"When I'm asked to carry a bill, I do, whether I like it or not--I work for the people. This bill had some good points and some bad points, and it was defeated by executive decision. They said there's other bills coming along that would suit the needs of the people, so they voted this one down."Here's the down and dirty.
No federally elected or appointed office to my knowledge works for "we the people". Certainly you would not claim the Supreme Court works for the people. As certain, you would not claim that Members of Congress or even the President works for us. Why? Because to claim that our elected officials work for us would imply an Employer/Employee relationship. For example:
An Employer hires and terminates employees.
An Employer sets the standard for his employees.
An Employer can hold his employees accountable for job related performance.
See where I am going now? Your basic McUSA's at best are part of a vast hiring committee. Yet, we cannot fire those we elect to federal office. Some feel that by not reelecting them we are in effect firing them. I disagree and would say that we are simply hiring (by committee) a different person once the contractual obligation was met. Did you notice that the McUSA's also had a very limited choice of job applicants and no say at all when interviews (campaigns) began.
We the people do not set performance or conduct standards for our elected officials. The Foley scandal demonstrated this. We don't have the authority or ability to tell any official how they are to act.
Likewise accountability for performance. If you elect Senator Umptyfratz of the State of Intoxication because he opposes gun control, and he votes instead to tighten regulations and introduce new ones; What can you do? Nada, nothing, zip etc. He is under no legal obligation to live up to his campaign promises. Imagine if you will a job applicant who lied about his qualifications and intentions during the interview process. Read My Lips, He's outta there if you are the boss. In this case, we aren't.
Oh, and remember the vast hiring committee? Technically speaking you are not even entitled to that without a very liberal interpretation of the text of the constitution. I understand that a few amendments imply a right to vote. However it isn't explicitly stated. And of course in the case of presidential elections, it's all about the electors, not us.
While the title of the Voting Rights Act might imply that it established an explicit right to vote for U.S. citizens, there is no such federal right. However, the Voting Rights Act and three constitutional amendments that prevent discrimination in granting the franchise have established in United States Supreme Court jurisprudence that there is a "fundamental right" in the franchise, even though voting remains a state-granted privilege. Washington, DC, not being a State, has been granted only limited voting rights by the Congress, which controls the District "in all cases whatsoever", according to the District Clause of the Constitution. U.S. Representative Jesse Jackson, Jr. re-introduced House Joint Resolution 28 in March, 2005, to amend the U.S. Constitution and create a federal right to vote. The resolution had 60 co-sponsors as of October, 2006.
So the bottom line dear readers is that the feds don't work for us. That means that as you scrutinize who you are going to (we hope) be allowed to vote for it's just that much more important to get it right.
The opening quote for this post was taken from here.
No constitutional right to vote
The wiki article on voting rights quoted above.
The Mark Foley Scandal