ArtsAutosBooksBusinessEducationEntertainmentFamilyFashionFoodGamesGenderHealthHolidaysHomeHubPagesPersonal FinancePetsPoliticsReligionSportsTechnologyTravel
  • »
  • Politics and Social Issues»
  • United States Politics

Does your Senator or Representative honor the Constitution?

Updated on March 8, 2015

The answer to this question is an important one not just for the next election but the current members of Congress. Our Constitution is the law of the land and we as voters must evaluate the actions of those who represent us to determine if they are honoring the Constitution or ignoring the rights engrained within it specifically the Bill of Rights. Candidates running for office or those hoping to be reelected make all kinds of promise but the proof whether they make a true effort to honor those promises in the decisions they make.

The control of Congress has changed hands as a result of the last election but at this point the philosophy upon which many of the candidates ran seem to have lost its way. Many important if not critical decisions are being made and will be made in the future but many of those we have elected are not taking the stand for which we elected them. They appear to be afraid of political backlash and have caved on critical issues on which they said they would take a stand. One specific example involves the executive order changing immigration policy.

Honoring the Constitution should be the basis of decisions our elected officials make not the political philosophy of their party. We have been tested over the years and so has our Constitution and while it has been amended a number of times I feel it still is one of the greatest if not the greatest documents ever written. Since our country began we have had many struggles and been through several wars and conflicts. Individuals who fought in these actions and those who are fighting to protect our way of life today should not have their sacrifices be in vain. In this respect our elected officials in Washington need to honor the Constitution through every decision they make and in every legislative proposal they put forth for consideration.

The federal government has specific powers and authority in the Constitution. Each of our elected officials must take an oath to honor the Constitution but after taking that oath some seem to forget what that represents. The current philosophy of the present political system and the individuals who are part of it seem to believe in the concept that government knows best how to spend our money. Individuals in Congress should not try to interpret the requirements of the Constitution and put their interpretation within their legislative proposals. The language of the Constitution is clear and should be accepted as written.

We are a country of exceptional individuals with exceptional talent and experiences which can benefit society and our economy if only government would get out of the way and let society work as it was intended when the Constitution was first written. Granted government at all levels have some responsibilities and authority but that should not trump the freedom and liberties we have as individuals engrained in the Constitution.

Congress is one third of our government structure and as such is responsible for keeping a tight rein on the actions of the executive department and the entities within it. Actions by the executive departments and agencies should be questioned to ensure they are within the constitutional authority given to the executive department and the laws for which they are responsible. Honoring the constitution involves such actions noted in the previous sentence.

There are good individuals on both sides of the isle who are tired of the same philosophy which involves ignoring the Constitution. Individuals who appear to be making an attempt to honor the Constitution through their questions should be supported not ridiculed. The times are changing when our elected or at least some of our elected officials raise significant issues which need to be addressed not ignored or put off resolving at another time. This is something which Congress has been successful in doing. Critical issues never seem to get addressed they keep kicking the can down the road for someone else to resolve.

We as voters must send a strong message to our elected officials that we want them to honor all the requirements of the Constitution. We must also let those who represent us know if they fail to honor the Constitution there will be consequences when they are up for reelection. We as individuals basically know our rights and the responsibilities of state government. There are distinct responsibilities given to the federal government and any not specifically identified as a federal government responsibility falls to the states. Our elected officials must or should understand these responsibilities. Actions by those we have elected which violate those responsibilities and/or our rights must be informed in no uncertain terms how much we are dissatisfied with their actions/decisions.


    0 of 8192 characters used
    Post Comment

    • Dennis AuBuchon profile image

      Dennis AuBuchon 2 years ago


      Thanks for your comments. You made some interesting points and I thank you for pointing them out.

    • profile image

      Larry Wall 2 years ago


      You are correct in everything you say. The big problem is that issues have developed and are not directly covered by the constitution. Thus the Internet can fall under the First Amendment, the Interstate Commerce Clause and laws dealing with copyright and trademark protection.

      The Constitution is probably the greatest document written that was designed to define what a central government could and could not do. However, the powers allowed to the federal government must be interpreted broadly to regulate interstate commerce, offshore drilling in federal waters, freedom speech and other things. This, there will always be conflict because many, as is their right, insist on a strict interpretation.

      The best example is second amendment, the right to bear arms. The strict interpretation is that there shall be no laws. When the constitution was written guns consisted of muskets and flintlocks. The repeating rifle and six shooter had not been invented.

      Thus, a liberal interpretation would allow the Congress to regulate what guns can be made available to the people. Your neighbor may not be able to buy an AK47 or something similar, but he can buy other firearms

      As a journalist I was protected by the first amendment. However, laws exist preventing me from revealing classified information, advocating the forcible overthrow of the government or writing something that may be libelous (even if true but found to be an invasion of privacy).

      We will always have conflict and disagreement, which is why the founding fathers gave us the Supreme Court to interpret the laws as the conflicts arose. Everyone does not get what they want, but everyone does get a government that has a system for determining what is and is not allowed under the Constitution.

      I certainly do not agree with every Supreme Court decision, but I accept them as being the law of the land.

    • Dennis AuBuchon profile image

      Dennis AuBuchon 2 years ago


      Thanks for providing your input.

    • cathylynn99 profile image

      cathylynn99 2 years ago from northeastern US

      my rep. mike kelly and my senator pat toomey honor only one thing - large amounts of money.