This wouldn't happen in England, where Parliament has genuine (and
thoughtful) debates and virtually everyone is present. Perhaps we ought to
adopt a more parliamentary form of government?
@Craig Clark.The Founders were actually much brighter than you give them
credit for. They knew they could not anticipate future events and
how society would change in the next 100, 200, or 300 years. So, they provided
the Amendment mechanism with a very high bar, to only enshrine widely and
broadly accepted concepts under the umbrella of the Constitution. Those in government who attempt to do end runs around the Constitution and its
Amendment process transparently show their contempt for that document and their
@YugeRE: "Members of Congress rely too much on staff research and
party guidance to know what to think and how to vote"...---I
agree. We keep hearing from folks in Congress, "Why even read the
bill"... when they know it doesn't matter what's in the bill. You
have to vote the way your party-boss tells you anyway. (voice of John Conyers
rings in my ears, "why read the bill")...They know they
don't need to read the bill. They know they won't even understand
the bill (unless they can hire a lawyer to sit with them while they read it to
explain it to them). And they know they are going to vote the way their boss
tells them anyway... so why even read the bill?Google "Conyers:
Why read the bill"...I'm sick and tired of every Democrat
voting the way their boss tells them. And every Republican voting the way their
boss tells them. They work for us... not their National Party Bosses. Yet
they all seem to vote the same. Very rare that an R votes with the D's
(or visa versa).It's a shame IMO.Nobody listens to
anybody in Congress. They already know how they are going to vote before the
debate even begins.That's why their approval rating is even
lower than Trump's.
very nice article thank you for your research will things change probably not
@Craig Clark: "The founders of 1776 and 1787 were indeed
farsighted men but how could they possibly have anticipated all of this?"Exactly the same way they anticipated every man, woman, and toddler in
America having a constituitional right to carry an AR-15.
Hear! Hear!But the problem is even worse. Members of Congress rely
too much on staff research and party guidance to know what to think and how to
vote. No one seriously believes that their Rep spends his time poring over the
details of proposed legislation and calling fellow Reps to have them explain a
particular clause. That doesn't happen.As for committee
hearings, they are no better...unless the issue is a hot button. Most of the
meetings are sparsely attended, and committee members come to give a speech, and
then leave without even hearing the testimonies offered.Sometimes
they'll adjourn to run over and cast a vote, then come back to the
committee hearings.Maybe we need to install time clocks and pay them
by the hour.
The technology of mass communication competes with the now empty floor of
Congress. Twitter has left Teddy Roosevelt’s bully pulpit in the dust.
It’s no match, not even close. The founders of 1776 and 1787 were indeed
farsighted men but how could they possibly have anticipated all of this?
Matheson has made some good points here. Congress has largely ignored the
interests of the people, almost in deliberate imitation of despots such as
Kaiser Wilhelm II. The Greek legislator Solon once stated, "The
observation of the numerous misfortunes that attend all conditions forbids us to
grow insolent upon our present enjoyment, or to admire a man's happiness
that may yet, in course of time, suffer change. For the uncertain future has yet
to come, with all variety of future; and him only to whom the divinity has
guaranteed continued happiness until the end may we call happy."Solon was known for his dignity, reserve, upright morals, humility, frugality,
wisdom, intelligence, and courage. He was the perfect example of someone who was
a statesman, not a politician. That is exactly what we need today: political
leaders who are statesmen, not politicians.
Why is it that parliament in England has real debates and we don't? What
would happen if the speaker or the president had to stand in the well of the
chamber and defend their policy request like the prime minister has to? We might
see that the emperor has no clothes. The obsession with fund-raising and
lobbying needs to end.
Most of these speeches don't really mean much to the constituents back and
are largely wasted effort (and oftentimes not really very good speeches).People in Congress (and most of their constituents) have forgotten that
half of their oath of office is to preserve, protect and defend the
Constitution. In my mind, this is their most important duty. So,
I, personally, would prefer my representatives to be reading the newspaper 90%
of the time they are in Washington, as long as they vote down efforts to
infringe on the Constitution and our individual rights found in the Amendments
to the Constitution.Most of the hard work of forming "a more
perfect union" was done more than 200 years ago. The most important role
for people in Congress is to be caretakers of that gift given to the American
people in 1787.
I think the first order of business should be to have all members of Congress
sign up for Obamacare. Make it mandatory! Too many cushy jobs. Let's get
their attention! Healthcare would be worked on with diligence, and something
produced in short time!Then, we need a new Speaker of the House who
will work with our President! This needs to be done quickly so we can get things
rolling. Our present Speaker is an obstacle in the House leadership!