|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||||||||
|
|
|
|
Polizzi IPgram
Focused on Highlighting Qualified Candidates for Governance Leaders |
|
|
|
|||||||||
|
|
|
|
Dateline: USA, March 8, 2010
The following provides the story behind the Open Healthcare Message to the 30 Congressmen on the fence about whether to engage in the healthcare reconciliation chicanery. Should
Congressmen Be Obliged to Serve Two Constituencies? A recent attempt to e-mail Healthcare views specifically to 30 congressional Representatives turned into an eye-opening experience. “Views from Out-of-District Electorate Not Accepted – Don’t Bother” was the effective response of 25 of the 30 Representatives. Even more, one of the “Need Not Apply” 25 didn’t even allow his own constituents to e-mail him. Of the other five, three readily accepted an out-of-district e-mail, and with a bit of sleight-of-hand, so did the remaining two. The targeted 30 Congressmen were the ones listed by Dick Morris as being on the fence about whether to engage in the healthcare reconciliation chicanery. Morris advised everyone to call these House members. However, it was felt that an opinion expressed via an e-pen would be more likely to have a longer lasting and mightier effect than a phone call. The assumption was that a phone call would result in simply adding one more count to a “for” or an “against” counter. The nuances offered in the phone call would not likely be passed on to the Representative. Even worse, discovering the exclusive district-only centric focus of the Representatives, even a yea or nay from an out-of-district electorate might not even be added to the counter. Superficially, the refusal to allow any out-of-district person to express an opinion might not seem unreasonable. The long time mantra is that the Representative is responsible to his constituents. And, by implication, not responsible to the rest of the nation’s constituents. But on consideration, the district-only responsibility might be appropriate when focusing on exclusive in-district issues, but, beyond that, the contention herein is that considering the effect of law-making on all the electorate is also a responsibility of each and every Congressman. Each Congressman effectively being responsible for, if not responsible to, the national electorate. Especially when the planned legislation has enormously far-reaching national implications, it is intolerable to have lawmakers act and vote in a geographically provincial and/or self-serving manner. Clearly, Healthcare reform (a.k.a. an USA structure altering foundation) falls into this category. No one can dispute that the scope of the attempted Healthcare legislation requires all the lawmakers to be crafting a bill on behalf of all the Electorate, not just the ones who put them in office. Lawmakers routinely deport themselves as representatives of the entire electorate. They sit on oversight and law generating committees where, more times than not, they make assertive statements about what “the American people want”. Rarely do the statements restrict themselves to what people in their district want. Aside from the fact that citing “the American people” underscores the dimensions of Congressional responsibility, how well do they understand what “Americans want” if they don’t expose themselves to all of the electorate? This is not to suggest that Congressmen not listen to, and mostly abide by, the wishes of those who elected them. What is emphatically declared is that Congressmen really have dual constituencies – the people who elected them, and the entire electorate of the country. And the Congressional challenge is to draw a fine line for how to serve both. However, when one constituency is at cross-purposes with the other, the Constitution prescribes precisely how to resolve the discrepancy. (In the case of Healthcare, arguably both constituencies appear to be very much aligned; it is Washington that appears to be ignoring the collective electorate.) By
way of analogy, the point of this discourse is that just as the Constitution
requires an Advise & Consent check on the Executive Branch, herein we
submit that the Legislative Branch has an implied (even moral) obligation to
constantly obtain the Advise & Consent of the Dual Classes of the
Electorate. An obligation made considerably complicated to execute during a time when the media is in the throes of technologically instigated creative destruction. A situation that makes it extremely difficult to separate fact from biased fiction. A dangerous situation that puts the nation in peril of traveling down a path that it would not have traversed were the facts well-communicated. And there is no better way for lawmakers to be exposed to the facts than by engaging in electronic discourse with all the electorate. We did manage to e-mail our Healthcare views to all but one of the aforementioned 30. But only via an incredibly circuitous process. We now append the following message to the e-mailed message that is repeated below: “Congressmen, relative to the Healthcare issue, the Electorate has made it abundantly clear that it does not give its Advise & Consent. And if you make a recess (reconciliation) Healthcare law appointment, realize that its life will end with the inauguration of the next, dual constituent-adhering Congress”. The Open
Healthcare Message To 30 Specific Congressmen “Please think about the constructive good you could do for the
nation over time, over multiple terms in office. Including, but not limited
to, really dealing systemically with health care. But this is only possible
if we remain a Republic, and you are allowed to be a people’s representative,
a free-will democratic leader, and not a self-immolation pawn who consequently
is voted out of office. Should ObamaCare (and its
anti-Republic underbelly) become
enacted via reconciliation, it will not prevail. It will be repealed by a
very angry electorate. The same electorate that will make sure that the
Republic will survive. The question you must ask
yourself as you look in the mirror is, does it really make sense to throw
yourself and your political career under the bus in support of an
illegitimately enacted law, one that
will have a half-life measured in months? Or does it make more sense to keep
yourself in office, and work to achieve true health care reform (and other
social reforms) within the context of our Republic’s structure?" |
|
|
|
|||||||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
||||||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||||||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
||||||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||||||||
