Sometime ago I wrote a piece as an op-ed columnist for the Staunton News Leader. In it, and related to this subject, I called for something a bit different than the remedy suggested here.Although reading legislation would be nice, pledges of doing same aside, pledge compliance would be hard/impossible to verify, was it a careful or careless reading is somewhat of a subjective matter in the eye of the beholder, and “the reading it solution” misses one critical aspect of a legislator's vote--that individual's committed-to thinking and rationale for his or her vote at the time of that vote.I believe our Legislative Branch of federal government needs to do essentially what the judicial branch does and go one step farther--issue written INDIVIDUAL opinions. If such were done, we wouldn't be guessing years later why a given legislator voted as he did on a given piece of legislation, and we would eliminate the possibility of rewriting history--well at least in this limited aspect. If a legislator is voting for or against a given piece of legislation due to an amendment as opposed to the main body of the legislation or is really voting for or against an earmark—again, I believe we as citizens have a right to know what the thinking (at least the publicly committed to story regarding the thinking) is contemporaneous to the time of the vote.Any thoughts?
Post a Comment