• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Should we have a congressional disability amendment?

Should we have a disability amendment for Representatives and Senators?

  • Yes

    Votes: 4 28.6%

  • No

    Votes: 8 57.1%

  • Other

    Votes: 2 14.3%
  • Total voters
    14
samsmart

samsmart

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 7, 2009
Messages
10,315
Reaction score
6,470
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
Okay, I'm going to take on the job of asshole and ask this question.

Should we have an amendment to the Constitution regarding Representatives and Senators who are unable to discharge their powers and duties so that another person may have their seat and represent their constituents?

The reason why I ask is because of Gabrielle Giffords. She's the Representative of Arizona's 8th district. Since assuming her 3rd term on January 3 of 2011, she has missed 98% of the votes in Congress. This is, of course, because she was shot on January 8 of 2011.

Now I absolutely commend her for her struggles in recovering from that shooting, and do not in any way seek to take away from that. Also, I wish her nothing but the best in her recovery. I will also be the first to praise her and her husband for their bravery in dealing with this tragedy that struck them.

Even so, Arizona's 8th district is being unrepresented in Congress. And that really doesn't sit well with me.

We have the 25th Amendment to deal with Presidential succession and disability in order to officially clear the matter. However, we have no manner to deal with Representatives and Senators who are unable to discharge their duties. And I think that their duties are equally as important as those of the President.

So should we have an amendment that provides for procedures to replace an elected Representative or Senator who is unable to do his or her duty in Congress?
 
samsmart said:
Okay, I'm going to take on the job of asshole and ask this question.

Should we have an amendment to the Constitution regarding Representatives and Senators who are unable to discharge their powers and duties so that another person may have their seat and represent their constituents?

The reason why I ask is because of Gabrielle Giffords. She's the Representative of Arizona's 8th district. Since assuming her 3rd term on January 3 of 2011, she has missed 98% of the votes in Congress. This is, of course, because she was shot on January 8 of 2011.

Now I absolutely commend her for her struggles in recovering from that shooting, and do not in any way seek to take away from that. Also, I wish her nothing but the best in her recovery. I will also be the first to praise her and her husband for their bravery in dealing with this tragedy that struck them.

Even so, Arizona's 8th district is being unrepresented in Congress. And that really doesn't sit well with me.

We have the 25th Amendment to deal with Presidential succession and disability in order to officially clear the matter. However, we have no manner to deal with Representatives and Senators who are unable to discharge their duties. And I think that their duties are equally as important as those of the President.

So should we have an amendment that provides for procedures to replace an elected Representative or Senator who is unable to do his or her duty in Congress?
Click to expand...
I commend you for having the courage to bring this up. I agree with your statements. I feel for her as well, and wish her a good recovery. She and her husband are remarkable and resilient people.

But, the part I highlighted in red is too important to ignore. They're not pleasant questions, but they need to be asked nonetheless. Who is representing those people? Where do they go when they need a Representative for something? When will she be back? (Nobody knows) If she does get back, will she still be able to do her job effectively? (Nobody knows that, either)

As far as an amendment goes, I'd have to see some text or ideas before I could say.
 
Why does each poster feel the need to praise Gifford? Because our PC world will label you heartless because you're bringing up an issue that may appear cold to the current office holder? Who here thinks the people in her district should go without representation so that we can make Mrs Gifford feel better about herself? Who here believes that Mrs Gifford would approve? If you believe Gifford would approve then you also think that Gifford is selfish.

We don't need an amendment because the matter can be handled by the state.
 
Last edited:
American said:
Why does each poster feel the need to praise Gifford? Because our PC world will label you heartless because you're bringing up an issue that may appear cold to the current office holder? Who here thinks the people in her district should go without representation so that we can make Mrs Gifford feel better about herself? Who here believes that Mrs Gifford would approve? If you believe Gifford would approve then you also think that Gifford is selfish.

We don't need an amendment because the matter can be handled by the state.
Click to expand...

I agree. It's a state issue.
 
The only reason why it feels unpleasant is because of the circumstances behind her situation. But tragedies could strike at any time. I have a will *just in case* which addresses who will take care of the kids if I die or am otherwise unable. People have insurance *just in case* . . . and so on. And in many companies in your contract there's a clause that addresses exactly what to do if you're 'unable to perform your duties'

Nothing wrong with seeking out fair representation when one cannot be there to do so.

I'm surprised that this hasn't already been addressed.
 
Her constituents deserve representation in Congress, and they have chosen for her to represent them. She should appoint a proxy until her term ends or until she is capable of resuming office, whichever comes first.
 
Viktyr Korimir said:
Her constituents deserve representation in Congress, and they have chosen for her to represent them. She should appoint a proxy until her term ends or until she is capable of resuming office, whichever comes first.
Click to expand...

Well - wouldn't that be a state's issue anyway?
 
samsmart said:
So should we have an amendment that provides for procedures to replace an elected Representative or Senator who is unable to do his or her duty in Congress?
Click to expand...

I say yes.Serving in political office should be seen as a privilege, not a right.The people's right to representation far outweighs an elected official's desire to hang onto their job.
 
Aunt Spiker said:
Well - wouldn't that be a state's issue anyway?
Click to expand...

The right to Congressional reputation is a Constitutional guarantee. But I am not particularly concerned with it, since it is such an unusual occurrence.
 
samsmart said:
Okay, I'm going to take on the job of asshole and ask this question.

Should we have an amendment to the Constitution regarding Representatives and Senators who are unable to discharge their powers and duties so that another person may have their seat and represent their constituents?

The reason why I ask is because of Gabrielle Giffords. She's the Representative of Arizona's 8th district. Since assuming her 3rd term on January 3 of 2011, she has missed 98% of the votes in Congress. This is, of course, because she was shot on January 8 of 2011.

Now I absolutely commend her for her struggles in recovering from that shooting, and do not in any way seek to take away from that. Also, I wish her nothing but the best in her recovery. I will also be the first to praise her and her husband for their bravery in dealing with this tragedy that struck them.

Even so, Arizona's 8th district is being unrepresented in Congress. And that really doesn't sit well with me.

We have the 25th Amendment to deal with Presidential succession and disability in order to officially clear the matter. However, we have no manner to deal with Representatives and Senators who are unable to discharge their duties. And I think that their duties are equally as important as those of the President.

So should we have an amendment that provides for procedures to replace an elected Representative or Senator who is unable to do his or her duty in Congress?
Click to expand...

Excellent point. Amendment....whatever it takes. No district should be without representation for very long at all. Hope you're complaining if it's your district. I would be... It would be even more crucial in the Senate.
 
They are already mentally disabled, so if it were a law they'd just all stick their hands out.
 
Aunt Spiker said:
Well - wouldn't that be a state's issue anyway?
Click to expand...

Such an amendment could demand that the state government come up with a provision. I mean after all we went a long time until the 25th Amendment regarding presidential disability was written. But it became important enough to amend to the Constitution so that not even federal law could be rewritten as the time demands.
 
Lets have an amendment to ban sale of guns to mentally ill teabaggers and we won't need to have this discussion.
 
99percenter said:
Lets have an amendment to ban sale of guns to mentally ill teabaggers and we won't need to have this discussion.
Click to expand...
Or mandated condom distribution to sexually active adults with your genetic disposition
 
99percenter said:
Lets have an amendment to ban sale of guns to mentally ill teabaggers and we won't need to have this discussion.
Click to expand...

Moderator's Warning:
Try sticking to the topic at hand.


If you want to be exposed for the lies and smear that you are spreading here, we can do that in another thread.
 
Hugh_Akston said:
Moderator's Warning:
Try sticking to the topic at hand.


If you want to be exposed for the lies and smear that you are spreading here, we can do that in another thread.
Click to expand...

And what thread would that be? i really want to discuss loughner.
 
Last edited:
First of all shame on all of you for calling her disabled. None of you are doctors that have examined her so you can't say she is mentally disabled. There's no reason for the congresswoman to give up her seat. Its a democracy and we only elect representative for 2 year terms. If her constituents feel they are being underrepresented they can vote for someone else.
 
Last edited:
Hare said:
Or mandated condom distribution to sexually active adults with your genetic disposition
Click to expand...

I'm all for that govt distributing condoms. I thought conservatives opposed contraception let alone the govt subsidizing it.
 
99percenter said:
First of all shame on all of you for calling her disabled. None of you are doctors that have examined her so you can't say she is mentally disabled. There's no reason for the congresswoman to give up her seat. Its a democracy and we only elect representative for 2 year terms. If her constituents feel they are being underrepresented they can vote for someone else.
Click to expand...

It's not that she is or isn't mentally disabled. Rather, she is disabled in such a way so that she cannot discharge her powers or duties as a member of Congress. She has missed 98% of the votes in the House this year. This is because she was shot and has been recuperating and in physical therapy and has been too busy to perform the functions of a Representative.

That is the issue right now.
 
If Giffords does give up her congressional seat, that's winning for the folks who called for her to be in the "crosshares," isn't it? Although, as a state issue, it's too bad she can't have an appointee from her office sit in for her. And, yes, she is now disabled, physically, but not mentally. Her brain is still intelligent, but her speech and movement are having to re-route, from what I understand.
 
Excellent question. Ultimately it's up to the voters of the state and I think it should remain that way.

Beyond all that, America isn't ready to deal with the disability issue. As a nation we can't deal with disability justly on general basis. Look at the levels of unemployment and underemployment for people with disabilities. Shameful. That represents national attitude as whole. When it the last time you saw a disabled newscaster? Bank manager? Grocery store manager? Sales person? Doctor? Meter reader? Elected official? Rock star? Dentist? Mechanic? School principal? IT person? Yeah, one or two, maybe. As a nation we must first address where we stand regarding real equality for people with disabilities before we start talking about elected officials.

Where is the evidence that Gifford's intellectual ability and reasoning is impaired? There is none. A huge mistake people often make is to assume that speech or lack thereof is an indicator of intelligence. That's not correct. Language in fact is NOT a precursor to intelligence. Speech certainly is not. How then would disqualify Gifford on the basis of disability? How then would disqualify anyone on the basis of disability? If you are elected, then you are sent by the people.

You want candidates to take IQ tests? You want elected officials and staff to take periodic drug tests? Start with that. I'm certain more than a few elected officials perform their duties hungover and wasted. Let's start with them.
 
Last edited:
99percenter said:
First of all shame on all of you for calling her disabled. None of you are doctors that have examined her so you can't say she is mentally disabled. There's no reason for the congresswoman to give up her seat. Its a democracy and we only elect representative for 2 year terms. If her constituents feel they are being underrepresented they can vote for someone else.
Click to expand...

She was shot in the face and is undergoing physical therapy, during which she has not yet resumed the duties of her office. She is disabled. Whether or not she is permanently disabled, or whether or not she will be able to resume working-- either at her current job or at another job-- remains to be determined. I do not believe anyone is advocating that she be disqualified for office, only that she be removed from office for the duration of her convalescence. No one here seems to be saying that they have any problem with her resuming the duties of her office as soon as she is ready to do so.
 
Viktyr Korimir said:
She was shot in the face and is undergoing physical therapy, during which she has not yet resumed the duties of her office. She is disabled. Whether or not she is permanently disabled, or whether or not she will be able to resume working-- either at her current job or at another job-- remains to be determined. I do not believe anyone is advocating that she be disqualified for office, only that she be removed from office for the duration of her convalescence. No one here seems to be saying that they have any problem with her resuming the duties of her office as soon as she is ready to do so.
Click to expand...

You live in Oregon. Giffords is not your representative. Let the people of Arizona deal with it as we decide.
 
Other. I really don't know to be honest and both sides make good points. While it's true that she was duly elected by the people of her district and she should be able to serve in full within a reasonable amount of time it's also true that her district is unrepresented until that time, so it seems that the right to representation trumps her priveledge of service. In another way of looking at this though, if all it took was a cheap shot at a disliked candidate to change representation it would almost seem that having the amendment might encourage further attacks by other politically motivated nutjobs.

Here's another thing to consider as well: Congress has the right to make and enforce it's rules regarding voting and decorum, so they have the right to determine such a thing as disability, but it's also true that states have the right to determine their election laws. Maybe the easiest thing to do would be for congress to allow for states to appoint or temporarily elect a proxy to serve during a situation where the representative is incapacitated and those results would be null and void upon the return of the dutifully elected rep.

This is an interesting thread to be sure and the most interesting thing is that states rights and federal responsibilities seem to converge on this one to a point that the onus is on both of them to get something like this done.

Okay, the brain is smoking right now. I'm sticking with other.
 
Moderator's Warning:
Hugh already dropped a warning. This thread is about congressional disability, NOT partisan bullcrap. I've already issued one thread ban. Anyone else want to post something off topic, please signify by posting, "Please Thread Ban Me".
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom