Courtesy and Civility

[vol_scouter]

Lisa,

 

If the representative refuses to vote the views of the majority of their constituents, then they are not being represented. The minority opinion loses of course. Thus, the democrats (or republicans for that matter) who do not vote the view of the majority of their constituents are destroying the representative democracy.

 

I distanced myself from the 'birthers' and asked you a totally reasonable question about the meaning of natural born. I did not expect to be attacked for asking someone who teaches political science what the understand of the meaning as addressed by the founding fathers and any court rulings. If you do not know, then just say so. The fact that the POTUS has a different citizenship requirement is of interest to me and I was asking a reasonable question of an expert as to the original intent and court interpretations. I do not understand the vitriol.

[Lisabob]

vol, I was not attacking you. But I don't see how or why the birther stuff even rises to the level of constitutional discussion. They're not even on the same rational playing field as most Americans. Obama was born in Hawaii, overwhelming evidence to that effect has clearly been presented, end of that particular story. In my view, it is not worth pursuing further and so I won't. When you continue to pursue it, it makes it appear as though you wish to legitimize the birthers, despite your claim to the contrary.

 

Regarding the representation question, it depends on how you understand representation to work. THere are legitimate debates about whether your elected official ought to mechanically reflect the will of the majority in his/her district (assuming it is possible to figure out what the majority actually wants, which is often a difficult task), or whether the official is bound to make what he or she believes are the best choices, sometimes even in spite of the majority preference. There are reasonable arguments in both directions. Then too, minority political viewpoints are a challenge. Obviously, it is more likely that an official will reflect the views of the majority who elected him or her, than of the minority who did not. None the less, even people who hold minority viewpoints have a representative - just not one with whom they agree. People in the minority can still contact their representative, tell them why they feel as they do, encourage them to vote a certain way, ask for help with government bureaucratic problems, etc.

 

The point about representation is that, just because you don't agree with the choices an elected official makes, doesn't necessarily mean you have no representation.

 

And incidentally, the British parliament actually offered the colonies seats at the table - representation. However, partly as a strategic move, colonial leaders turned down this offer. Can't cry "no taxation without representation!" (a catchy little slogan) when you actually get a representative, now can you. There were other, more pragmatic, reasons too, that have to do with the quality of representation (would've been difficult for the rep to know in a timely fashion what his colonial constituents thought, given the communications technology of the day). It is worth noting, though, that the rallying cry around which most of the current tea party folks are convening is a little more complicated than it appears on the face of things.

 

 

[Merlyn_LeRoy]

Kahuna writes:

Now, Merlyn is trying to deny that ACORN and moveon.org have been known to do things to sabotage people who don't like Obama's policies.

 

No, I'm pointing out how you've gone from denying any racial slurs at tea parties to blaming them all on ACORN and moveon.org without so much as a shred of evidence.