Good legislators or trigger-happy lawmakers?

KillerMuffin

Seraphically Disinclined
Joined
Jul 29, 2000
Posts
25,603
Yes, I've been reading CNN again. I like reading the law section.

Link
=================================
http://www.cnn.com/2002/US/11/26/activist.government.ap/index.html

Story
=================================
HAUPPAUGE, New York (AP) -- There ought to be a law. And on the east end of Long Island, there often is.

A ban on hand-held cell phones while driving? Smoking restrictions in restaurants? Recycling? Suffolk County was among the first in the country to pass legislation in these areas, its initiatives often serving as models for laws later passed elsewhere in the nation.

<snip>

We've been at the cutting edge and helped set a lot of national trends," said Paul Sabatino, counsel to the 18-member legislature for more than two decades.

Sabatino said local governments from upstate New York to California and Hawaii have sought advice in pursuing their own versions of measures first passed in Suffolk.

Jacqueline Byers, director of research for the National Association of Counties in Washington, said Suffolk is among a handful of counties nationwide that are considered "bellwethers" in pursuing legislation that moves into new areas.

Suffolk is among "our really forward-thinking counties and we usually can look to them for models in many, many areas."

<snip>

I'm here once again to lead the way on an important issue that has largely fallen on deaf ears on the national level," said Cooper, who also sponsored the county's cell phone law.

Not everyone thinks the Suffolk Legislature should be so active.

Republican Martin Haley, from Rocky Point, said his colleagues have "a profound reputation for going beyond what we would normally refer to as parochial representation of their districts."

"They have this propensity to create legislation because they think that means they're doing their jobs by creating more government," Haley said. "I think they fail to realize that their primary function is to represent their constituency."

<snip>

Back to Muffie
=================================

There's more to the article and it's interestingly almost unslanted. Odd for a journalist.

On your own, personal, local level, would you like to have legislators like this? Do you think being a law-making bellwether community is a good thing? Do you think that there's any such thing as "cutting-edge law-making"?

Comments?
 
Government is to represent their constituents. I wonder if in this case, the cart is pulling the donkey.
 
While I think government should represent it's constituancy, I also think that they are there to lead into the future.

If they don't, they could be replaced by public opinion polls.

To illustrate, a parent usually acts in their child's best interests, but they often don't do what their child wants them to.

I thought it striking that they used the term bellwhether repeatedly. That's the "lead "sheep. The ewe that all the others want to be with & be like. Not daring, more like ultra average. It follows a trend or a fad when it's safe.
 
Do you support having toxic wastes in residental areas?

Do you support having toxic wastes in public waterways?

Should polluters pay to cleanup their messes?
 
Why have "representatives" at all?

What do we need legislators for, anyway? With modern technology, each person could vote on on all decisions, and we could have direct, participatory democracy. After all, the so-called "representatives" don't really represent us: they represent the interests of big business.
 
I can't believe I'm actually responding to MaxiPad but...

Because the average constituant doesn't understand the laws as they must be written. Because the average constituant wouldn't vote in the interest of the greater community. Because the idea is highly falible when you consider the kind of corruption that could occur as a result.


As to the original question, I don't think they've made any laws as of yet that I disagree with. They may have gone overboard in the number of new laws, but not in the choosing.
 
I think that Jefferson, Madison, Hamilton, Washington and the rest of our forefathers would be flat appalled at where we have taken their country. Yes, the big bad wolf is at the door. No, I don't want government to take care of it, I can do well enough on my own thankyou very much.

Respect, and repsonsibility has gone out the window in order to cater to special interests. Out governments, local, state and federal have gone bizarre in their quest to protect and take care of everybody. That is not the goevernments job. The governments job is to keep social order, protect us against foreign invaders, not to keep us secure in our freedoms that is OUR job as US citizens.

Most of the new laws that I see being made everyday deal with morale issues. Issues that should be kept out of the hands of government and in the hands of the people. This Political correctness is geting very tiresome too. We do no need more laws or agencies, or departments to help protect us citizuens, we need far less of those same things. It is possible today to break laws that no one knows about in your area simply due to agencies and rule making that set laws and then don't enforce them until someone can gain from using them.

We as a country need to get back to basic constitutional law, and get rid of the excessive BS that is now strangling this nation.
 
Back
Top