the defenders would say we need a national rail line in the event that planes are again grounded ( either mechanical or another "11 Sep), trains can be more cost efficient, thousands of jobs will be created for the building of the rails, as well as the impact on the local community, and then the employment of those to work on the train, ect, ect, ect.....
Lets say the only disadvantage is that this train would only be of value to a small number of people.
So, how should a congressman vote?
( as listed in the poll)
NOTE: THIS DISCUSSION IS NOT WHETHER THIS ACTION IS CONSTITUTIONAL OR NOT. I was just trying to find a good example about the reasoning behind the way a congressman should vote.
How should a Congressman Vote
Discussion in 'Political Debate & Discussion' started by Salty, Feb 8, 2013.
?
-
He should vote yes, many reasons that will help the whole country
2 vote(s)33.3% -
He should vote yes if it will help people in his State/Commonwealth
0 vote(s)0.0% -
He should vote no if it does not help his State/Commonwealth
1 vote(s)16.7% -
He should vote based on what his residents want
2 vote(s)33.3% -
He should vote accordingly based on him running for re-election
0 vote(s)0.0% -
Other Answer
1 vote(s)16.7%
-
-
HeirofSalvation Well-Known MemberSite Supporter
How about.....NO, just because one more bankrupt bureaucratic money sump is the LAST thing we need. If it were worth doing.......Then the private sector would have done such a thing already. (and they probably would have named it the "John Galt Line":thumbs:)
AMTRAK (like essentially everything the government tries) is insolvent. That is why the Private sector won't do it....It simply is a miss-allocation of valuable and scarce resources which have alternative uses. -
He should vote according to the will of the people he represents.
If the majority of the people, who put him into office are opposed, he should vote NO. If the majority of the people, who put him into office are in approval, he should vote YES.
** As long as his vote does adhere to the Constitution.
** As long as his vote does adhere to his moral convictions. -
-
HeirofSalvation Well-Known MemberSite Supporter
But your question was "should" vote. Not "How do you believe they 'would' vote"
They "Should" vote no on principle...of course, they won't. -
So why would the ideal be "stupid".
What is the principal that they should vote no?
Should he vote NO even if a majority of his district would want the bill to pass? -
HeirofSalvation Well-Known MemberSite Supporter
-
That's a good example of why we should never have changed the Constitution!
Members of the House of Representives are elected by popular vote of the members of their districts. As such, they should vote according to the will of the majority of the people in their district.
Senators used to be selected by representatives of state governments. Therefore, Senators were to represent/defend the rights and needs of their individual states without direct accountability to the "popular vote". Voters had to change the makeup of the state house of representatives in order to change the selection of Senators.
The balance of power..................
Now, both Representatives and Senators are elected by popular vote.
The Seventeenth Amendment (Amendment XVII) to the United States Constitution established direct election of United States Senators by popular vote. The amendment supersedes Article I, ยง 3, Clauses 1 and 2 of the Constitution, under which senators were elected by state legislatures.
****
Critics of the Seventeenth Amendment claim that by altering the way senators are elected, the states lost any representation they had in the federal government and that, in addition to violating the unamendable state suffrage clause of Article V, this led to the gradual "slide into ignominy" of state legislatures, as well as an overextension of federal power and the rise of special interest groups to fill the power vacuum previously occupied by state legislatures.[2] In addition, concerns have been raised about the power of governors to appoint temporary replacements to fill vacant senate seats, both in terms of how this provision should be interpreted and whether it should be permitted at all. Accordingly, noted public figures have expressed a desire to reform or even repeal the Seventeenth Amendment.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seventeenth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_ConstitutionClick to expand... -
HeirofSalvation Well-Known MemberSite SupporterOldtimer said: ↑That's a good example of why we should never have changed the Constitution!
Members of the House of Representives are elected by popular vote of the members of their districts. As such, they should vote according to the will of the majority of the people in their district.
Senators used to be selected by representatives of state governments. Therefore, Senators were to represent/defend the rights and needs of their individual states without direct accountability to the "popular vote". Voters had to change the makeup of the state house of representatives in order to change the selection of Senators.
The balance of power..................
Now, both Representatives and Senators are elected by popular vote.Click to expand...
I noticed you supported the idea that a "congressman" should vote in accordance with the wishes of his constituency...
In a perfect Universe, I would agree.
a "Representative" probably should simply reflect the views of his constituents, so, your POV was not "wrong" (as my post implied)....but, rather, they would provide the balance necessary if Senators were not chosen by popular vote.
IMO...Senators should NOT be chosen by popular vote and the seventh ammendment should be repealed.
"Congress" is a tricky word... technically, it means BOTH the House and the Senate and I always use it in that context...
I would agree that a Representative should vote according to the wishes of their constituency in the case we are discussing....(as you said) but, I would hope the Senate would kill it.
If the seventh ammendment were repealed (it should be) my view would change.
Great post again! :applause: -
H - Salvation
You do not undertand the OP!
MODERATOR PLEASE CLOSE THIS THREAD -
Squire Robertsson AdministratorAdministrator
Folks, please remember, the transcontinental railroad was built with massive federal subsidies in both money and land. Today it's not a whole lot different.
-
Salty said: ↑H - Salvation
You do not undertand the OP!
MODERATOR PLEASE CLOSE THIS THREADClick to expand...