I suspected this topic might come up.
How about this Democrat Senator's constituents are pushing for Constitutional amendments to counteract the 14 and 15 amendments. His constituents are demanding that uppity blacks be legally hanged (thank you DonDiego) and certainly that blacks have no voting rights. Does Forkie believe that this Senator should lead from behind, or should he vote for what is righteous and correct and vote against the desires of the constituents?
This is obviously an extreme example, but Harry Reid certainly argued several years ago that the immigration policies that he now supports are extreme.
Quote
Originally posted by: forkushVQuote
Originally posted by: Boilerman
Let's say we have a state where the constituents believe that blacks should again not be able to vote. In fact, the constituents believe that uppity blacks should be legally hung. When the Democrat Senator from this state goes to Washington, is he doing his democratic job to vote for hanging blacks? I think not, but apparently Forkie does...
Boilerman, you don't know constitutional rights cannot be overturned by laws? Really?
And if you want to criticize your fictional "Democrat Senator" for his votes, or Harry Reid for his, that's fair. But to infer that it's wrong for a representative to vote a certain way simply because it benefits his constituents means that you oppose basic democratic principles. Yeah DonDiego, even if those constituents are American citizens of Mexican descent.
