Voting present - DC Style

Keith Riler
In the "Slaughter Solution," Nancy Pelosi is importing from the Illinois statehouse Barack Obama's signature legislative cowardice, the non-vote. This self preservation by way of non-representative irresponsibility violates the Constitution:
This two-votes-in-one gambit is a brazen affront to the plain language of the Constitution, which is intended to require democratic accountability. Article 1, Section 7 of the Constitution says that in order for a "Bill" to "become a Law," it "shall have passed the House of Representatives and the Senate."

Set concepts, such as constitutionality and responsibility, tend to unsettle liberals; so let's try hypocrisy, the cardinal sin for those of no fixed standards. The hypocrisy of the "Slaughter Solution" is that during their last elections, without fail, each and every US House member averred, promised, pledged and begged to "represent the people of this district".

It is unarguable that voting is the way to represent one's constituents and that there are only two options, aye or nay / for or opposed. There is no voting "present" in the US House. For a representative to ask for voters' confidence and then figure out how to non-vote is unforgivable.

It is to say, "Although you elected me to represent you, I now deem that I no longer owe you the clarity of my positions. I am no longer obligated to give you the data by which you might compare my actions with your expectations." To non-vote is to excommunicate oneself from one's district.

Any US representative who assures representation of the home district and then participates in the "Slaughter Solution" must be held to account. If the non-vote works, it will be used again to again hide from accountability, a pernicious practice that will undermine our democracy


In the "Slaughter Solution," Nancy Pelosi is importing from the Illinois statehouse Barack Obama's signature legislative cowardice, the non-vote. This self preservation by way of non-representative irresponsibility violates the Constitution:

This two-votes-in-one gambit is a brazen affront to the plain language of the Constitution, which is intended to require democratic accountability. Article 1, Section 7 of the Constitution says that in order for a "Bill" to "become a Law," it "shall have passed the House of Representatives and the Senate."

Set concepts, such as constitutionality and responsibility, tend to unsettle liberals; so let's try hypocrisy, the cardinal sin for those of no fixed standards. The hypocrisy of the "Slaughter Solution" is that during their last elections, without fail, each and every US House member averred, promised, pledged and begged to "represent the people of this district".

It is unarguable that voting is the way to represent one's constituents and that there are only two options, aye or nay / for or opposed. There is no voting "present" in the US House. For a representative to ask for voters' confidence and then figure out how to non-vote is unforgivable.

It is to say, "Although you elected me to represent you, I now deem that I no longer owe you the clarity of my positions. I am no longer obligated to give you the data by which you might compare my actions with your expectations." To non-vote is to excommunicate oneself from one's district.

Any US representative who assures representation of the home district and then participates in the "Slaughter Solution" must be held to account. If the non-vote works, it will be used again to again hide from accountability, a pernicious practice that will undermine our democracy