Who work for Whom?

[nawainwright]

I have seen a number of these congressmen/women getting up on TV the last week explaining to the people what they are going to do....is it just my imagination, or is that bass-akwards? Any employment I have ever had, there was one BIG rule, the guy who hired me is my boss. It is my job to do the things he doesn't want to/can't, simple as that. Now if I start telling the guy who hired me that things were going to be done "my way" from now on, and I was going to only do the things I wanted to do....guess who got fired?

For some reason the politicians have come up with this idea that we are their employees. That if they could only explain to us why they are going to do what they want, that we will see the light and give them leave to do whatever they want. Its not a big jump, I don't think, to parallel these situations.

I really want to know, what changed, when did this become the way things work....I'm almost 30 so I haven't been paying attention for all that long (relatively speaking) and it infuriates me. I guess I'm of those old-fashioned people who believes that you do what you were hired to do, you don't complain and moan about it or how you would do it differently. I have brought ideas to my bosses before that they liked and disliked, ultimately its their choice, its their responsibility.

Congress is our employee and its our RESPONSIBILITY to make sure this country runs on the founding documents, they are our proxy through which we do that. Once the proxy decides he doesn't care what his boss says, its time to get rid of them (at the ballot box if possible, by legal proceedings otherwise - impeachment or something, idk).

[Bill of Rights]

Originally Posted by nawainwright

I have seen a number of these congressmen/women getting up on TV the last week explaining to the people what they are going to do....is it just my imagination, or is that bass-akwards? Any employment I have ever had, there was one BIG rule, the guy who hired me is my boss. It is my job to do the things he doesn't want to/can't, simple as that. Now if I start telling the guy who hired me that things were going to be done "my way" from now on, and I was going to only do the things I wanted to do....guess who got fired?

For some reason the politicians have come up with this idea that we are their employees. That if they could only explain to us why they are going to do what they want, that we will see the light and give them leave to do whatever they want. Its not a big jump, I don't think, to parallel these situations.

I really want to know, what changed, when did this become the way things work....I'm almost 30 so I haven't been paying attention for all that long (relatively speaking) and it infuriates me. I guess I'm of those old-fashioned people who believes that you do what you were hired to do, you don't complain and moan about it or how you would do it differently. I have brought ideas to my bosses before that they liked and disliked, ultimately its their choice, its their responsibility.

Congress is our employee and its our RESPONSIBILITY to make sure this country runs on the founding documents, they are our proxy through which we do that. Once the proxy decides he doesn't care what his boss says, its time to get rid of them (at the ballot box if possible, by legal proceedings otherwise - impeachment or something, idk).

There was a time this was true of Congress, too, that if they did not do the people's will, they risked being removed from office (bodily) and either tarred and feathered, hanged, taken to the wall and shot or perhaps some combination of those outcomes. Today, you cannot even discuss doing these things without risking a conversation with guys in black suits with earpiece mics.

Blessings,
Bill

[Blue Tile Spook]

And our own Dan Burton was so scared a month or two ago that he stood on the floor of the House and lobbied to have explosive resistant and bullet resistant glass installed amongst other security measures to protect him and his fellow Reps.

When the Whiskey Rebellion occurred, IIRC, several thousand men came out of the surrounding states to march on Washington D.C. THE FOLLOWING DAY after the law was passed, with rifles on their backs, to make it clearly known that Congress had stepped over the line.

I can't imagine that happening today, nor can I adequately imagine what the government's response in turn would be.

[Dryden]

I did see a video of an outraged citizen asking the political Hack this question:

"Do you work for me, or do I work for you?"

There certainly is a debate about this very topic. And rightfully so.

[Donnelly]

To Nawainwright: the problem lies with the fact that once one of these representatives gets elected, they usually don't have anything to worry about unless they anger their party leadership. To elect someone out of office takes an informed and interested electorate. And the congresscritter (representative) knows that most people in their district are too lazy, or too busy, or too into their favorite TV programming to really give a hoot about what they are doing. Don't get me wrong here, they count on this fact. This is why so many congresscritters are getting scared at these "town hall" meetings. They are finally meeting a constituency that is not only informed, they are pissed off. The congesscritters do not know how to handle a constituency that is angry, so some of them are cancelling meetings and claiming they feel threatened, and some are insulting their own constituents (Pelosi).

To Blue Tile Spook: This is also why both parties have allowed "gun control" measures to be pushed through during the last 40 years. They know full well that an armed electorate may very well one day hold them to account for some of the traitorous actions that they have engaged in. History has proven (and logic dictates) that tyranny cannot occur before the populace is disarmed.

For a long time the people of America have been asleep at the wheel of this great Republic. My biggest fear is that after a few concessions by congress (scraps thrown to the dog) that the people will once again become self-absorbed and lazy, and no longer be as vigilant as they have been recently.

[Windwalker]

When our Congress critters forget that they work for their constituents they must be replaced either by being recalled or voted out their next election.

[Bill of Rights]

Originally Posted by Windwalker

When our Congress critters forget that they work for their constituents they must be replaced either by being recalled or voted out their next election.

How does one go about recalling a congresscritter?

[CarmelHP]

Originally Posted by Bill of Rights

How does one go about recalling a congresscritter?

You don't. There is no such provision in the Constitution.

[CarmelHP]

Jewish World Review Dec. 10, 2003 / 15 Kislev, 5764 Walter Williams

Let's do some detective work

I'd like to enlist the services of my fellow Americans with a bit of detective work. Let's start off with hard evidence.

The Federalist Papers were a set of documents written by John Jay, Alexander Hamilton and James Madison to persuade the 13 states to ratify the Constitution. In one of those papers, Federalist Paper 45, James Madison wrote: "The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the Federal Government, are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State Governments are numerous and indefinite. The former will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation and foreign commerce; with which last the power of taxation will for the most part be connected. The powers reserved to the several States will extend to all the objects, which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties and properties of the people; and the internal order, improvement, and prosperity of the State." If we turned James Madison's statement on its head, namely that the powers of the federal government are numerous and indefinite and those of the states are few and defined, we'd describe today's America. Was Madison just plain ignorant about the powers delegated to Congress? Before making our judgment, let's examine statements of other possibly misinformed Americans.
In 1796, on the floor of the House of Representatives, William Giles of Virginia condemned a relief measure for fire victims saying it was neither the purpose nor the right of Congress to "attend to what generosity and humanity require, but to what the Constitution and their duty require." In 1854, President Franklin Pierce vetoed a bill intended to help the mentally ill, saying, "I cannot find any authority in the Constitution for public charity," adding that to approve such spending "would be contrary to the letter and the spirit of the Constitution and subversive to the whole theory upon which the Union of these States is founded." President Grover Cleveland was the king of the veto. He vetoed literally hundreds of congressional spending bills during his two terms as president in the late 1800s. His often given reason was, "I can find no warrant for such an appropriation in the Constitution."
Today's White House proposes and Congress taxes and spends for anything they can muster a majority vote on. My investigative query is: Were the Founders and previous congressmen and presidents, who could not find constitutional authority for today's bread and circuses, just plain stupid and ignorant? I don't believe in long-run ignorance or stupidity, so I reread the Constitution, looking to see whether an amendment had been passed authorizing Congress to spend money on bailouts for airlines, prescription drugs, education, Social Security and thousands of similar items in today's federal budget. I found no such amendment.
Being thorough, I reread the Constitution and found what Congress might interpret as a blank check authorization — the "general welfare clause." Then I investigated further to see what the Framers meant by the "general welfare clause." In 1798, Thomas Jefferson said, "Congress has not unlimited powers to provide for the general welfare, but only those specifically enumerated." The Constitution's father, James Madison said: "With respect to the two words 'general welfare,' I have always regarded them as qualified by the detail of powers connected with them. To take them in a literal and unlimited sense would be a metamorphosis of the Constitution into a character which there is a host of proofs was not contemplated by its creators."
My detective work concludes with several competing explanations. The first is that the great men who laid the framework for our nation were not only constitutionally ignorant but callous and uncaring, as well. The second is it's today's politicians who are constitutionally ignorant. Lastly, it's today's Americans who have contempt for the Constitution, and any congressman or president upholding the Constitution's letter and spirit would be tarred and feathered.