Checks and balances for bills like TARP and Healthcare ?

[Modelworks]

Something has been bothering me ever since the TARP bill was passed. The way our system works right now we elect our officials and they go to Washington for whatever their term length may be. That is fine for most things but where I am concerned is with bills like TARP or health care that have a huge impact on the nation.

Using TARP as an example , if the person I elected either lied on the campaign or has been corrupted since being elected decides to vote for TARP and was formerly against such practices then I have no recourse except to let him approve of it and not vote for him the next time. They are not penalized, except to lose office possibly, but I get stuck paying for something that I voted for a person to not do.

I think the founding fathers were naive to how immoral politicians have become instead relying on a persons 'word as their bond' mentality of their time. Is their anything in the constitution that provides a check against this type of behavior ?

I am against the current health care bill but all I can do is call my senator and sit on my hands, he can still vote however he pleases and I get stuck with paying for it even if he was formerly against it. In the end voters have to pay for something even if they would not have been for it and voted accordingly.

 

[bfdd]

this is why i want to get rid of the 17th amendment

 

[Siddhartha]

Something has been bothering me ever since the TARP bill was passed. The way our system works right now we elect our officials and they go to Washington for whatever their term length may be. That is fine for most things but where I am concerned is with bills like TARP or health care that have a huge impact on the nation.

Using TARP as an example , if the person I elected either lied on the campaign or has been corrupted since being elected decides to vote for TARP and was formerly against such practices then I have no recourse except to let him approve of it and not vote for him the next time. They are not penalized, except to lose office possibly, but I get stuck paying for something that I voted for a person to not do.

I think the founding fathers were naive to how immoral politicians have become instead relying on a persons 'word as their bond' mentality of their time. Is their anything in the constitution that provides a check against this type of behavior ?

I am against the current health care bill but all I can do is call my senator and sit on my hands, he can still vote however he pleases and I get stuck with paying for it even if he was formerly against it. In the end voters have to pay for something even if they would not have been for it and voted accordingly.

What if the situation changed from when you voted for the candidate and after he\she was elected?

 

[Thump553]

You really think human nature has materially changed in the last two hundred plus years? I don't think it is the founding fathers that is naive.

 

[Modelworks]

What if the situation changed from when you voted for the candidate and after he\she was elected?

I can understand them changing positions based on something like 9/11 but they should still remain true to the people that voted for them. Not like what is going on now.

 

[Modelworks]

You really think human nature has materially changed in the last two hundred plus years? I don't think it is the founding fathers that is naive.

Yes it has changed.
I can remember when as little as 30 years ago giving your word on a promise meant something. Now people break it without a second thought.
If the founding fathers knew this could happen then why is there not a means to prevent it in the constitution ? They did pretty well with most things, but if you look at any time where things have gone wrong with government it usually is a result of the founders placing too much trust in human decency.

 

[drinkmorejava]

this is why i want to get rid of the 17th amendment

Meh, you would get rid of populist pressure, but it would also be harder to supplant the majority party's power.

 

[bfdd]

Meh, you would get rid of populist pressure, but it would also be harder to supplant the majority party's power.

I think you'd move people to care more about who they elect for their local and state governments if you did this. You'd also have senators with more in touch with a whole state rather than just the section they come from.

 

[drinkmorejava]

I think you'd move people to care more about who they elect for their local and state governments if you did this. You'd also have senators with more in touch with a whole state rather than just the section they come from.

It may be ideal for Senators to be concerned about the state as a whole, as well as voters making smart decisions, but it's important to recognize that there were many problems pre 17th amend.

Bribery - Given the power of the position and the relatively small number of votes, it's no surprise that this is what happened in the late 1800s

No Minority Senate representation - for example 51/100 in the state legislature are of party A, they will vote to elect two senators from party A, where it's more likely A and B would be represented in a popular election

And I'm sure you could end up with all sorts of fun scenarios where the ruling party is removed from the house, but the old party is stuck in the Senate and absolutely nothing gets done for 4 years

I don't think it can be said that this is more ideal system of checks and balances, just sounds like a better way to get a deadlocked legislature. If you really want checks and balances, the supreme court should be throwing out half the stuff that comes out of the legislature for overstepping the government's authority.

 

[waffleironhead]

recall? If he truly is at odds with all of the constituents who elected him then a recall is warranted.

 

[Patranus]

FDR killed the system of checks and balances when he threatened to stack the courts.

The courts were finding his programs unconstitutional so he hatched a court packing scheme. Suddenly the Constitution granted the federal government more powers than those enumerated in the Constitution.

Good times.

 

[Blackjack200]

Something has been bothering me ever since the TARP bill was passed. The way our system works right now we elect our officials and they go to Washington for whatever their term length may be. That is fine for most things but where I am concerned is with bills like TARP or health care that have a huge impact on the nation.

Using TARP as an example , if the person I elected either lied on the campaign or has been corrupted since being elected decides to vote for TARP and was formerly against such practices then I have no recourse except to let him approve of it and not vote for him the next time. They are not penalized, except to lose office possibly, but I get stuck paying for something that I voted for a person to not do.

Welcome to our system of government. It is called a "Republic". Not sure if you're actually still upset about TARP, but it pretty much saved our economy from a complete collapse. So yeah, you can be against TARP, and you can be against child immunization, and you can be against civil rights, just don't expect a lot of company among the informed (you may find some auto-mechanics that agree with you though)

I think the founding fathers were naive to how immoral politicians have become instead relying on a persons 'word as their bond' mentality of their time. Is their [sic] anything in the constitution that provides a check against this type of behavior ?

Yeah, our slaveowning founding fathers surely could never have suspected that their successors would ever lack honesty or honor.

I am against the current health care bill but all I can do is call my senator and sit on my hands, he can still vote however he pleases and I get stuck with paying for it even if he was formerly against it. In the end voters have to pay for something even if they would not have been for it and voted accordingly.

Your issue is with society since the vast majority of people want UHC. You do have recourse though. If you want to just do whatever you want all the time and not be forced to contribute to society, you can go live by yourself somewhere. I have an uncle that did this. He hated the Bush administration so much he flew off to New Zealand and basically lives in a Budhist community doing farming and menial work in exchange for shelter and food.

 

[boomerang]

Congratulations Modelworks, you have reached an important milestone in your life. You've reached a point that not all adults will reach. It's sunk home that our system of government is inherently corrupt. While many of your friends, relatives and co-workers will blindly follow the party they most identify with, you're in the class of people who are able to think for themselves and crave true representation.

Your choice now is to battle the system or sit on your hands. I hope you choose to battle. There are no guarantees in this battle and who wins and who loses may be blurry.

Don't email your representatives. They love emails, they're so easy to ignore. You'll just get a canned response. Call them. Make an appointment to see them. Tell people you know who are like minded to do the same. Go to a tea party. Meet on the steps of the Capitol to voice your displeasure. Don't wait for someone else to do it. Make your representative fear you more than they fear Pelosi, Reid or Obama. Fear is the key, make no mistake about that. You don't need to get in their face, be respectful but firm. Let them know with certainty that your convictions are strong.

Don't expect to accomplish anything here at these Forums. If you want to make a post, or make a comment go ahead and do so. Then move on. I typically never even bother to defend my point of view. You're not going to sway anyone's opinion here and this little microcosm of society is meaningless.

I hope you'll join in the fight. If too many sit on their hands, I fear what the Fundamental Transformation of The United States of America may end up looking like.

 

[LTC8K6]

They aren't even reading the bills they are voting on...

 

[b0mbrman]

I can understand them changing positions based on something like 9/11 but they should still remain true to the people that voted for them. Not like what is going on now.

Meh. I think the California model has shown that direct democracy has at least as many issues to address as representative democracy.

 

[b0mbrman]

They aren't even reading the bills they are voting on...

Yes, you're correct that they're not reading this:

(a) In General- Section 735 (42 U.S.C. 292y) is amended--

(1) by redesignating subsection (f) as subsection (g); and

(2) by inserting after subsection (e) the following:

(b) Revised Guidelines- The Secretary of Health and Human Services shall--

(1) strike the second sentence of section 57.206(b)(1) of title 42, Code of Federal Regulations; and

And instead reading this: http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d111:HR03962:@@@D&summ2=m&