Reply
Fri 16 Feb, 2007 03:11 pm
I'm sitting in my office and the telly is on in the other room, I can hear it but not see it. Some news network is on and they are discussing the vote on the non-binding resolution and the host asks the rep from the republican party "The vote shows that the vast majority of the republicans votes with the will of the president rather than the will of the people who elected them to office"
"yes" said the republican rep, they voted for what's right rather than what the people want, as it should be." (as best I recall his words)
Now I'm remembering foxfyre saying about 387 times on a2k, "the majority rules and that's how it should be"
What's wrong with this picture?
Not to get too terribly serious here (I hate it when that happens to me!) but I imagine it must be terribly difficult for an honest man elected to public office (I know, I know: that's an oxymoron; honest men don't get elected) when the will of the majority of his/her constituents conflicts with his/her concience. How do you represent the will of the people when that will is quite different from your personal moral and ethical convictions? And if you vote your conscience, are you betraying your public trust?
One reason I've never been tempted to run for public office.
The majority rules for:
1. Electing a president and the Congress.
2. Within the Congress for the passage of laws and resolutions.
The president, once elected, is under no obligation to make policy based on polls, nor is a congressman under any obligation to cast each vote in congress based on polls. This has never been the standard, nor is it any part of any law. Were this the case, every congressman would have been morally bound to vote for the invasion of Iraq in 2003, when the majority was in favor of it.
Politicians act from greed and fear more often than from patriotism, whatever the party. We have to get people to elect crooks who will respond to our needs, even as they pursue the art of being politicians.
Brandon9000 wrote:The majority rules for:
1. Electing a president and the Congress.
2. Within the Congress for the passage of laws and resolutions.
The president, once elected, is under no obligation to make policy based on polls, nor is a congressman under any obligation to cast each vote in congress based on polls. This has never been the standard, nor is it any part of any law. Were this the case, every congressman would have been morally bound to vote for the invasion of Iraq in 2003, when the majority was in favor of it.
yes quite right brandon, however please note I didn't mention polls, I did mention elections/votes. Also please note that when the christian extremists seemed in control of the house and the senate they often stated they were only following the will of the voting majority. Perhaps you didn't notice that.
dyslexia wrote:Brandon9000 wrote:The majority rules for:
1. Electing a president and the Congress.
2. Within the Congress for the passage of laws and resolutions.
The president, once elected, is under no obligation to make policy based on polls, nor is a congressman under any obligation to cast each vote in congress based on polls. This has never been the standard, nor is it any part of any law. Were this the case, every congressman would have been morally bound to vote for the invasion of Iraq in 2003, when the majority was in favor of it.
yes quite right brandon, however please note I didn't mention polls, I did mention elections/votes. Also please note that when the christian extremists seemed in control of the house and the senate they often stated they were only following the will of the voting majority. Perhaps you didn't notice that.
Alright, but an elected official cannot be criticized very much for voting according to his own opinions, if, indeed, that is what's happening. There is no reason why he should be obligated to always vote according to the majority opinion in the country. The rule of the majority applies at election time.
Dyslexia is just pointing out that you on the Right are trying to have it both ways in this matter.
He hasn't taken either side.
ebrown_p wrote:Dyslexia is just pointing out that you on the Right are trying to have it both ways in this matter.
He hasn't taken either side.
exactly, when it goes "your way" it's a good thing but when it goes the other way it's a bad thing. fargin' bastiches.
when the republican congress voted for a (non-binding resolution condemning Clinton )Dec 1995) it was a "good" thing but when the dems do it to Bush, it's a bad thing. Idiots!
I'd also like to point out that I've consistently held the opinion that mob rule is stupid but you would know that brand x because I'm sure sure you have read my posts over the years regarding my opinions.
Stumble It!
Tweet This
Bookmark on Delicious
Share on Facebook
Share on MySpace