Can we sue a representative for voting unconstititutionally, not reading the bills?

[SaratogaForRonPaul]

Since it doesn't happen everyday, I am sure there is some law (not in the Constitution) that says you can not sue your representative (Fed, State, Local) for any reason.

Still, after voting for Cap and Trade, one of the biggest tax hikes in US history in a time where the economy is very fragile and will cost the average taxpayer thousands of dollars in energy costs and lost jobs, can we do a class action suite for damages against a representative who did not have the time to read the 1201 page long bill that was also very unconstitutional?

At the very least it could be a media item to show that thousands of class action plantiff constituents are so angry that they would go to a law suite against a representative that doesn't represent them, doesn't read the bill they vote on, and vote against their oath to follow the Constitution.

Well that is my rant, but I am curious about what has been done before and what is possible.

[SaratogaForRonPaul]

Or how about a President who promised the American people can have 5 days to read a bill before it gets voted on?

[AJ Antimony]

If people don't like how their Representative votes, then instead of suing them, they are supposed to vote them out of office.

If people are too dumb to do so, then they deserve the misery of socialist/fascist policies.

[Brassmouth]

Good luck with that. I'm sure the State's monopoly "legal" system will act against itself. :rolleyes:

[mczerone]

In a voluntary society you would definitely be able to go to a competing 'justice agency' and complain that your fiduciaries had breached their contract.

However, it today's fascist world you, as a 'general taxpayer' lack standing to bring a suit in the monopoly courts against the government for improper governing techniques. Because the court sees this as a "generalized grievance" affecting the whole population, they won't recognize any individual or class of plaintiffs making such a claim, deferring instead to "political means" to remedy the situation.

So, in collusion with the crooks, the courts say that you must deal directly with the crooks to get them to behave.

[mczerone]

If people don't like how their Representative votes, then instead of suing them, they are supposed to vote them out of office.

If people are too dumb to do so, then they deserve the misery of socialist/fascist policies.

Collectivism at its finest. We all deserve Obama, because we were all too dumb, eh?

How about we let each person actually consent to government services by paying for those things they want or use, and allow competition in providers so that when you experience a problem with a service you can say "I'm going to your competitor" instead of "I'm going to try a GOTV campaign in another 3 years to support a candidate to oppose you, and inflict my will on your obviously ignorant supporters."

That system of private competition winds up being the more humane option, resting on the values of cooperation and meeting the needs of others, while the latter system that we currently have instead promotes divisions and hatred, a sense of entitlement and fantastical ideas of utopia if only you or your people were in charge of everyone.

[IPSecure]

I was wondering the same thing.
How can they get away without reading the bills?
Who actually writes the bills?
Is it not time we the people had lobbyists?

[Brassmouth]

Is it not time we the people had lobbyists?

You'd instantly encounter the free rider problem. That's why only small special interest groups can effectively control the State.

One of the many many fatal defects of democracy.

[HOLLYWOOD]

No One earning $250,000 or less, won't have any tax increases.

Yeah right... Define Tax increases?

Higher Energy, Utilities, Fees, Inflation, Green, Carbon, Farming, Regulatory, Mandates, Imports, Tariffs, Excise, Surcharges, Social Security, Medical, Dental, Health, Medicaid, Medicare, and Disabilty charges and increase... DO NOT APPLY!

Barry and his broken Campaign Semantics Promises

Truth is Treason in an Empire of Lies.

[jkr]

INDIRECT taxes...

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Well you'd have to be able to prove they didn't read the bill, even if it were possible. And I don't think the "Well how could they have read it in such a short time?" argument would stand in court.

[rockandrollsouls]

If people don't like how their Representative votes, then instead of suing them, they are supposed to vote them out of office.

If people are too dumb to do so, then they deserve the misery of socialist/fascist policies.

Popular rule is democracy....a filthy word in a republic. Republics abide by the rule of law. If a representative votes unconstitutionally in an attempt to undermine the supreme law, I don't see why they shouldn't be sued.

[erowe1]

http://www.nolo.com/definition.cfm/Term/8E90467F-4F3E-486A-B2AADDBCA56B369F/alpha/L/

legislative immunity

A legal doctrine that prevents legislators from being sued for actions performed and decisions made in the course of serving in government. This doctrine does not protect legislators from criminal prosecution, nor does it relieve them from responsibility for actions outside the scope of their office, such as the nefarious activities of former Senator Bob Packwood.

[LittleLightShining]

We do have a right to petition for redress of grievances. Unfortunately they rarely listen and according to Bob Schulz it's the only one of our first amendment rights that has never been ruled upon by the Supreme Court.

[Objectivist]

I say it's treason for people that violate their oath of office.

For what is the basis for our government but the US Constitution.

http://uspolitics.about.com/od/usgovernment/a/oaths_of_office_4.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treason

[idiom]

Isn't this going to balance the budget with indirect taxes? Isn't that a plus?

[erowe1]

I say it's treason for people that violate their oath of office.

For what is the basis for our government but the US Constitution.

http://uspolitics.about.com/od/usgovernment/a/oaths_of_office_4.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treason

Well, if the basis of our government is the Constitution, then shouldn't our definition for "treason" be the one the Constitution gives us? I.e. giving aid and comfort to the enemy in a war that has been declared by Congress.

[Scofield]

Our elected officials should be removed, not for treason, but for "high crimes and misdemeanors."

http://www.constitution.org/cmt/high_crimes.htm