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

[Mac-7]

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

Mac1958 is just searching for a way to disenfranchize trump voters

so call the career swamp rats anything you please - rep or leader - as long as its biden policies that get advanced

 

[Mac1958]

Mac1958 is just searching for a way to disenfranchize trump voters

 

[Mac-7]

Mac1958 is just searching for a way to disenfranchize trump voters

If its trump voters hell will freeze over before you choose “the will of the people”

 

[Mac1958]

Mac1958 is just searching for a way to disenfranchize trump voters

If its trump voters hell will freeze over before you choose “the will of the people”

This is not about Trump. I specifically mentioned Representatives and Senators in the OP. The same question would apply to state politicians and mayors, for that matter. You guys have brought him into it, and I commented after that.

Holy crap. Your paranoia and defensiveness are absolutely fascinating.

Fortunately, there has been some interesting input on this thread to counteract your typical trolling.

 

[Mac-7]

This is not about Trump.

Its all about trump

so many of your posts are still blasting trump and trump voters

and you have been doing so for 4 years

I know many of the “enlightened” never trumpers want to move on and perhaps even have us forget that you voted for biden

but that wont happen soon

 

[Mac1958]

This is not about Trump.

Its all about trump

so many of your posts are still blasting trump and trump voters

and you have been doing so for 4 years

I know many of the “enlightened” never trumpers want to move on and perhaps even have us forget that you voted for biden

but that wont happen soon

Yikes.

Okie dokie.

 

[meaner gene]

The Constitution is the supreme law of the land, it was written for a reason, it's meaning doesn't change with time.

Actually this has been repeatedly proven wrong. The meanings within the constitution change with time, or with acts of congress. The definition of "the people" has changed several times, both by amending the constitution, and by passing legislation.

 

[meaner gene]

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.

What you missed is that Scalia based his marijuana decision on Wickard. Without Wickard, Scalia would have had no foundation for his decision.

 

[meaner gene]

If its trump voters hell will freeze over before you choose “the will of the people”

If it's Trump voters, they represent a minority of voters.

 

[Crepitus]

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 would say the best interests should come first. Hopefully if he got elected people trust his judgement. If he's wrong then vote him out next time.

 

[Crepitus]

If the majority of a constituency demands a bill to legalize dog fighting, I do not think a rep should be able to say “Not happening, if you don’t like it vote me out”

I do think so.

 

[Crepitus]

This is why you need literate voters and a president who is educated rather than dumb as a stump.

Neither of those statements are true

Of course they are.

 

[Mac-7]

If it's Trump voters, they represent a minority of voters.

Thats arguable if we had honest voting with no democrat cheating

And it only applies to the presidency

 

[Crepitus]

Have a problem with both the will of the people and the best interest of the people.
First example of will of people gone wrong the 3 strikes law. 2nd the storming of our capital.
Emotional choices made while angry.
Best interest of the people not possible now.
Those chosen not on ability but political party and money.

A problem is now that we're getting reactionaries voted into office, and those who can be pragmatic are getting the hell out. All that does is make things worse.

Joe Biden is hardly a reactionary.

 

[Crepitus]

Neither. They should be legislating based on Right and Wrong under the limitations provided by the Governing documents of the nation/state/locality they are governing.

Right and wrong are not absolutes. They can change with the laws.

 

[Mac1958]

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 would say the best interests should come first. Hopefully if he got elected people trust his judgement. If he's wrong then vote him out next time.

Agreed. Seems to me that a "representative" is a person I vote for because I trust their judgement -- especially because they're going to have access to information that I don't -- to act on their particular set of principles.

In other words, if a person I trust has better information that I have, I'll defer to them. I'm trusting them to do the right thing with what they have.

 

[Mac1958]

Have a problem with both the will of the people and the best interest of the people.
First example of will of people gone wrong the 3 strikes law. 2nd the storming of our capital.
Emotional choices made while angry.
Best interest of the people not possible now.
Those chosen not on ability but political party and money.

A problem is now that we're getting reactionaries voted into office, and those who can be pragmatic are getting the hell out. All that does is make things worse.

Joe Biden is hardly a reactionary.

I'm not talking about the Presidential level. I'm thinking state, even local, levels.

 

[Anathema]

Right and wrong are not absolutes. They can change with the laws.

Right and Wrong have nothing to do with human law. They were determined millennia ago when humanitywas created.

 

[Grumblenuts]

Good topic.

 

[sartre play]

Money power & self interest. The list of those in both party's who fit this description would fill pages. No one seems to have the will to police there own party.