How should a Congressman Vote

[Salty]

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.

 

[HeirofSalvation]

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.

 

[Oldtimer]

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.

 

[Salty]

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.

Evidently you did not read my last paragraph

 

[HeirofSalvation]

Evidently you did not read my last paragraph

I did. I did not say I think it's "un-constitutional"...Just stupid.
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.

 

[Salty]

I did. I did not say I think it's "un-constitutional"...Just stupid.
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]

So why would the ideal be "stupid".

It is a mis-allocation of scarce resources with alternative uses...Put differently:
It's not economical, wouldn't pay for itself, and would end up being subsidized by the tax-payer for the rest of eternity. (AMTRAK is) If it were economically feasible, then the free market would have put one in place already.

What is the principal that they should vote no?

We're bankrupt.

Should he vote NO even if a majority of his district would want the bill to pass?

Yes, he should. I do not subscribe to the notion that one should vote based upon the wishes of one's constituents. That's simply pure Democracy, but through a middle-man. That would be no different than simply asking the local populaces to vote on the bill itself personally.

We are a Republic, not a Democracy.

Speaking specifically about infra-structure issues:
My State of Florida recently
demonstrated precisely how ignorant it would be to ask the populace their wishes on such an issue.

For some years there have been certain parties who have wanted a high-speed rail system going from Tampa to Miami (I believe that is the route)...
Our betters: (those we placed in office to make better decisions than we make) have for years known that to be a foolish and un-economically viable idea and have not acted upon it.
However, these same parties had the brilliant idea to place it as a Constitutional Ammendment by-passing the Legislature and letting the Populace decide whether a magical and "free" high-speed system might be placed for them to transverse the State...Sure enough, it passed.
Our Legislature and Governor, knowing the idiots who passed this had no clue what they wanted or that it was an abyssmal idea; simply put a NEW Ammendment on the ballot the next election cycle to undo what the populace had put there two years earlier....Sure enough, betting on the stupidity of the populace, the same constituents voted to pass the Ammendment which undid what they had voted for only two years before.

The populace NEVER cought on to what was done to them, right in front of their faces...:tonofbricks:
But, thank the Almighty, no high-speed train system WHEWWW...dodged that bullet...

 

[Oldtimer]

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, § 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_Constitution

 

[HeirofSalvation]

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.

Great post OT!!

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:

 

[Salty]

H - Salvation

You do not undertand the OP!


MODERATOR PLEASE CLOSE THIS THREAD

 

[Squire Robertsson]

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.

 

[LadyEagle]

H - Salvation

You do not undertand the OP!


MODERATOR PLEASE CLOSE THIS THREAD

Done. LE,,,,,,,,,,