A Legislator as a Person

Posted on 2009-09-25 by David

When I assert that anyone who would be a good legislator must have some basic life qualifications I base that assertion on the example outlined in the Constitution where requirements are set for members of the House to be at least 25 years old and members of the Senate to be at least 30 years old. Basic age requirements such as these may be among the few life requirements that are truly objective and quantifiable but I believe they are indicative of a larger  (although still limited) set of subjective requirements that must be met by a good legislator. The age requirements set forth are appropriately different for different offices. The purpose of the age requirements is the same – it is intended to promote a level of maturity and life experience commensurate with the duties of the office.

Another subjective requirement of a good legislator include the ability to connect with the people that they would be representing so that they can understand their constituents and relate to them. Obviously they cannot expect to experience everything of concern to their constituents, but the ability to listen and empathize with those they represent. Due to variety among the constituents empathy will not always mean agreement but so long as the legislator feels that they are above the constituents rather than among them they will be unable to accurately and dependably represent their perspective within the legislative body.

The last subjective requirement that I would include is a degree of stability in the life of the legislator. While anyone can have their life disrupted unexpectedly it is unwise to choose a legislator whose life is currently riddled with disruptions. In a stable society the effects of legislation are often long lasting and thus should be protected as much as possible from avarice and caprice. Witness the situation in Massachusetts where the democratic legislature made a law when they had a republican governor that the governor could not name a replacement in the event of vacancy in the seat of their senators. Now a few short years later they have a democratic governor and an actual vacancy – so they change the law rather than wait to fill the seat after a special election as they had prescribed before. It is important that legislators have lives that are stable to give them the best chance at creating laws which will also be stable. A legislator who has a life currently marked by stability will be more likely to plan for the future for himself and for those that he represents.

Posted in General | Tagged , , | Leave a comment

An Ideal Legislator

Posted on 2009-09-24 by David

I seem to have caught the interest of some people when I offered to describe the job of a being a legislator. I said that it would take multiple posts (and it will), but I thought I should start out by explaining the scope of what I would be describing.

My view is that being a legislator involves being a person and thus the job of a legislator demands some qualifications within the life of the person filling the role. I believe there is a lot of room for variation, but there are some things that really are necessary in the life of someone who would be a good legislator. (If I still have any atheists among my readers let me just offer that having any religious belief or affiliation is not among the qualifications.)

Being a legislator also involves being a candidate in the vast majority of cases (there are obviously exceptions where someone is appointed to fill a vacancy in a legislative body) thus there are ways that an ideal legislator would approach the campaign process differently than a less-than-ideal legislator. Watching campaigns today is a good way to observe how far our current political environment is from the ideal. (I know that when I talk about this there will be people who argue that what I say is impractical – in fact I would not be surprised if some of what I say gets labeled “political suicide.”)

Finally, being a legislator obviously involves participating in the process of crafting legislation. This is the most important aspect of what makes an ideal legislator and in some ways the least well understood. I would argue that a legislator who truly does their job in this area should not have to actively campaign for re-election other than to defend themselves against any unfair attacks from challengers. (I do make some exception in this for those who have not served a full term because of being appointed, and possibly also for first term representatives because they have served less than two years before voters are asked to vote again on filling their seat.)

Posted in General | Tagged , , , , | 2 Comments

No Individual Mandate. Period.

Posted on 2009-09-23 by David

photo credit: wstera2

When I responded to Obama’s Health Care Speech I said the following about the potential inclusion of an individual mandate in whatever health care overhaul bill is eventually debated in Congress:

In a nod to the necessity of compromise and political expediency (I do have a pragmatic bone in my body – somewhere) I will keep it out of the non-starter category and say that if it is extremely limited, as liability-only car insurance is, I could accept an individual mandate.

Scott challenged me on that position and I defended it as politically expedient. Now that I have had more time to think about it I believe that I can conclusively demonstrate why the president wanted to rush the health care legislation through before the August recess. His reason was that he understood that the longer people have to process the issue the more people will realize how little government can legitimately do to address this issue and how dangerous it is to allow Congress to employ tools that are not legitimately theirs in order to “fix the system.”

Continue reading →

Posted in General | Tagged , , , , | 8 Comments

What is the Job of a Representative?

Posted on 2009-09-22 by David

One of my favorite questions to ask candidates in the past has been “in your own words, what is the job description for the office you are seeking?” That continues to be one of my candidate questions because observing the representatives I have had (as well as members of Congress in general) convinces me that most of them do not understand what their job is. I have described many of them as representing the party or the government to their constituents rather than the other way around.

How would I answer that question? First let me say that my answer is generalized to apply to either Representatives or Senators. For one thing I would say that once elected they will be required to take an oath to support and defend the Constitution. As keeping their oath is a mark of the integrity that is central to any position of trust, I would say that keeping their oath of office should be first and foremost in any description of the job of their office. I would also say that the exact opposite of what so many seem to do (representing party and government to constituents) is another primary task of the office that they are seeking. In other words they should be representing the interests of their constituents (that’s different than representing the interests of their campaign donors) to the legislative body they are elected to be a part of. I do admit however that representing the government and the wider perspective on the issues of the day to their constituents does have a place in their role. One of the advantages of a representative form of government is that those chosen to represent each group of people have the opportunity to help the people they represent to gain a greater understanding of issues than their local perspective would otherwise afford them.

A more complete  description of what a legislator should do would take much more than one post. I hope to expound upon what a legislator is and should be in a series of posts in order to demonstrate how our current system has gone astray from the system that was designed and bequeathed to us by the founders of our nation.

Posted in National, State | Tagged , , , | 3 Comments

Questions for Those Who Would Represent Me

Posted on 2009-09-18 by David

I like to ask questions to all candidates who would like to represent me in any capacity in order to determine where they stand politically both on specific issues and in their political philosophy in general. I have decided to maintain a list of the basic questions that I will ask the candidates who wish to represent me at the federal level. I plan to ask variations on some of these questions to those who would represent me at other levels of government (city, county, state) and hope that others will feel free to use these questions either directly or as inspiration to ask the candidates who wish to represent them.

I am open to suggestions of what questions need to be asked for candidates at the federal level. One of the things that I will do with each of the questions I post will be to answer the question myself so that my positions on these issues are not hidden and those who are or would be candidates can know where I stand on the issues I will ask them about.

I will also post the answers that I receive from candidates on every election. My intention is that this will be a consistent feature for every election cycle.

Posted in Local, National, State | Tagged | 1 Comment

How and Why to Expand the House

Posted on 2009-09-17 by David

I find it appropriate that on Constitution Day (“happy” 222nd) there is a story about a lawsuit seeking to expand the House in the name of fairness for voters across the nation. Of course, I am in favor of expanding the House but let’s look at this lawsuit summed up in two paragraphs:

The most populous district in America right now, according to the latest Census data, is Nevada’s 3rd District, where 960,000 people are represented in the House by just one member. All of Montana’s 958,000 people likewise have just one vote in the House. By contrast, 523,000 in Wyoming get the same voting power, as do the 527,000 in one of Rhode Island’s two districts and the 531,000 in the other.

That 400,000-person disparity between top and bottom has generated a federal court challenge that is set to be filed Thursday in Mississippi, charging that the system effectively disenfranchises people in certain states. The lawsuit asks the courts to order the House to fix the problem by increasing its size from 435 seats to at least 932, or perhaps as many as 1,761.

Continue reading →

Posted in National, State | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , | 21 Comments

Carter’s Race Card

Posted on 2009-09-16 by David

When I heard the news this morning that Jimmy Carter thinks Obama critics are racist, my initial reaction was to reject the idea. Then I decided that it was only fair to consider the idea before choosing to accept or reject it. First, here is what he said:

I think an overwhelming portion of the intensely demonstrated animosity towards President Barack Obama is based on the fact that he is a black man, that he’s African-American.

I live in the South, and I’ve seen the South come a long way. I’ve seen the rest of the country that shared the South’s attitude towards minority groups at that time, particularly African-Americans – and that racism inclination still exists.

Upon a brief examination I realized that my impulse to reject that idea was based on the fact that the opposition that I have expressed to various actions by the Obama Administration is based on ideological perspective, not race. The weakness of that rejection is the same as the weakness of Carters assertion – it is a hasty generalization because I am no more qualified to know the motivations of other people than Jimmy Carter is (that would be “hardly qualified whatsoever”) and therefore other people can be motivated by racism even when I am not. In fact there is no doubt in my mind that some people are in opposition precisely because of their racist feelings – although I believe the worst offenders will openly admit that fact.

The real question then is not whether racism fuels opposition (anyone who has an anti-black attitude will be in opposition to Obama) but whether racism represents “an overwhelming portion” of the opposition. Here is where I really doubt Mr. Carter – although I admit that where he lives (whether that is “in the South” or “in side his head”) racism being an overwhelming portion is more likely than in other places.

The other half of my reflection was why I was so unhappy with the mere suggestion of racism. Carter would certainly argue that it is because I am a closet racist (doubtless he thinks every white person is). The truth is that I dislike Carters use of racism as a red herring. His comments encourage us to drop the issues that divide us and concentrate on the motivations behind our differences. Of course our motivations can be an important factor in how we deal with differences, but claims of racism almost always cloud the issue in question when they are made rather than clarifying the issue.

Confusion is definitely not in short supply which is why I dislike the charge so much. Thanks Mr. Ex-President – you’ve just done another (dis)service for the country.

Posted in culture, National | Tagged , , , , | 10 Comments

Re-Founding America

Posted on 2009-09-15 by David

photo credit: Why Tuesday?

I don’t pay attention to talk radio because even though I am very conservative I find that the conservative perspective shared on talk radio is generally laced with too much thoughtless and inflammatory perspective that is designed to stir reactions rather than provide information. Despite that general disinterest I was intrigued when I heard about Glenn Beck calling for a re-founding of America. The idea fit so well with what I have been focused on that I thought I would share my perspective on the idea here.

On January 1, 2008 I wrote that what America needs is a new birth of freedom. Before I wrote that, and even more since then, I have been looking for exactly that within our nation. The final answer is as difficult as it is uncomplicated – we need people to be converted to the idea of America – no more is it enough to be born here – we must individually be converted to the idea of liberty that our founders fought and died for. During the last couple of years I have found two groups that give me hope for a way forward in giving this nation that new birth of freedom.

Continue reading →

Posted in culture, National | Tagged , , , , | 14 Comments

Future Amendment – Restore Federalism

Posted on 2009-09-15 by David

The last of the four amendments I would like to see is actually an idea that is not ready for implementation. I would love to see the 17th amendment repealed – just like I would like to see the 16th repealed except that I’m not sure how I would deal with the issues that the amendment was designed to address.

I have previously discussed the problems caused by this amendment which is why I would like to see it repealed and true federalism restored. The two major issues that would have to be addressed if it were repealed are corruption in state legislatures that can arise based on their power to chose senators, and deadlocks within legislatures when attempting to make their choice. As far as deadlock goes, I think that states can learn to deal with deadlocks or suffer the consequences of being underrepresented in the Senate. Where corruption is concerned my best guess is that reducing the power of the Federal government and placing more power back in the hands of states might help to alleviate that problem so that picking senators is not important enough to generate corruption.

Posted in General, National | Tagged , , , | 2 Comments

Future Amendment – Representatives in the House

Posted on 2009-09-14 by David

Not unrelated to the issue of whether the people of Washington D.C. should have a voting representative in the House is the issue of how the size of the House is set. Few people probably even consider that the number of representatives in the House is set by Congress and fewer still are aware that when the first Congress drafted the proposed bill of rights that Article the First, the first of their proposed amendments, was designed to answer the needs of an expected growth in population and that along with the second of their proposed amendments (later adopted as the 27th amendment) this proposed amendment was not ratified with the original bill of rights.

After the first enumeration, required by the first Article of the Constitution, there shall be one Representative for every thirty thousand, until the number shall amount to one hundred; after which, the proportion shall be so regulated by Congress, that there shall be not less than one hundred Representatives, nor less than one Representative for every forty thousand persons, until the number of Representatives shall amount to two hundred; after which, the proportion shall be so regulated by Congress, that there shall not be less than two hundred Representatives, nor less than one Representative for every fifty thousand persons.

When James Madison wrote the first draft of this three months before the final proposed Bill of Rights was adopted by Congress he included two changes to his proposal that I would include in any current discussion of the issue. First, he left the numbers blank besides that which had already been specified in the Constitution – thus allowing for the framework to be discussed and the final numbers to be arrived at by consensus. Second, he specified that after the first census each state should have a minimum of two Representatives. I would also add that with our population filled out to over 300 Million we may not need a multi-tiered approach anymore. We might be able to safely skip to the final proportion of the amendment. With those changes the proposed amendment would look like this:

The proportion of voters for each representative shall be so regulated by Congress that there shall not be less than [First Blank] Representatives, nor less than one Representative for every [Second Blank] persons, but each State shall have at least two Representatives.

One of the major changes that this would produce would be that Congress could no longer directly regulate the number of members of Congress – they could only regulate the proportion so that as the population grew (or even shrunk in some extraordinary circumstance) the size of Congress would automatically adjust accordingly.

In my previous writings on this topic I have suggested that the second blank could be 200,000 (a number I adopted from the Daily Kos) but I am more concerned with the principle that Congress be limited to regulating the proportion than with any particular number.

Posted in General | Tagged , , , | Leave a comment