Question: Are letters that are written to congress persons, public information?

[Ex Post Facto]

The reason I ask this, is everytime I've written a letter to a congress person, regarding going against a bill I get a form letter response pointing out why the bill is important, ignoring the fact that they represent my opinion, as well. Now everyone that I've heard of gets the same type of letters back when they raise concern over a bill.

It would be interesting to pull together statistics based on letters and documented phone calls, made by people to their representatives, in opposition of a bill. Using this information then contrast it to how the representative voted on the issue. This could provide some serious firepower to our side agaisnt representatives that don't follow what their supporters tell them to.

[Fields]

Hmmmm. I'm not sure but I'd doubt it.

[Churchill2004]

This would be a horrible thing. Congressmen are supposed to use their own judgment on bills, NOT simply be a conduit for the application of the latest opinion polls. This slide from an actual representative republic to direct-democracy-facilitated-by-representatives is a big part of the problems we have. Congress is no longer a deliberative body. Another part of that is the opening up of committees- which was in theory supposed to make Congress more accessible to the people but has really just made it more accessible to the lobbyists.

[tangent4ronpaul]

Congress critters have their staffs prepare "tick counts" - how many yea's and nay's get sent in from their constituents. Said "tick counts" should be public information. (I think). These are used as an indicator of what bills they should pay attention to and which way if they want to get re-elected.

That said, ever since the anthrax scares, congresses mail gets sent to commercial letter screeners for security reasons. This can delay the Congress critter's office getting the mail for 2+ months, at which point whatever they were writing about is probably a moot point and in such a case, no tick count will be done. This may have something to do with record low approval ratings for Congress.

-n

[tangent4ronpaul]

This would be a horrible thing. Congressmen are supposed to use their own judgment on bills, NOT simply be a conduit for the application of the latest opinion polls. This slide from an actual representative republic to direct-democracy-facilitated-by-representatives is a big part of the problems we have. Congress is no longer a deliberative body. Another part of that is the opening up of committees- which was in theory supposed to make Congress more accessible to the people but has really just made it more accessible to the lobbyists.

Every time I've written to a committee, I've never heard back. Every time I've written to a congress critter, I've heard back. With the exception of Dr. Paul the reply was always a form letter that didn't address my concern or input.

I believe the public is supposed to be able to "add comments to the record", but that's like skipping reading a bill or or when representatives enter things into the record. Most people will never see them or find out their contents.

-n

[Churchill2004]

You're thinking of "petitioning the government for a redress of grievances" which originally was interpreted to mean that people could actually petition Congress and had a right to have their petitions read before both Houses (or at least entered into the Congressional record). It was a favorite trick of abolitionists to get around the slavery gag rule. I'm a strict Constitutionalist, but I think that as a practical matter that's something we could do without.

What Congress actually passes, and the results of floor votes, should be public knowledge. The deliberative process of creating legislation (mainly in committees) has been ruined in the name of "openness", though. I love CSPAN as much as the next guy- but we all know that most of what goes on in committees is for show and not actual deliberative work.

Congress is supposed to be a deliberative body, not one that simply tries to do whatever is most popular. The time for accountability is at the polls, not on every single decision the Congressman makes.

[Ex Post Facto]

This would be a horrible thing. Congressmen are supposed to use their own judgment on bills, NOT simply be a conduit for the application of the latest opinion polls. This slide from an actual representative republic to direct-democracy-facilitated-by-representatives is a big part of the problems we have. Congress is no longer a deliberative body. Another part of that is the opening up of committees- which was in theory supposed to make Congress more accessible to the people but has really just made it more accessible to the lobbyists.

I'm in disagreement with this comment. You vote a representative to represent your interests. When the voters in that district are in agreement about a particular issue that representive should morally vote in favor of the district wishes. The only exception to this is when the bill is unconstitutional.

The biggest problem we see now, is public interests groups forcing their will across the entire House, versus the people forcing their will on only their elected representative.

[billjarrett]

Every time I've written to a committee, I've never heard back. Every time I've written to a congress critter, I've heard back.



Was it on the right subject? I wrote a letter to one of my representatives about illegal immigration. Got a form letter back about gay marriage.. :rolleyes:

[Churchill2004]

I'm in disagreement with this comment. You vote a representative to represent your interests. When the voters in that district are in agreement about a particular issue that representive should morally vote in favor of the district wishes. The only exception to this is when the bill is unconstitutional.

The biggest problem we see now, is public interests groups forcing their will across the entire House, versus the people forcing their will on only their elected representative.

You're completely missing the point of even having a legislature, as opposed to a direct democracy. A representative is there to make their own decisions and use their own judgment. Elections allow the people to judge him as a whole, but there's a reason we don't have elections to decide every issue. It leads to tyranny of the majority.

It goes back to that whole republic vs. democracy thing that the Founding Fathers were so adamant about.

A Ron Paul supporter of all people should understand this- look at the positions Paul has that a majority of his district opposes. NASA, farm subsidies, flood insurance. If Paul followed your line of thinking he'd be just another Congresscritter.

[Ex Post Facto]

You're completely missing the point of even having a legislature, as opposed to a direct democracy. A representative is there to make their own decisions and use their own judgment. Elections allow the people to judge him as a whole, but there's a reason we don't have elections to decide every issue. It leads to tyranny of the majority.

It goes back to that whole republic vs. democracy thing that the Founding Fathers were so adamant about.

A Ron Paul supporter of all people should understand this- look at the positions Paul has that a majority of his district opposes. NASA, farm subsidies, flood insurance. If Paul followed your line of thinking he'd be just another Congresscritter.

I understand what you are saying, I do. You don't want someone to make stupid decisions, just because people want it that way. My point, is they should make stupid decisions for their electoral base; however, they should never violate the constituion in doing so, or extend the powers of government.

Now I can't say my idea of how it should be ran, will fix things. I just think there is too much, me me me politics going on and they ignore the people that voted them in. They should be held accountable.

The reason Ron Paul votes the way he does is because he takes his oath seriously. However, if the voters in his district want a change, that does not violate the constituion and role of government he should vote for the item, morally.

[Churchill2004]

In other words- representatives should vote what's popular unless YOU don't like it.

[Ex Post Facto]

In other words- representatives should vote what's popular unless YOU don't like it.

Those are your words. You are saying the converse, that politicians should ignore the people and decide what is right for them. You have been attacking me this entire thread, when I get what you are saying. You want a Republic not a Democracy. I agree with you, on that premise. Where we differ is that you think a politician should ignore those that voted them in, and do what they want, irregardless of cries from the people not to. I agree at times it may be necessary to vote against the people's wishes, but not outside of their oath.

I finished watching Ron Paul's speach at Georgtown. He said the reason for the continued drug war were lobbyists, that manufactured helicopters for the war on drugs, lobbying to continue the war on drugs. To use your words: Politicians should do what they want, as long as it benefits themselves.