No more Jabba Falwell jokes

[voralfred]

At the time of the campaign, our Senator stated that wetlands reform would be a very good thing for the state. HERE AND NOW in the Senate, a "wetlands reform" bill is coming up for vote. The Senator has discovered that the bill is really a political scam

Integrity here would be for the Senator to cast the pivotal vote AGAINST the bill, even though this action appears to contradict the campaign platform. The Senator must act in the Senate TODAY and then, later, explain to/convince the electorate why the vote appeared to contradict the personal stand when in fact it did not.

As JW Nugent and I have said earlier—integrity isn't easy.

Sue

I entirely agree with you.

If the Senator learns new facts that justify his voting against what he said he would support, he must change his attitude and explain the electorate why he did it. He is not a puppet nor a prisoner of his words. He is a thinking being with analytical powers.
But in a general way he does not change his worldview because his constituency's majority moves. Consider topics like, the death penalty or gay marriage, for instance. And the House wants to push federal legislation on these topics (OK, maybe the Supreme Court will say this is for each State to decide, not a Federal matter, but you see what I mean)

I am not saying that integrity is easy.
What I am saying that, if the people's mood changes over the years, integrity of an elected official is to keep his stand (except in cases similar to what you just described) even if this means going against the new majority (and at the price of not being re-elected at the end of his term).

Also, about "staying attuned": I am considering a situation where the support for either liberal or conservative never falls below 45%, say. It is only the pivotal 10% that had our Senator elected in 2010 but turned conservative in 2012 and 2014. And the total number of constituents is in the hundreds of thousands, or even the millions. Which means that, walking in the streets and talking with people, or looking at what kind of reactions he has on his blog, the Senator will always see about half-and-half reactions. Statistics are too poor for him to conclude anything about where the majority stands. And polls are not reliable. The only real tests on people's opinions are elections, and we assume that his side lost both in 2012 and 2014 Edit: I repeat that I am speaking here of a "democratic country" kind of results, significative but not devastating; the other side got 53%, say, not 50,01% on these occasions, in our Senator's particular state, but not 70% either. And I stil say that, till the end of his term in 2016 he should keep using his pivotal position in Senate to resist the new President and the new majority in the House, even though his own state has changed sides.

JW Nugent, what do you say?

[JW Nugent]

Voralfred, it appears that I am failing to communicate with you. Your example goes contrary to everything I've discussed about the obligations of service, and indeed integrity as it relates to serving the public.

Liberal, conservative, both are fairly nonsensical. A representative must limit their own passions and ambitions when serving the public. Their job is the people. A politician is not a ruler, they do not pocess a special infalibility; a politicians opinions are not their own, but a tempering of public will.

Your ficticious scenario is a very good modle of an out of control political process - such as we see now. Your scenario best represents all the ills and evils when politicians attempt to take control of power. Remember - Constitutionally power, except as enumerated, is reserved for the people. Those powers granted elected and appointed officials only exist as specific duties to maintain the balance of the system and function in representation of the people.

A 50 to 50 split or even a 45 to 55 split is in any terms divisive. Again politicians aren't rulers. You must abandon that concept and retrench your thinking into terms of republic. The only rulers in this contitutional republic are the citizens. The politicians work for the citizens. In truth if it were possible I would see many of our current politicians and their aids-in-waiting forcibly brought back to reality.

Unfortunately your example illustrates a powerless citizen body quickly being pushed into irrelevency. Rome fell and so falls a government as confused and convoluted in process as your example. The sad truth is that your example is very much the trend that concerns many of us.

We need to move towards a 2/3rds majority on all votes just to make sure that we are serious about what we are doing. It is easy to confuse enough people to swing a vote to over 50%. To get to 70% takes a lot more work and exposes a lot more of the truth. Current politicians are not the best and the brightess; they are just very marketable packages. Your standard legislator is handled like a prized poodle; they have managers, pr consultants, speach writers, and a multitude of other care takers. This means they are inherently compromised. Would you trust a future being decided by a poodle on someone's leash or would you prefer to have a discussion and a say in your own fate.

[voralfred]

Voralfred, it appears that I am failing to communicate with you. Your example goes contrary to everything I've discussed about the obligations of service, and indeed integrity as it relates to serving the public.

(...)

. Would you trust a future being decided by a poodle on someone's leash or would you prefer to have a discussion and a say in your own fate.

Well, I agree with you.
We just fail to communicate.

You keep considering the theoretical "democratic" model of the Greek City, where the voters were few (a large fraction of the population were "perieques" with no rights, to say nothing of the slaves). Then the few citizens could indeed meet and discuss and reach a consensus. (Maybe!)

I am talking of a real, modern "reperesentive democracy" state with tens or hundreds of millions citizens, where any constituency that sends, not a Senator, but even a single Representant, has many more voters than Ancient Athens ever had citizens (I repeat: citizens, not inhabitants! - women were not citizens, of course) and I am talking of actual, practical, situation.

We need to move towards a 2/3rds majority on all votes just to make sure that we are serious about what we are doing. It is easy to confuse enough people to swing a vote to over 50%. To get to 70% takes a lot more work and exposes a lot more of the truth.

Try as much as you want, there are very few issues where you would get a 2/3 majority. You have to run a country, and the least bad method that I see is repersentative democracy. A need of 2/3 majority to do something would mean you do nothing, a need of 2/3 majority to change anything means that nothing ever will be changed. That would mean nothing can ever be accomplished (or, conversely, the kind of "majorities" you had in Soviet Union or in Baath Iraq and still have in Baath Syria - we are speaking of democracies, not dictatures that parade under phony elections)

Would you trust a future being decided by a poodle on someone's leash or would you prefer to have a discussion and a say in your own fate.

I know that in the day-to-day working of France I cannot be asked every single time. And don't tell me about blogs. those who write into politicians' blogs need not represent the majority. It is well known that the minorities are much more vocal than the majority.

The only thing I can do is vote, whenever the term of my President/ Representant/Senator ends and a new election is scheduled. And, yes, I do prefer my future be decided by whomever I elect (or is elected by the "other side", if such is the case) than leave it to demagogues who talk on a "soapbox" in a public garden, even if they manage to draw a small crowd around them. We are not in Ancient Athens. How do you really know what the opinions of tens of millions of people really is, if not by elections? And by the will of the people to be transferred to his elected officials; for the entire duration of their constitutional term. You still did not answer as to whether the elected official is supposed to keep to his opinions, to the platform he was elected on, or change it according to the result of elections that concern other officials, in the same constituency, within the duration of his term.

Now, I wish we had rather more referendums than we have. But clearly, this can only be on very essential topics. We cannot have a referendum on each law, on each action, that would be much too disruptive of everyday's life (do you realize the cost of a single referendum?). The way France Constitution goes, by the way, is precisely that the referendum allows the people to decide, just by a "50% plus any small quantity", on a topic of such importance (as defined by the Constitution) that it needs a 2/3 majority in Congress. So the entire idea is, if there is a clear (55%, say) majority in Congress which allows for day-to-day running of the country but not the 2/3 majority needed for, say, ratification of an international treaty, then we go directly to the people. But by the same token, precisely, any small margin beyond 50% becomes enough!
What do you ask for? A 2/3 majority in the referendum? Then France would never be able to enter any international treaty!

[JW Nugent]

By your reply I see that more communication has occured than realized. Going back to semantics; some of our differences are in semantics and others by what has not yet been stated openly.

I wasn't refering to Greek or Roman democracies in the same reasoning as New England Town government. The reference to both Greece and Rome was more to the failures resulting from politicians subverting the process with their own ideas and assuming control at the failure of democracy.

The New England example was only to point out citizen activity and their approach to a controlled representation. This level of representation is just the first rung on the ladder of democracy. Each rung thereafter is removed from the location of the town and reached through the process of voting. Control of representation is still achieved.

Yes I agree with you about the difficulty of a 2/3 majority; however, after watching the process of government my only conclusion can be that a better measure of decision is required. Have you ever sat within a room with 9 other folks and tried to make a decision on an unpopular issue. If you can only get half them to agree the solution proposed is probably less than adequate. If after securing a decision and knowing fully half of the people in the room were hostile to the solution you would be correct in realizing that the battle would be fought again and again.

Politicians forced into decisions knowing a higher standard was required for a solution to pass muster would also know that they would need to work in cooperation. If they attempted to hold to polar positions nothing would get done and there would be a backlash by voters. Uncompromising legislators would begin to disappear. Another benefit is that less unnecessary legislation would be submitted; energy and efforts would have to be reserved for serious and necessary legislation. Rather than slow the process of government down a 2/3s voting process would force the rational prioritisation of law making and reduce wasteful efforts on irrational movements. If there is less time to waste; less time will be wasted.

My opinion is forged directly through the reading and interpretation of the Constitution and supporting documentation, and through observation of the process. When comparing the two it is obvious that we have strayed from the course set by Constitutional law. I've spent over thirty years reading and re-reading the Constitution and following the course of Supreme Court decisions. My opinion might be faulty, but it is not faulty through a lack of study and observation. Present day politics is only a rehash of yesteryears politics. The smoke and mirrors of politics blindly leads to an evolutionary dead end; the quest for absolute power carries us ever and ever backwards.

[voralfred]

By your reply I see that more communication has occured than realized. Going back to semantics; some of our differences are in semantics and others by what has not yet been stated openly..

Well indeed we are starting to talk about the same things.

Refining semantics, I think one has to distinguish "executive" and "legislative" decisions.

As far as legislative decisions, that is: creating new laws or abolishing or modifying laws that already existed and have, more or less, worked till the present day, I can agree that there is no urgency. If the country has survived so long with the present legisltation, one can reduce the amount of time lost in unnecessary legislation changes by introducing only such changes that have a chance to get a 2/3 majority in Congress. If part of Congress considers a particular legisltation change as essential, then they can try and convince at least enough of the "other side" of both the importance and validity of that change till a 2/3 majority is reached. This is what happens in France for international treaties and amendments to the Constitution. Whether appeal to the people through referendum (but with a simple 50% majority? a qualified majority but at a lower level, 55% for instance?) should be added as a tool in the US too, in order to break the deadlock, is an option, I don't know how you feel about it. (That would be a major amendment in the US Consitution, which as I understand is much harder to amend than the french one). If no consensus for change emerges, just keep the previous legislation. Since it worked so far, it'll work some more.

However, if this can work for "legislative" decisions, this won't work for "executive" ones. The Executive has to run the day-by-day functioning of the country. There are decisions that need to be taken now and here. Not laws, actions. If you are a student of Constitution you see very well what falls under each heading. Now the Executive is under the control of Congress, and if it tries to act in a way the Congress disapproves, Congress has the duty (and the power) to stop the Executive. In France, the House can go as far as overthrow the government, even with a simple majority. I'm not sure exactly how it works in the US, since clearly the President can keep his Cabinet even with a minority in Congress, but certainly it has to somehow win some legislators "of the other side" through concessions and some convincing to have a budget approved. But certainly the maximum that can be asked for here is a simple majority. Otherwise nothing can be done. One has to approve either an action one way or an action the other way. Asking for 2/3 would mean inaction most of the time and that would be disastrous. A lot of inertia in the body of laws is one thing, what worked so far can work some more, inertia at the executive level is death.

So turn the entire body of law as hard ot change as the French Constitution, with a nedd of 2/3, maybe, but if the Executive needs more than just a simple majority of Congress for day-to-day running, no, that is not reasonable, in my opinion.

Which still leaves the 'integrity" question open. Whether his vote is pivotal for a 50% decision or for a 2/3-level one, what should a Senator, who still believes in the principles he was elected on in 2010, do in the last two years of his term, knowing clearly that the majority of his constituents voted for a President and Representatives holding different principles in 2012 and 2014? Where is integrity?
Here is a specific example: by 2010 several states have allowed gay marriages; from 2012 on there was a backlash and now, in 2015, Congress wants to pass a federal law forbidding them nationwide; the President was elected in 2012 on this program, with a clear majority in our liberal Senator's state, and in 2014 most Representants, including in this state, were also, and those Senators whose term started on those two occasions also; now the House passed this law with more than 2/3, and 66 Senators also want it, while 33 want to prevent a federal ban on gay marriages. Where is integrity? Our friend the liberal Senator privately opposes this ban. He was elected in 2010 on a clear pro-gay-rights platform, which at that time got a majority of his constituency, but they have shown in two occasions that they changed their mind. He is still very much convinced that gay marriages is a good thing, he is against this ban. And his vote is pivotal for a 2/3 majority. Assume the 33 other senators who oppose the ban still have the support of their constituency (as expressed either by a new senatorial election or by the votes in Presidential and Representants elections in 2012 and 2014) he is the only one whose constituency clearly changed sides since 2010. I am again asking you : where is "integrity" for him?

I say he should oppose the ban, who will than get only a 66 vs 34 majority and thus miss the 2/3 mark, and be repelled; to the furor of his own constituents. But true both to his own opinions and to those of the cosntituents who elected him in 2010.

I understand Sue agrees with me. The gay marriage question is not, like the "wetland bill", a hidden scam. It is a matter of principles.
What do you say?

[violetblue]

JW, I very much like your analogy of politicians being trained poodles. Very apt and humorous. Especially when you consider they are also trained to "yap" on command, the treat being political donations.

If we were to follow the model of your hypothetical situation, v, then I would agree that the politican should vote under the aspices of the platform for which he was elected. It is not feasible for the public to have an individual say on every issue, which is why we elect a representative. If the representative is acting in a manner contradictory to his constituents' wishes, we can always lobby his/her office with protest. A smart politican will find a compromise to ensure their victory in the next election. If the politican chooses to still vote contrary to the public's wishes, then we do not have a recourse until the next election. But, most politicians, as I said, would try to at least find a compromise, because it would be hard for them to function in the job they were elected to do if they lost the support of their financial backers and their voting base.

Actually, I imagine there are several elected officials in a situation like this now regarding the Iraq war. There are a lot of people who were initially in favor of the war, and now are against it--they just want it to end. There is a lot of backpedaling going on in Washington right now. For example, Mark Kirk (R-IL) led a group of Republicians who asked Bush to change his position on the war. Hillary Clinton is doing the "artful dodge," as one article called it, in publicly announcing that she regrets voting for military action. I can guarantee she wouldn't have said this 3 years ago. All the politicians, Republican or Democratic, are scrabbling like rats (from dogs to rodents now) from the sinking ship that is the Bush administration.

[JW Nugent]

Poodles may have been slighted by my earlier remark; for that I apologise. Rodents are a bit closer to the mark though somehow weasels spring to mind. Throw lobbyists into the mix and the weasel concept strengthens.

v - a reducing of standards by moving from 2/3s to your example of 55% would weaken the process and not only allow abuse but create a greater possibility for the system to be over thrown. Never make it easier for those following the dark side. Congress has limited power over the president. It can only act by not permitting an executive use of congrssional authority, drafting bills that further curtail executive authority, reducing budgets effecting areas of executive perogative, reducing administrative budgets, or more severe action such as hearings geared towards impeachment. For the latter there has to be sufficient reason and they need voter support. All of this is of course subject to the third element of balance and that is the Supreme Court ruling in legislative favor on legal aspects challenged by the executive branch.

The president works for the people as the chief executive of the countries administrative process. The legislature works for the people as their representative for the creation of law and the proper determination of the cost of governing. The supreme court is appointed by the executive and approved by the legislature. There after it functions independently to interpret law and supervise the subordinate judicial process. It can only rule on the correctness and relevance of proposed laws and regulations that serve as the mechanism of government.

There is an additional complexity in constitutional interpretation I've not touched on; this to some extent addresses institutional practise versus the nature of natural rights. Difficult to explain.