CDZ The WILL of the people, or the BEST INTERESTS of the people?

[task0778]

I would roll with doing what is in the best interests of your constituents. When politicians run for office they generally run on a platform of ideas, if you elect me I will be for this and against that. So if you got elected it was because the voters believed you to be in their best interests over the other candidates. Which IMHO means you should do what you said you would, but with caveats. There are usually things that are unpalatable to go with the stuff that you want to pass, and so the politicians have to gauge the value of the good vs the pain of the bad, and take into account what you're hearing from your district or state.

I think if you're hearing something on a specific issue that is different now vs what you got elected on, then you kinda got a problem. IOW, when the will of the people matches what you believe to be in their best interests, then hallelujah your problem is solved. But if it doesn't then you gotta make a tough call. I have to say that the politicians should do what they honestly believe to be in the best interests of his/her constituents.

NOTE: no mention of your political party here, or your own political future. If you're throwing that consideration into the calculus then you are allowing your personal benefit or that of your party to color your judgment, which may or may not be the will of the people or in their best interests. And IMHO that makes you a dishonorable person. And unfortunately we have too many dishonorable politicians who get re-elected. Over time, some politicians convince themselves that their personal best interests and that of their party ARE in fact in the interests of the people. And possibly that could be true sometimes, but probably not all the time. IMHO, these days we see too many party line votes, and that tells me we have too many politicians whose priorities are somewhat skewed.

 

[meaner gene]

As I said. If you have evidence they didn't do their duty, present it to those that oversee the courts, and have those judges removed.

A corrupt system is not going to fix itself.

You know that state judges are elected. If you have evidence of their not doing their duty, present it to the public that elected them, and they will fix the system with the next election.
Do the same with evidence for federal judges who serve "on good behavior"

Article III, Section 1:
... The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behaviour,

 

[meaner gene]

IOW, when the will of the people matches what you believe to be in their best interests, then hallelujah your problem is solved. But if it doesn't then you gotta make a tough call. I have to say that the politicians should do what they honestly believe to be in the best interests of his/her constituents.

This can be a problem when a politician finds out that what's in the best interest of his constituents is to elect somebody better.

 

[Mac1958]

IOW, when the will of the people matches what you believe to be in their best interests, then hallelujah your problem is solved. But if it doesn't then you gotta make a tough call. I have to say that the politicians should do what they honestly believe to be in the best interests of his/her constituents.

This can be a problem when a politician finds out that what's in the best interest of his constituents is to elect somebody better.

What's in the best interests of their constituents or the country is not their top priority, so a better candidate isn't either.

 

[OKTexas]

Oh, you mean like bills to legalize recreational marijuana, which is clearly illegal by federal law?

.

What happened to states rights. That states should decide, not the federal government.

You position on this seems to be a little too flexible, based on the subject.

Like it or not, marijuana is an international commodity and the feds have every constitutional right to regulate it. If you bothered to read the Constitution you'd know that.

.

 

[Mac-7]

When a politician listens to and acts for their base only, it becomes nothing more than the "tyranny of the majority"

Thats what biden is doing right now

and what obama did for 8 years

Actually the opposite. Trump represented his base, a minority of voters, where Obama/Biden represented the majority of voters.

Trump spoke to his base, and his base alone, in their language specifically, for five years. Nothing else mattered. And because his base thinks that only THEY are America, they think therefore that he's speaking to America. They share his shallow narcissism.

He's a perfect example of governing by the will of HIS people, his base. Never has a President been so laser-focused.

I prefer innovators. But our current political system discourages out-of-the-box thinking.

Mac1958 is always complaining about trump voter extremism

but here is a true-blue establishment liberal - not a far left wacko - but a mainstream lib just like Mac1958 shouting FIRE! In a crowded theater

Journalist Immediately Issues Correction After Saying He Wants To Find People Who Refuse To Wear Masks And 'Beat Them to Death'

In a series of tweets just ahead of the new year, journalist Kurt Eichenwald said he wanted to find anti-maskers, who he later identified as "f*****g Christians," and said he wanted to "beat them to

www.sarahpalin.com

Journalist Immediately Issues Correction After Saying He Wants To Find People Who Refuse To Wear Masks And ‘Beat Them to Death’

shame on mac1958 and all the middle of the road fencepost-up-their-ass moderates for their own terrorism

 

[meaner gene]

Like it or not, marijuana is an international commodity and the feds have every constitutional right to regulate it. If you bothered to read the Constitution you'd know that.

Actually marijuana grown on one's own property for one's own usage, is why the federal government can regulate it.

See Wickard v. Filburn, 317 U.S. 111 (1942),

 

[OKTexas]

What's best for the country is subjective and only an opinion. The Constitution determines what's best for the country, elected representatives swear to uphold it, not ignore it.

Actually the people through their representatives determine what's best for the country. Remember, it's the representatives and the people who put into the constitution what's best for the country.

Then try following it for a change.

.

 

[OKTexas]

Like it or not, marijuana is an international commodity and the feds have every constitutional right to regulate it. If you bothered to read the Constitution you'd know that.

Actually marijuana grown on one's own property for one's own usage, is why the federal government can regulate it.

See Wickard v. Filburn, 317 U.S. 111 (1942),

Has to be one of the worse unconstitutional court decisions in US history. But you dems love it when it can be used to your advantage. But States acting like drug cartels, deciding who can grow, who can sell and to whom it can be sold violates any number of federal laws. They would include RICO and antitrust laws.

.

 

[meaner gene]

Actually the people through their representatives determine what's best for the country. Remember, it's the representatives and the people who put into the constitution what's best for the country.

Then try following it for a change.

Follow it as it was written, or as it was re-written?
It's an evolving document, as the founders intended, and not all changing interpretations need wait for a formal amendment. Which is why we didn't need to add websites to the 1st amendment to have it apply to them.

 

[meaner gene]

Has to be one of the worse unconstitutional court decisions in US history. But you dems love it when it can be used to your advantage. But States acting like drug cartels, deciding who can grow, who can sell and to whom it can be sold violates any number of federal laws. They would include RICO and antitrust laws.

Without Wickard, there would be no federal laws against drugs. So states would be entirely in charge of determining its legality.

You are against Wickard, but you're for federal drug laws. which is a contradiction in reality.

 

[BlackSand]

Here's a random thought that just rolled into my little brain:

Should an elected representative legislate according to what they perceive to be the will of their constituents, or according to what they perceive to be the best interests of their constituents? Obviously the two are not always going to be congruent.

So if you're in the House or the Senate, does winning that seat give you carte blanche to observe, analyze, formulate and advance policy that you feel is best for them, or are you obliged to base your actions on voices who contact you?

My first impulse is the former, where the representative has to be trusted to make appropriate decisions on their own. Thoughts?

I am sure it could be investigated or expounded upon, but the simple answer is that they are Elected Representatives and not Elected Protectors.

.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

My first impulse is the former

If trump were president you’d swear it’s the latter.

but you’d still be in a pickle because trump voters would want policies that you dont like

He was voted out, so the system worked. I can live with that.

I don't know what to tell those of you who think he won.

Hopefully now we'll get some intelligent, reasoned responses to my clear question.

^ Cheated in the tens of million column, thinks he entitled to our audience for his pithy insights.

LOL

LOL ^2

 

[Mac1958]

My first impulse is the former

If trump were president you’d swear it’s the latter.

but you’d still be in a pickle because trump voters would want policies that you dont like

He was voted out, so the system worked. I can live with that.

I don't know what to tell those of you who think he won.

Hopefully now we'll get some intelligent, reasoned responses to my clear question.

^ Cheated in the tens of million column, thinks he entitled to our audience for his pithy insights.

LOL

LOL ^2

And here you are.

And still in your fantasy world.

DAMN I'm good.

 

[Mac1958]

Actually the people through their representatives determine what's best for the country. Remember, it's the representatives and the people who put into the constitution what's best for the country.

Then try following it for a change.

Follow it as it was written, or as it was re-written?
It's an evolving document, as the founders intended, and not all changing interpretations need wait for a formal amendment. Which is why we didn't need to add websites to the 1st amendment to have it apply to them.

The Constitution doesn't address the OP directly, anyway.

This is just a question about individual interpretation. And yeah, that's allowed.

 

[dblack]

Actually the people through their representatives determine what's best for the country. Remember, it's the representatives and the people who put into the constitution what's best for the country.

Then try following it for a change.

Follow it as it was written, or as it was re-written?
It's an evolving document, as the founders intended, and not all changing interpretations need wait for a formal amendment. Which is why we didn't need to add websites to the 1st amendment to have it apply to them.

The Constitution doesn't address the OP directly, anyway.

This is just a question about individual interpretation. And yeah, that's allowed.

As long as Congress remains with its bounds (ie its enumerated powers), it doesn't really matter. Though I'd have a preference for "bests interests" because most voters don't have the context to really understand the implications of their "will".

 

[Mac1958]

Actually the people through their representatives determine what's best for the country. Remember, it's the representatives and the people who put into the constitution what's best for the country.

Then try following it for a change.

Follow it as it was written, or as it was re-written?
It's an evolving document, as the founders intended, and not all changing interpretations need wait for a formal amendment. Which is why we didn't need to add websites to the 1st amendment to have it apply to them.

The Constitution doesn't address the OP directly, anyway.

This is just a question about individual interpretation. And yeah, that's allowed.

As long as Congress remains with its bounds (ie its enumerated powers), it doesn't really matter. Though I'd have a preference for "bests interests" because most voters don't have the context to really understand the implications of their "will".

It's certainly an imperfect union. Voters may not understand how legislation affects their "best interests", and the incentives and motivations of politicians are questionable at best.

Looking at it that way, it's a freakin' miracle we're still standing.

 

[OKTexas]

Actually the people through their representatives determine what's best for the country. Remember, it's the representatives and the people who put into the constitution what's best for the country.

Then try following it for a change.

Follow it as it was written, or as it was re-written?
It's an evolving document, as the founders intended, and not all changing interpretations need wait for a formal amendment. Which is why we didn't need to add websites to the 1st amendment to have it apply to them.

The Constitution is the supreme law of the land, it was written for a reason, it's meaning doesn't change with time. Interpretations are nothing but bastardizations and unconstitutional themselves, if they don't comport with the original meaning of the text. BTW websites are speech, there's no need to add them to the 1st amendment for it to apply to them.

.

 

[OKTexas]

Has to be one of the worse unconstitutional court decisions in US history. But you dems love it when it can be used to your advantage. But States acting like drug cartels, deciding who can grow, who can sell and to whom it can be sold violates any number of federal laws. They would include RICO and antitrust laws.

Without Wickard, there would be no federal laws against drugs. So states would be entirely in charge of determining its legality.

You are against Wickard, but you're for federal drug laws. which is a contradiction in reality.

Wickard had nothing to do with drugs, but grain grown and used on the same farm. It never entered into commerce. Scalia wrote a similar opinion on marijuana, where marijuana was being grown for personal use and never entered into commerce. I said that was a bad decision as well. But that wouldn't apply to State run cartels.

.

 

[Indeependent]

Here's a random thought that just rolled into my little brain:

Should an elected representative legislate according to what they perceive to be the will of their constituents, or according to what they perceive to be the best interests of their constituents? Obviously the two are not always going to be congruent.

So if you're in the House or the Senate, does winning that seat give you carte blanche to observe, analyze, formulate and advance policy that you feel is best for them, or are you obliged to base your actions on voices who contact you?

My first impulse is the former, where the representative has to be trusted to make appropriate decisions on their own. Thoughts?

Key word...representative
Not Leader