News Qualifications of a Congressperson in 2010

  • Thread starter Thread starter WhoWee
  • Start date Start date
Click For Summary
Congressman John Conyers recently sparked debate by questioning the value of lawmakers reading lengthy health care bills, suggesting that understanding such complex legislation requires extensive legal expertise. This statement has led to discussions about the qualifications expected of elected officials, particularly in relation to their ability to comprehend and legislate on intricate issues like health care reform. Critics argue that if Congress members struggle to understand the bills they pass, it raises concerns about their competence in making informed decisions that affect citizens' lives. The conversation has also touched on the need for politicians to hire experts to interpret legislation and whether current educational and experiential standards for Congress members are adequate. Some propose that term limits could help refresh political leadership and improve legislative quality, while others emphasize the importance of accountability and higher standards for those in office. Overall, the discourse highlights a growing frustration with the perceived disconnect between lawmakers and the complexities of the laws they create.
  • #31
WhoWee said:
Can't say I blame you - I wouldn't want that job either.

Thats exactly what I'm looking for in a politician, someone who doesn't want to be one. So far I have two candidates for the 2010 election WhoWee and astronuc.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #32
Cyrus said:
FYI: It isn't about them not being "smart enough" to understand legislation. It's about them not having the time to read every last detail in a bill
I would agree with this if we were talking about a law that only applied to specialties, like a ban on removing tumors from the hypothalamus gland. It's fine that the average American couldn't understand the law, since it only applies to brain surgeons that know what a hypothalamus gland is.

But the context of the OP was a law that applies to average Americans and imposes penalties on average Americans for "failure to comply". If the average American is expected to comply with a law, there is no reason for a congressperson to approve it without reading and understanding it.

As far as having enough time, would it be the worst thing in the world if the number of laws passed by congress each year were limited to the number they actually had time to read? :bugeye:
 
  • #33
Al68 said:
Seriously, a stiff penalty for a congressperson that votes for a law that is found to violate the constitution seems reasonable.

The problem is that it's not always so obvious what will and will not violate the Constitution ahead of time. Have you ever heard of the supreme court decision Wickard v. Filburn? It held that a farmer growing his own wheat on his own land for his own consumption was engaged in interstate commerce.

Maybe it's me, but I don't think it's obvious that this would be the case.
 
  • #34
Vanadium 50 said:
The problem is that it's not always so obvious what will and will not violate the Constitution ahead of time. Have you ever heard of the supreme court decision Wickard v. Filburn? It held that a farmer growing his own wheat on his own land for his own consumption was engaged in interstate commerce.
While I agree that it's hard to predict how the courts will rule, making my suggestion unworkable, the fact is that many cases, like the one you cite, is obvious.

Presidents (we all know which) have chosen nominees based on their willingness to ignore the constitution in favor of their social and economic agendas, and declare obviously unconstitutional laws valid, knowing that their constituents won't know or care.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #35
Cyrus said:
You're right. Letting lawyers draft and review laws. What was I thinking...

FYI: It isn't about them not being "smart enough" to understand legislation. It's about them not having the time to read every last detail in a bill (That's why they have a staff of lawyers).

OoOOOo...ERRRRR...ARRRR...(Shakes fist in the air)..GRRRr. this is outrageous! Glenn Beck, O'Foolery, gather the troops! It's time for 9-13! (See, I even used red font to make it look angry. Grrrrr )

Now, poking fun of your weak argument aside: If you really want to make a point, then show that historically, congressmen have read every line in the bills they pass. Otherwise your complaint is as bogus as someone claiming they should write their own speeches. Then, and only then, will I take you seriously. So that there is no doubt in your mind: I am not arguing that it's good or bad that congressmen don't read the bills in their entirety. I'm simplying waiting for an argument that provides an answer using some facts about the historicity.

As for Pelosi (who I don't care for):

Hmmmmmm, she's been in the house for 22 years and you're questioning her credientials. You must be kidding me. You have got to stop with these cartoon characterizations you post.

I think you agree that Congress needs to be held accountable. To analyze your statement, you believe the issues are so complicated that lawyers need to be involved - I get that.

But why doesn't Congress have time to read the legislation? This is their job. They find time to tour Iraq and Cuba and everywhere else.

As Al68 said "As far as having enough time, would it be the worst thing in the world if the number of laws passed by congress each year were limited to the number they actually had time to read? "

As for my weak argument in red. These are the words of Barack Obama on 7/29/09.

As for Obama - this is what he said on July 29, 2009.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/the_press_...orth-Carolina/

"So I just want everybody to know, Congress will have time to read the bill. They will have time to debate the bill. They will have all of August to review the various legislative proposals. When we come back in September, I will be available to answer any question that members of Congress have. If they want to come over to the White House and go over line by line what's going on, I will be happy to do that."
What does this have to do with Fox commentators? Obviously Obama thinks Congress should read the Bills also - he's willing to make take the time to do it.

I believe Obama because I hold a man to his word. If I tell my employees, clients, vendors, wife, kids, neighbors, or anyone that I'm going to do something - I'm held accountable as well.

As for your challenge:
"If you really want to make a point, then show that historically, congressmen have read every line in the bills they pass. Otherwise your complaint is as bogus as someone claiming they should write their own speeches. Then, and only then, will I take you seriously. So that there is no doubt in your mind: I am not arguing that it's good or bad that congressmen don't read the bills in their entirety. I'm simplying waiting for an argument that provides an answer using some facts about the historicity."

So far I can't find evidence to support whether they read or don't read the legislation. This is a good link to research Bills.
http://memory.loc.gov/ammem/amlaw/lwsblink.html#anchor1

It appears Congress would have no reason not to read these Bills - 16th Congress, 1st session, 1820. The average length of the 124 pieces of legislation appears to be about 1 - 2 pages.
http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llsb&fileName=001/llsb001.db&recNum=399

From the 103rd Congress, 1st Session 1993-1994. H.R.1 (To grant family and temporary medical leave under certain
circumstances.) is 58 pages.
http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=103_cong_bills&docid=f:h1eh.txt.pdf

Historically, Bills were shorter in length. However, I can not prove or disprove that elected officials ever read them. The only conclusion I can draw from the evidence is that it used to be easier to read and understand legislation than it is now.

I want Congress to read the Bills. It is my opinion that if the Bills were shorter or the Congresspersons more competent, they could be expected to read and understand and understand the legislation to which they are voting - on our behalf.

As for speech writing, I certainly expect them to outline what they want to say and be familiar with the contents prior to reading from a teleprompter. Otherwise, I want to meet the "Puppetmaster" - and commence the vetting process.

Likewise, if Congress is allowing lawyers to "draft and review laws" as per your post, then I want to know more about these lawyers and their affiliations.

Since YOU brought up Fox commentators, Beck claims the Apollo Alliance designed the stimulus legislation. If it's true, maybe we should hold Apollo responsible for fraud and waste - since Congress didn't read the Bill.
http://www.treehugger.com/files/2009/08/apollo-beck.php

Last, Nancy Pelosi has 22 years of Congressional experience - the voters obviously want her to represent them in Congress. However, from her bio, she has a BA (could be in basket-weaving? can't find specifics) and apparently worked in PR at some point. A lawyer once told me an attorney with 40 years of experience handling only divorce, has less credibility than an attorney with 4 years of criminal courtroom experience - in the context of criminal experience. In his analysis, after 4 years, you don't really learn anything new. I think, aside from the political power games, a Congressperson with 1 term is as qualified a legislator as a Congressperson with 10 terms.

I don't believe her specific experience qualifies Nancy Pelosi to be second in line to serve as President of the United States.

Her voting record
http://projects.washingtonpost.com/congress/members/p000197/

"Voting with Party

Nancy Pelosi has voted with a majority of her Democratic colleagues 100.0% of the time during the current Congress. This percentage does not include votes in which Pelosi did not vote. See a list of her votes against her party since 1991, a list of all Representatives in the 111th Congress with a similar score, or a full list of party voters."

Also
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/person.xpd?id=400314
"Nancy Pelosi has sponsored 56 bills since Jan 16, 1991 of which 45 haven't made it out of committee and 4 were successfully enacted."

Based solely upon her experience (not her contacts), would you hire her to run YOUR company?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #36
Al68 said:
While I agree that it's hard to predict how the courts will rule, making my suggestion unworkable, the fact is that many cases, like the one you cite, is obvious.

Really? You think it's obvious that a farmer growing his own wheat on his own land for his own use is engaged in interstate commerce? It sure wasn't obvious to me!
 
  • #37
Vanadium 50 said:
Really? You think it's obvious that a farmer growing his own wheat on his own land for his own use is engaged in interstate commerce? It sure wasn't obvious to me!
No, the opposite. It's obvious that the farmer didn't engage in interstate commerce, but the court "determined" otherwise (violated their oath) to serve a political agenda.
 
  • #38
This Left Wing Liberal organization has very specific requirements for experience. They appear to be very well managed.
http://site.pfaw.org/site/PageServer?pagename=about_employment

"Employment, Internship and Volunteer Opportunities

People For the American Way is a nationwide advocacy organization that mobilizes its members and activists to fight for public policies that reflect the values of freedom, fairness, and equal opportunity; to champion constitutional protections and civil rights; to hold public officials accountable to those standards; and to promote strong democratic institutions, including a federal judiciary that upholds individual rights.

The affiliated People For the American Way Foundation conducts research, legal, and education work on behalf of First Amendment freedoms and democratic values; monitors, exposes, and challenges the Religious Right movement and its political allies; identifies, trains, and supports the next generation of progressive leaders through its Young People For youth leadership programs and its Young Elected Officials Network; and carries out nonpartisan voter education, registration, civic participation, and election protection activities.

People For the American Way and People For the American Way Foundation have a national office in Washington, D.C. and program staff who work in Florida and New York. We have a variety of staff positions, including field organizers, legislative and media representatives, internet strategists, research analysts, writers and administrative positions. Some are suitable for entry-level applicants. We also have internship opportunities for college students in several areas.

Members of our staff work in a dynamic professional and collaborative environment. We are pleased to offer them excellent benefits, including medical and dental plans, life and disability insurance, 401k plan and generous holiday and leave benefits.

If you are interested in helping us defend the democratic institutions and freedoms that are every American's birthright, please consider the following positions.

* Director, African American Religious Affairs
* Director, Young People For
* Capital Volunteers
* Internships

Director, African American Religious Affairs

People For the American Way Foundation (PFAWF) is a national organization dedicated to defending constitutional and civil rights and promoting the democratic values of citizen participation, freedom of expression, freedom of religion, and respect for diversity.

The Director of African American Religious Affairs is responsible for outreach efforts to build a stronger presence and institutional relationships with African American churches, organizations, leaders, and youth on the national, state and local levels. The Director will administer and staff the African American Ministers Leadership Council (AAMLC) and African American Ministers in Action (AAMIA) programs by coordinating grassroots activities, programs, and media outreach in order to increase the support and mobilization of the African American faith and surrounding communities around PFAWF issues. The director will focus on issue advocacy and leadership development around PFAWF issues. The position is based in Washington, DC.

Responsibilities:

* Oversee and manage the day-to-day operations of the African American Ministers Programs and the staff assigned to projects of the ministers programs.
* Build a diverse coalition of churches and organizations designed to ensure coordinated grassroots efforts around issues facing African American communities; mobilize members of the African American clergy to launch effective programs in their cities.
* Train, educate and empower local ministers on First Amendment issues as it relates to People For’s program agenda.
* Serve as one of the organization’s spokespersons on African American and related issues.
* Oversee development and management of campaigns and volunteers among the African American faith community.
* Develop and implement community, state and national level programs designed to engage the African American faith community in PFAWF initiatives.
* In consultation with the public policy department will maintain communication and develop outreach opportunities around faith messaging with local, state, and national elected and appointed leaders.
* Ensure that ministers programs actively engage ministers in public policy discussions related to PFAWF issues.
* Develop and maintain contacts with and lists of public officials, organizational leaders, and activists in assigned states.
* Maintain a high degree of knowledge of the political and issue concerns related to People For’s goals and projects.
* Oversee the writing of reports, letters, and action alerts; brief staff about programs and strategic partnerships.

Qualifications:

* Strategic thinker with rigorous intellect, creativity and entrepreneurial approach.
* Ability to develop plans and respond to new opportunities.
* Passionate interest in issues relating to the intersections of race, religion, values, and public policy.
* Demonstrated ability to lead and manage staff and programs.
* Excellent interpersonal skills; ability to work with wide variety of people and develop collaborative relationships.
* Familiarity with the elements of the Religious Right’s tactics and strategies.
* Excellent oral and written communication skills.
* Ability to work independently, to organize and manage a variety of projects and priorities simultaneously and effectively.
* Substantial experience working in African American communities with clergy, statewide and local organizations.

* Advocacy and social justice experience highly desirable.
* Ability and willingness to travel frequently and extensively.
* Degree in theology preferred.
* Strong commitment to People For the American Way Foundation’s issues agenda.

To apply: Send resume and statement of interest to Human Resources, People For the American Way Foundation, 2000 M Street, NW, Suite 400, Washington, DC 20036. Email hr@pfaw.org.

People For the American Way Foundation is an equal opportunity employer.

September 2009

Director, Young People For

Young People For (YP4) is a progressive leadership development program focused on identifying, engaging, and empowering the next generation of progressive leaders. YP4 is dedicated to identifying young campus and community leaders, engaging them, and supporting them with the skills and resources they need to create change. Together, People For and YP4 are building a long-term network of emerging leaders committed to protecting our nation's fundamental rights and freedoms.

YP4 has three overarching priorities: 1) to diversity leadership in the progressive movement; 2) to support young leaders to effect change in their communities now; and 3) to ensure that young leaders are sustained in their leadership over the long term. The core of YP4 is our one-year fellowship for progressive college students, which supports and empowers them to create change now on their campuses and in their communities. The 2009 fellowship class & 150 fellows from 86 campuses in 29 states & is the next generation of YP4's growing network of over 650 alumni across the nation.

The position is located in Washington, DC and reports to the Director of Youth Leadership Programs.
Responsibilities:

* Ensure the planning and implementation of all YP4 programs and initiatives guided by our mission and values.
* Working with the Director of Youth Leadership Programs, establish annual program goals and quarterly benchmarks to achieve our vision.
* In collaboration with the Finance and Development Departments and the Director of Youth Leadership Programs, develop the annual budget and monitor monthly financial reports compared to budget.
* Working with the Development Department and Director of Youth Leadership Programs, assist in establishing and raising revenue goals, and assist in developing proposals and reports to investors.
* In collaboration with the Human Resources Department, manage staff recruitment, selection and evaluation to ensure that staff are adequately trained and supported in their professional development.
* Assist in outreach and coalition activities including strategic partnerships with local, state and national organizations.
* Manage a dynamic team of young professionals to ensure that staff are working towards weekly, quarterly and annual goals. Facilitate and coordinate weekly staff meetings, quarterly goal meetings and biannual retreats and reports.
* Serve as chief spokesperson for Young People For and represent YP4 on the Leadership Team of People For’s Youth Leadership Programs.

Qualifications:

* Demonstrated management skills including effective staff supervision and project planning. Ability to collaborate across departments and motivate and train a diverse team of people.
* Previous experience in developing and managing programs including fundraising and budget management.
* Extensive knowledge of youth leadership development and the larger progressive landscape.
* Previous grassroots/political/campus organizing experience.
* Excellent communication skills including strong writing and public speaking skills.

* Ability to communicate effectively with fellows and a diverse constituency.
* Ability to work effectively in a fast paced environment, be well organized, and effectively manage competing priorities and frequent deadlines.
* Previous grassroots/political/campus organizing experience.
* Demonstrated experience in developing partnerships and coalitions with progressive and or youth organizations.
* Ability to think creatively with an entrepreneurial approach.

* Commitment to progressive ideals and interest in People For’s issues and activities.

To apply: Send resume and statement of interest to Human Resources, People For the American Way Foundation, 2000 M Street, NW, Suite 400, Washington, DC 20036. Email hr@pfaw.org.

People For the American Way Foundation is an Equal Opportunity Employer.

August 2009
Capital Volunteers

If you live in the Washington DC area, become a Capital Volunteer and start working directly to combat intolerance and preserve constitutional freedoms! We are currently looking for individuals for the following volunteer position(s)."

I'm not sure they're REALLY an equal opportunity employer though, these requirements seem biased against otherwise qualified applicants.
" * Commitment to progressive ideals and interest in People For’s issues and activities."
and " * Strong commitment to People For the American Way Foundation’s issues agenda."


As per the original post, I think we the people should have higher expectations of our elected officials as well. Our politicians should be as passionate about their jobs as these folks.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #39
Vanadium 50 said:
Really? You think it's obvious that a farmer growing his own wheat on his own land for his own use is engaged in interstate commerce? It sure wasn't obvious to me!

Sounds like we need to pick people that can understand basic english(that excludes most modern day lawyers). Interstate commerce and the general welfare clause are the two most mis-used phrases in the whole constitution. Interstate means between 2 or more states, not that someone growing their own food would interfere with interstate commerce since he no longer has to buy food off the market.
General Welfare means everybody, not certain groups, but everybody. If it doesn't help 100% of americans, such as national defense, it can't be considerered general welfare.
My list so far:
1) A person that doesn't think they are the one, and doesn't want to run for office.(little ambition)(humility)

2) A person that understands what words actually mean, not what they can mean.

3) People that don't love money, and think that money is an end all, but one who understands that money is a tool nothing more.(no avarice)

4) People that understand that their job is not to pass bills, but to read, understand, and then vote on bills accordingly.(This one will take a public that doesn't believe that government money is free, since most people would vote out somebody that doesn't bring the pork home, it will also take a government that doesn't believe its entitled to our money, since most people just want their politicians to bring home the money they had confiscated.)So we will need to change our tax system back to a voluntary contribution, instead of a forced contribution. I think that politicians would walk a lot softer if their revenues were based on peoples agreement with the plans put forth, and not their coercion. The way it is now politicians can buy our vote with our own money(that is if we allow them to do so).

5)Someone principled, that understand that sometimes the right vote is sometimes the vote going to get you booted from washington(because of the public listed above).
That was one of my favorite sayings of Calvin Coolidge, I have seen too many people come to washington and change the rest of their life to fit in in washington, then they can no longer afford to leave Washington, since they have to keep their job because they can no longer afford the life they are now living.(not an exact quote)
Or the fact that Calvin Coolidge stayed living in a two familiy house, throughout his presidency. A man that actually believes in what he says, and actually lives what he believes.

6) We also need politicians that understand that they work for us, not that we work for them.
Without government we could survive, without us the government could never survive.

7) Most of all we need politicians that understand we live in a constitutional republic, not a democracy. (Since that is the biggest justification ever, well the majority wants it so we must pass it. If you read some supreme court rulings you will see how many times this justification is used.)

So basically it just boils down to a person with principles, everything else comes from these core beliefs. It seems todays politicians' principles change with the weather or atleast with the vote. The one thing I have come to learn about life is the right choice is never the easiest one to make, it is more times than not the hardest decision you'll ever make, so can we atleast find some people with a backbone.
 
  • #40
WhoWee said:
Why don't we elect people who can understand what they are reading?

Perhaps this is because the majority of the American public don't bother to educate themselves on who they are voting for.

But I do agree that every congressperson and senator should read every word of every bill they vote on and understand it!
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 20 ·
Replies
20
Views
4K
  • · Replies 65 ·
3
Replies
65
Views
11K