Assignment Due 12:01am, 10/08/07
Respond to the following questions using evidence from the present Congress. Do Congressional representatives vote their conscience or based upon their constituents opinions on major issues? Present 4 examples that strongly support either position. Write a one paragraph response stating your view on the manner in which USA Senators and USA Representatives decide how to vote on major issues.
19 comments:
This is James, and I believe that Congresstion Representatives will vote with their constituents on major issues. The first issue deals with Mitt Romney, one of the presidental candidates. He keeps flip-flopping between the issues based on gay marriage, abortion, healthcare, and alcohol depending on what the majority of his fellow constituents think. Second, both parties agreed with their constituents, even though they didn't like it, when they voted to pass Bill Clinton's budget bill of 1997. Third, recently, all of the Republicans went on the "norm" to vote on the HealthCare issue about CHIP, while President Bush voted on his conscience, unlike his fellow Republicans. And last of all, all the congressional representatives voted with their constituents when it was time to raise their pay raise, amplifying the fact that our government, although how good it is, is still corrupt. In conclusion, Congressional representatives vote upon their constituents opinions on issues.
I, Rachel Barile, believe that Congressional Representative vote with their constituents opinions on major issues. One issue that really supported this opinion was in 1997, when both parties passed former President Bill Clinton's budget bill. The parties went with thier constituents. Another issue is Senator Joe Liberman from Connecticut, who is a demacrate and supported President George W. Bush's view on the Iraq war. His party is against the war and he switched his view which cost him the election. This is an example of going against your constituents. The third issue is Senator John McCain of Arizona and how he flip flopped his position of the Iraq war. The Vietnam war vet was against the war and now he is for the war to go with his constituents. The final issue is Presidental candidate, Mitt Romney. He flip flopped most of his issues, like abortion and gay marriage to match what this constituents thought on those issues. In conclusion, Congressional representative vote on their constituents rather than their conscience.
I believe that since it is impossible to represent the opinions of all of their constituents, representatives generally vote their conscience on key issues. One recent example of this is Joe Lieberman's stance on Iraq. While the majority of the public agrees that our troops should be taken out of Iraq, Lieberman consistently wants to stay in Iraq. Another example is that Hillary Clinton recently voted against a bill that eventually passed, one that created $14 billion in tax breaks, and would try to help solve our energy problems. The constituents want tax breaks, as well as our country's companies to find new innovative ways to stop relying on foreign nations for oil. Furthermore, U.S. representative Brian Baird expressed his ideas of voting for staying in Iraq for the long run, because he thinks they need us to stabilize. Similarly with the Lieberman issue, this is going against what most constituents feel is right. Lastly, NJ rep Scott Garett voted against the Children's Health Insurance Program Reauthorization Act. This bill would insure nearly 4 million kids without insurance, which most constituents also want. Again, because of the large amount of different opinions constituents would have, representatives such as these vote based on their conscience, while taking into account what their constituents may believe. Just because representatives vote the way their people want them to, doesn't mean that the vote was NOT based upon their conscience.
I believe that the majority of our Congressional Representatives vote according to what their consituents believe on the major issues. First off, on the 1997 budget bill created by Former President Bill Clinton all but few members of Congress claimed to hate the bill, yet a majority in both the Senate and the House of Representatives voted for the bill. Another issue is that Senator Hillary Clinton has flip-flopped her position on the United States involvment in Iraq. In 2002, Sen. Clinton was in favor of a use-of-force resolution authorizing the invasion of Iraq. Now in 2007, she is, along with the rest of her Democratic party, part of an anti-war camp. Another person who has been known to have flip-flopped and changed his opinion on many issues is Sen. John McCain. He had flopped on such topics as tax-cut for the wealthy, which he formerly opposed but then in February 2006,he changed his mind and also on the issue of abortion and the use of ethanol. It seems as if Sen. McCain will say anything to please people, but does not always stick to what he originally believes in. Lastly, another person who has drastically changed their opinion due to the influence of their consitutents, is former Massachusettes Gov. Mitt Romney. He has switched his opinions on the issues of abortion, gun control and same-sex marriage from pro to anti, to create a more Republican conservative image for himself. In conclusion, Congressional Representatives do not always stick to what they believe in and have their opinions easily swayed as to what their party and their contituents belive is right.
Marissa Troiano
Today it seems that most of the US reps. and US senators vote on key issues based on what the public wants at the time, or what their party’s position is. An example of a candidate changing their position to attempt to get more votes in Mitt Romney on the issue of same sex marriages. At first Romney was pro same sex marriages because he was the governor in a state where same sex marriages were legal, so in order to get more votes he had to respect that law. But once Romney left his job as governor and became a presidential ballet candidate, his views changed to being strongly against same sex marriages to fit the liking of the majority of Americans. Also on the topic to pass the Congress bill “Iraq Withdrawal,” each of our representatives voted pro the bill because Americans have gotten tired of war in Iraq because of the amounts of deaths and the large amount of time we have already spent in Iraq “policing the world.” So almost every candidate votes not according to what they feel is right or for what might help Americans the most, they instead votes on the side of the issue that they believe Americans will like the most and in turn gain more votes. And even most of the US reps. and US senators vote according to their party’s stance. So if there is a majority of Republicans in the House and Congress, and a Democratic President, then not much is going to get done during that time because usually the two party’s views either don’t line up, or they vote so to not let the leader of the opposite party seem to have had a good idea to help the nation. An example for voting for your respected party was the vote on “Second-Home Tax Dispute.” Together all of the Democrats voted against the bill while the only Republican, Christopher Shays, voted pro the bill.
In general, Congressional Representatives vote in line with the majority opinion of their constituents. One example is President Bill Clinton’s budget bill passed in 1997. Although individually representatives knew that the bill was inadequate and not in appropriate shape to be passed, they all turned their cheeks to its shortcomings and voted with their constituents to pass the bill. A second example is presidential candidate Mitt Romney, who has flip-flopped on a number of issues, from gay rights to abortion, in order to form a more appealing image to his Republican voters and constituents. A very recent example concerns a vote taken on the Mortgage Forgiveness Debt Relief Act of 2007. In this vote, all Republicans voted yea while all but eight Democrats voted nay. Clearly, the vast majority of representatives decide how they will vote based on how the voting of their constituents. A final example concerns Democrat representative Marjorie Margolies-Mezvinsky who, in 1994, voted in support of the federal budget even though it was against the voting of her constituents. The result was a massive loss of popularity and respect that ended up costing her a reelection. In conclusion, representatives tend to vote with their constituents, and voting against their constituents without careful consideration can have disastrous political results.
This is Marc Schneider, and I believe that the congress people in both the United States House of Representatives and the United States Senate vote on their perceived perception of the majority of their constituents. A good example of this is the vote on entering an armed conflict on the sovereign nation of Iraq. The majority of the people in the United States of America felt that Iraq was a threat to the national security of the United States of America because of the propaganda that was circulated on weapons of mass destruction and the threat of said weapons being used. The senate voted 77 to 23 to go to war with Iraq. Both Senator Dodd and Lieberman voted yea for this issue. (www.senate.gov) Also, the senate voted 98 for and 1 against the USA Patriot Act because of the fear instilled by the attacks on the United States on September 11, 2001. (www.senate.gov) In addition to these foreign policy issues, the congress also votes on the internal issues that are critical to the function of society. The overwhelming majority of the population supports Stem Cell Research, and the House of Representatives have showed that they believe that they should support their constituents’ views and voted 413 for to 20 not voting to pass the senate amendments to the Stem Cell Research bill on December 17, 2005. (www.House.gov) Finally, the Senate struck down a bill to remove a credit to people who use biodiesel that is co processed with petroleum products on June 20, 2007. The vote was 45 yeas to 49 nays. (www.senate.gov)This shows that the senator s feel that their constituent s are interested in the environment. The public appears to be evenly split on their position on biodiesel and the Senate shows this. All of the above votes show that the Congress people take the views of the general public and their constituents that contact them into consideration.
I believe that congressional representatives tend to vote based upon their constituents opinions or their parties view on major issues. To begin with, Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney (R.) was against same sex religion because it goes against his Mormon beliefs, but when the Supreme Court ruled in favor of same sex marriage Romney then lobbied for a state constitutional amendment. However, recently he has changed his opinions and is now pro-life even though in 2004 he supported abortion. He is known to be a “flip-flopper” when it comes to key issues, including health care at one point he was opposed and now he embraces it. Romney signed a law abolishing Massachusetts “blue laws” which prohibit the sale of alcohol on Sundays. Even though the consumption of alcohol and abortion is illegal in the Mormon religion he is voting in favor for what the people want. In no way does he benefit by allowing alcohol to be sold on Sunday but his constituents are. Another person that is known to change their opinions based on their constituents’ opinions is Senator John McCain (R.) from Arizona. He is known to take sides not agreed upon by his political party. He started off being opposed to the “Bush Tax Cuts” but now he favors the tax cuts, he too has been known to “flip-flop” on many issues. But most importantly originally McCain was opposed to the Iraq war but now he supports it along with the rest of the Republican Party. Another example of Senators and Representatives voting based on their constituent’s opinions is during Former President Bill Clinton’s terms. In August 1993 President Clinton (R.) signed the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act, which passed through Congress without a single republican vote. This is a great example of how politicians tend to vote with their party, it is very hard to believe that not one person agreed with the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act. Lastly, Senator Hilary Clinton (D.) from New York is another example of congressional representatives that vote based on their constituents and party’s political stances. Five years ago she voted to authorize the Iraq war, but now she is saying that this vote was a mistake, therefore siding with the current democratic view on the war in Iraq. She blames her vote on “lack of administration from the Bush Administration” and that if Congress had been asked today to authorize war, she never would have agreed. All in all a large majority of Congressional representatives tend to side with their constituents and political party when it comes to voting.
I believe that Congressional representatives generally vote their conscience rather than with the view of their constituents. The strongest support of this is that representatives hold their offices because their constituents elected them on the basis that their personal views aligned with those of the general public. Because of this it may appear that congressmen merely agree with their constituents, but they are actually voicing their own opinion, which may or may not coincide with that of the constituents. It often does coincide with the views of their constituents, but this is to be expected since the popularity of the representatives’ views was proved through the election process. Another supporting example of representatives promoting their conscience is how Senator Joseph Lieberman was elected into office. The Democratic Party did not nominate him for the office, showing that he did not blindly uphold the democratic line, which was his previous constituent base. Yet he ran as an independent, advocating his own conscience, and was elected. A third example showing this is Senator Lieberman’s stance on the Iraq War. He is not dissuaded from his opinion that we need to stay in Iraq by the overwhelming public feeling that we need to leave. A fourth example of how representatives vote their conscience is in bill HR 2956. This bill would start the reduction of troop numbers in Iraq and set a limit to this number that must be reached by April 2008. In the house vote on this bill, 10 democrats voted against it. These votes are contrary to the popular opinion of the nation, showing that representatives are not voting with their constituents. If that were the case, the vote would have been unanimous, but it was not, which is explained by the fact that representatives vote their conscience. Several other issues follow this pattern, for example embryonic stem cell research and health care reform are both generally supported by democrats and opposed by republicans, but there are republicans in favor of them and they also meet some democratic opposition. Overall, similarities exist between votes of representatives and views of their constituents, but this is not because representatives just do what their constituents say, it is because the constituents elect the representative to office with the personal feelings most akin to their own.
This is Chana H.Intense public and political activity and debate have focus on four issues; these issues are gay marriage, abortion, stem cell research and the United States involvement in the Iraq War. The constituents or general public have taken a moderate view or “middle ground” view. They want their leaders to enact policy changes that reflect their viewpoints. For example, the majority of constituents want to leave Iraq as quickly as possible, they also want to support the troops both home and aboard. They want to support not only the individual soldier both militarily and financially. They also want to support their family. Fifty-five percent (55%) of the Americans prefer that abortions laws be decided at the national level rather than the state level. On the issue of stem cell research, the majority continues to support stem cell research. Finally, in regards to gay marriages while many Americans are opposed to gay marriage, the majority do not support an amendment change that will result in a constitutional ban.
In contrast, the representatives, Walter “Wally” Herger Jr. and Peter T .King in Congress have ignored their constituents. Citizens on the West and Northeast, particularly California and New York have been identified as taking a very liberal stance on these issues. However, their representatives who are California and New York respectively have voted along party line in opposition to their constituents. This fact can be shown by their voting record. Both candidates votes against the Stem Cell Research Act of 2007, Non-Federally Funded Abortions and the Mandatory Troop Rest Periods between Deployments to Iraq. They voted counter to their constituents. They voted along either party line which based on the “Contract with America” is their party ideologue.
I, Maddie Bulkley firmly believe that Congressional Representatives vote on major issues with their constituents. They will do this because they care more about becoming popular in politics than promoting their own beliefs. Mitt Romney (Republican) was originally against same sex marriages because it was against his religious beliefs. As Governor of Massachusetts, Romney began to realize that the constituents were in favor of same sex marriage. Rather than risking his popularity for his own beliefs, Mitt Romney changed his views to that of the constituents. Senator John McCain (Republican) is an example of a politician who flips his views to go along with the majority. Senator McCain knows that the constituents are constantly changing their views on the Iraq war and Senator McCain wants to stay up with the majority. For example, last February he gave a mentioned how it was impossible to know if the war in Iraq would take longer than a few months henceforth to resolve. Then later he declared that it could be known in a few months the future of U.S. relationship with Iraq. Another example if the Budget of 1997 that former president Bill Clinton proposed. Many members of Congress asserted they were against the budget, and then when it came time to vote, the majority of Congress voted to pass the budget. This was not based on their own beliefs; they each were on the fence because they wanted to go along with the constituents. Rather than choosing a definite side they were unclear on both. Chris Shays of Connecticut is a member of Congress that goes along with his constituents. He has voted in favor of HR 3648 that basically says tax relief should be given to those about to lose their homes in foreclosure. The majority of people in Connecticut are in favor of this Bill. Congressional Representatives will always vote and be in agreement with their constituents because that brings then popularity. Popularity to a politician is key to their success.
It is certain that the preponderance of Congressional Representatives vote based upon their constituent’s opinions on major issues. One example of this is the role of Congress in the $520 omnibus spending bill signed by President Clinton in 1997. Although the majority of the senators and representatives ultimately voted for the bill, congress’s overall view of the bill was in correspondence to their constitutes’; “Criticism of the bill was rancorous and bipartisan.” (124, Paige) A second example of a Congressional Representative voting based on their constituents’ views is John Kerry stance on the war in Iraq in 2003. Originally, Senator John Kerry had voted for the war, but, because pressure from constituents proceeded to vote against the $87 billion of funding toward the war. Similarly to Senator Kerry, Senator Hillary Clinton’s view on the war in Iraq is another example of how representative votes are based on their constituents’ wants. Senator Clinton was initially in favor of the Iraq war. Recently, though, due to constituent pressure comparable to that of Kerry’s in 2003, she has stated “her first step will be to vote against funding [of the war].” A final example of how the constituents of Congressional Representatives influence their votes is Senator John McCain’s stance on Women’s right to an abortion. In 2000, Senator John McCain said, “[…]if we repeal Roe v. Wade tomorrow, thousands of young American women would be performing illegal and dangerous operations.” But, now that McCain is running against Giuliani in the election, McCain followed his many constituents and targeted Giuliani, saying “I think it’s one of the fundamental principles of a conservative to have a respect and commitment to the dignity of human life, both the born and the unborn.” As previously stated, it is clearly evident that the decisions of Congressional Representatives are greatly influenced by the opinions of their constituents.
I believe that most politicians will vote with their political constituents on major issues. First, Mitt Romney changed positions on the issues of gay rights and abortion during his political career so that he could win over the votes of those that would potentially vote for him, namely his party members. For example, he originally wished not to force his moral beliefs on marriages on others, but now he is opposed to gay marriages, and wants to protect marriage as a union between a man and a woman. On the matter of abortion, he originally said in 1994, that he wanted to make it “safe and legal,” and in 2005, he wrote, “I am pro-life.” He changed his views because the people that he wants to elect him want him to have the positions that he has now. Second, John Kerry’s views also changed because of his political constituents. Before he ran for president in 2004, Kerry was supportive of the wars that President George W. Bush was waging in the Middle East. His views changed when he ran for president, because his party did not approve of the war in Iraq. Both John Kerry and Mitt Romney were members of the Congress. Third, both parties in the Congress are voting on a new bill to reduce pork-barrel spending. Few Congressmen knew what it was they were voting on; they only voted on it because their fellow party members were doing so. Finally, both parties voted with their constituents to raise the wages that Congressmen received, under the pretense of a higher cost of living, because they did not listen to their conscience and to the needs of the people that they represent. In conclusion, Congress members, and politicians in general, vote with their constituents.
There has always been a certain curiosity of whether Congressmen take into account the opinions of their constituents while voting or rather using their own judgment and voting with their conscience. I personally believe that Congressmen use their conscience when voting for certain bills and amendments. One example is former Governor of New York City and 2008 Republican presidential candidate Rudy Giuliani. He is a strong advocate of the War in Iraq. Although most of America agrees to withdraw from Iraq, Giuliani believes that we need to keep troops stationed there until they have built a strong government. In a national wide survey asking citizens if we should withdraw troops, even if civil order is not restored in Iraq, 52% of Americans said that the troops should be withdrawn, even though civil order has not yet been restored. Another issue of which Congressmen vote their conscience is the gun law restrictions. In 1994, a bill went into effect signed by President Bill Clinton banning 19 specific models of semi-automatic firearms and to other guns with assault-weapon features. In 2004, the bill expired and the Republican Party did not want to renew it and the Democrats were ununited in the decision. As a result the bill was never renewed. In a recent poll asking whether gun laws should be more strictly enforced, 50% said laws should be more strict, 40% wanted them to remain, 9% said less strict and 1% was undecided. The majority believes in stricter laws, but Congress did not go with the majority and based it on their own conscience decision. A third issue is stem cell research. The 109th Congress during the 2nd session conducted a vote to provide for stem cell research (H.R. 810). There were 63 yeas and 37 nays. 19 of those yeas came from Republicans whose majority normally opposes stem-cell research. Those 19 Senators voted with their conscience and not with the majority of their parties beliefs. Lastly, the most recent issue of spending American tax money for the repair of highway bridges. Since the recent bridge collapse, the majority of Americans felt it was necessary to spend money for repairment on old bridges. In S.Amdt. 2844 to H.R. 3074, Congress voted 56 yeas and 37 nays to spend tax dollars on repairs. The majority of Republicans voted nay, but 9 voted yea, therefore going against their party. I do not believe that Congressmen strictly base their votes on their constituents but rather base them off their own good judgement and conscience for what they feel betters America.
-Samantha Plourde
The subject of how representatives vote in present Congress is highly debatable. Many representatives vote strictly in their party’s view, while others vote upon their own ethics and/or opinions. I believe that most representatives vote on issues in concurrence with their own personal views –not those of their constituents. When representatives are elected they are assumed to vote along their party lines, but in reality, they are elected on behalf of their opinions on major issues, and they are expected to vote on that. During election campaigns, candidates express their views and opinions. A concrete example of this is when Connecticut Senator Joe Lieberman was running for office last year. When Senator Lieberman lost the Democratic primary to Mr. Ned Lamont, he decided to put emphasis on his own views rather than those of his “former” democratic party. He ran as an independent and was elected. This illustrates how he was successful while using his own views, and not those of his constituents. Another key issue that representatives seem to vote their conscience on is when they are voting on anything involving the Iraq war. One recent example is when the House voted on “Iraq withdrawal reports” last Tuesday. The house voted an overwhelmingly 377-46 for the bill. Representative Chris Shays voted for the bill although he is a Republican. Normally, a Republican would have voted against this bill, because it challenges President Bush’s Iraq policy and because President Bush is a Republican. The 377-46 vote means that many Republicans challenged the President’s policy. This is further evidence that these Representatives are voting on their own opinions. Some may say that politicians constantly “flip-flop” on issues, and therefore are voting on the views of their constituents. It is true that some politicians do “flip-flop”, but this is not always because of the fact that their constituents feel a different way about issues. It may be that the constituents do not immediately have a stance on the issue, or it may be that their own ideas about an issue may develop and/or change through time, discussions, and/or exploration of an issue. In addition, many representatives don’t even “flip-flop”. A solid example of this is President George W. Bush. President Bush has not changed his views on the Iraq war, even though the majority of his constituents do not agree with the purpose of the war. The President has held his ground and expressed his opinions on topics throughout his terms as President. He has not immediately changed his mind for his constituents’ sake, but he has kept his own opinions on issues no matter what people think about his ethics.
I, Michelle Bittner, believe that the House of Representatives and the House of Senate vote with their conscience. I believe that it only appears as theough they vote with the people. The people back up who they believe is correct based on that person's stance. For example, on October 3, 2007 Congress rejected a bill to safely begin romoving troops from Iraq. Many citizens of the United States believe that we need to pull out of Iraq to ensure the safety of our troops. In addition, Senator Joseph Lieberman voted for the war on Iraq to proceed until an established democracy is evident in Iraq. Third, the Medicade Reform Bill that was passed provided Insurance Companies and pharmaceutical companies with billions of dollars. This bill was origionally meant to benefit the people, but instead benefits major companies, and was still passed by Congress. Last, Hillary Clinton voted against a bill which would create $14 billion in tax breaks and help to solve energy problems in the United States. The citizens of America would appreciate tax breaks and scientists are always looking to help with the energy problems and yet she voted against this bill.
I believe these examples provide concrete proof of Congress and specified Congressional leaders voting with their conscience as opposed to with their constituents.
Although it may appear as if the majority of Congressional representatives for a particular district or state in the United States Senate and United States House of Representatives are indecisive on many issues, this phenomenon is rooted in the many different stances of the constituents in said district or state. Evidence suggesting this is present in history as well as with the current congress. For example, Senator John McCain (R-AZ) had a strong stance for net neutrality. "Prohibiting consumers - or significantly limiting them - from legitimate use of the Internet is anathema to the principles of democracy and it goes contrary to our free market economy." (Opening Speech; Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation; 5/25/06) However, his views oppose those of the Republican party ("Net Neutrality Wins More Senators"). Thus, he doesn't vote with his party, but rather takes stances on what is best for the constituents of Arizona, and the United States of America. Another example is Presidential Candidate Mitt Romney. He had originally supported gay marriage as Governor of Massachusetts, but when he started his Presidential campaign, he flipped his position against gay marriage to conform to the general conservative attitude of the rest of the United States outside of Massachusetts. Romney also eliminated Massachusett's "Blue laws" which prohibited the sale of alcohol on Sundays, which are against his views as a Mormon but in coincidence with the views of his constituents. In addition, Senator Hillary Clinton (D-NY) voted, in 2002, for the Iraq War, and authorized use of force in Iraq. However, after the Democratic party's stance on the Iraq War shifting to being against the war, Clinton has changed her views to be against the war, and sent out an email to constituents and supporters about this matter (Hillary Clinton Crafts Centrist Stance on War, Washington Post). In conclusion, representatives in Congress for a district or state, for the most part, serve their job: representing the constituents of a particular area.
Chris Jelly
This is Sravya, and I truly believe that Congressional Representatives vote according to their constituents rather than their own conscience. Firstly, Mitt Romney changed his point of views about gay-marriages, abortion, and health care and voted along with his constituents. Secondly, Stem Cell research was really supported by many people, but majority people in the House of Representatives voted ‘no’ for the stem cell research, bolstering the opinions of the fellow members of the House. Thirdly, former President, Bill Clinton’s budget bill was passed because both the House of Representatives and the Senate voted for it, going along with the opinions of the their constituents, but both parties didn’t really like the bill. Lastly, Hillary Clinton also adapted her position regarding the War in Iraq. Before, Clinton used to be in favor of the War, but now that she is a Democrat, she had to change her view and be against US involvement in Iraq along with the rest of the Democratic Party. In conclusion, Congressional Representatives are more likely to vote along with their constituents, rather than their personal believes or conscience.
Post a Comment