The people have elected President Trump to make decisions and changes on our behalf. Yet the other party and their constituants are making it incredibly difficult for him to execute or implement anything we support by suing him on every single topic. Government officials should be required to obtain permission from their constituents before filing those lawsuits. They are employed by We The People, therefore we should all have a say in things like lawsuits being filed to stop initiatives we asked /voted for. As a government employee they should be denied the right to go against our vote.
19 Likes
First - How would this change things? Youâre presenting this proposal as if government officials are the only ones filing the lawsuits, which is very much not true.
Second - This is utterly impractical.
Third - Youâre treating this proposal as if Trump is the end all and be all of Presidents and that there will never be another president again after him where youâd want government officials to be filing lawsuits.
1 Like
The REPRESENTATIVES were elected to represent their constituents, this fact is obvious since their job title is literally ârepresentativeâ. Our government is a representative republic. This means that the vote you suggest has already been done, itâs called an election.
2 Likes
Not necessarily. I live in a swing state with a Liberal governor. My state has participated in a couple of lawsuits against Trump initiatives that I would 100% vote against them participating in. I agreed with the Trump initiative, and a lot of us in this state do as well. So thats where Iâm coming from.
4 Likes
Your argument doesnt make sense to me. It would apply to lawsuits filed by govt. officials only. Not impractical in my opinion. Same would apply to lawsuits filed against future administrations as well.
To which I repeat: If itâs only government officials, how would it change things?
So when future administrations commit unconstitutional acts, you want to prohibit government officials who actually care about the Constitution and Rule of Law from standing up in defense of the Constitution and Rule of Law?
Voting and being heard are 2 different things these days. We voted for him to drain the swamp. They are suing him for doing what we voted for. Hence we are not being seen as to what we voted on. YES we should be allowed to vote on wheter we agree for them to sue. We should have a say in EVERYTHING they do these days for the simple reason is they do not follow the will of the people anymore. We should have some way to show congress and the senate when we do not agree to certain bills they try to push through OR the ones they drag thier feet on that are essential to our country.
How does that function without replacing our Representative Republic with a Direct Democracy?
2 Likes
It is inportant to remember that accountability in government is very important. Sure, many people support policies, but the government must also recognize that many people dont support the same policies and work to find compromise. If a member of government is steamrolling theough, then it is the jobof the other members to pull measures that check them in place.
I am trying to understand your proposal. When you say, âmy state participated Inâ, what do you mean? I assume that you mean the AG of your state joined other states in bringing a lawsuit(s) against President Trump.
Do you propose a vote for every lawsuit your state AG files, or only the ones filed against President Trump? Who decides which lawsuits deserve to be voted on and which do not merit a vote by the people of the state?
The AG of most states (if not all states) are elected by the people of that state. During an election the candidate runs on his platform, and he is elected by the people based on the agenda stated in his platform. He could make the argument that HE IS representing the will of the people, since he laid out his platform for the people to know where he stands on the issues, and claim a mandate from the people to do the things with which you are in disagreement.
1 Like
To start with: I disagree with what we are seeing happen to President Trumpâs agenda. Having said that I do not agree with the OPâs solution, since it is contrary to how our representative republic operates. We do not live in a democracy, in which the people would vote on everything. We have elected people to represent us either in Washington, or in our State House. I agree, most of the time our representatives do not represent us very well, and seem to place their interests (or the interests of their big donors and lobbyists) ahead of the people who elected them. I just donât think what is being proposed will work to address this failure.
In your post you say:
âThey are suing him for doing what we voted for.â Who is âtheyâ?
I assume you are referring to the Attorney Generals of several of the state who have sued President Trump. If this is what you meant then they could argue that while you do not agree with them, they are doing the will of those who elected them.
âYES we should be allowed to vote on wheter we agree for them to sue. We should have a say in EVERYTHING they do these days for the simple reason is they do not follow the will of the people anymore.â
How would this work? To cast our vote on every agenda item would require daily votes? Are you willing to listen to C-Span to hear all the arguments for and against each proposal? Of course that would be everything voted on for school boards, city, county, state, and federal issues. I for one do not have time for that.
âWe should have some way to show congress and the senate when we do not agree to certain bills they try to push through OR the ones they drag thier feet on that are essential to our country.â
We do have a way to have a say, you can write to your representatives and senators, you can call them, you can visit their local offices, you can go to the meetings they have in their districts and express yourself.
1 Like
A pure democracy would be a form of government in which the leaders, while elected by the people, are not constrained by a constitution as to its actions. In a republic, however, elected officials cannot take away or violate certain rights of the people. SO TELL ME WHICH ONE IS THESE IS EVEN CLOSE TO WHAT WE HAVE NOW?? NO ONE IS FOLLOWING THE CONSTITUTION NOR THE WILL OF THE PEOPLE. OUR RIGHTS ARE DEFINITELY BEING VIOLATED IN ONE FORM OR ANOTHER. So tell me WHY it would be wrong to institute a way for we the people to vote on every issue to ensure the will of the people is being done? That is not a direct democracy. The will of the people makes sure our rights are not violated and the constitution is followed all the time NOT just when it is convenient for the ârepresentativesâ. Having a smaller government will also help bring this tyranny to an end.
You can do that until you are blue in the face. Do you think they (not all but most) actually listen to you JUST because you call them??? You expressed yourself when you voted for what they ran on and stood for. IF they are not doing it and you have to hound them to do the right thing then they were running a fraud campaign.
I donât know when you all started calling our country REPRESENTATIVE REPUBLIC BUT---- WE ARE A CONSTITUTIONAL REPUBLICâ
Iâm not sure I follow your logic; neither of your statements align with any form of direct democracy or Republic that Iâm familiar with.
Sir, yelling will not help your case.
Sir, that is the very definition of a âDirect Democracyâ.
More practical approach would be a federal law stating a state cannot file a federal law suit unless the state legislature passes a law authorizing the specific lawsuit.
Wasting taxpayer dollars on lawsuits from our own elected governments against our own elected officials including TRUMP is counter-productive and wasteful. Stop using taxpayer dollars to fund any lawsuits against other governmental agencies. If any government official files a lawsuit, their name should be made public/easily accessible at the next election to keep their seats. Let the people decide if they are truly representing our best interests.
Youâre now discussing two different approaches, one being in line with the original proposal and the other a matter of âhow do we let people know that these politicians did X when the next election comesâ