I don't think a lot of freedom would be good for Congress right now. I think that there should definently be rules and regualtions to keep organization and productivity going. It seem that our Congress is very slow on taking on issues, or if they even take them on at all. I think that with Congress' approval rating the last thing they need is more freedom.
Congress should not be run by one strong leadership,but by a coalition. If a strong leader rises, one might see the loss of debate among congress and the ideas of others not being heard.
Congress should allow its members a lot of freedom, including the freedom to have powerful leadership positions if they so choose. This would allow the ability to, as Heather mentioned, form a coalition of leaders, where any idea could be represented as long as there was enough support. This way, you have a more representive congress, with full freedom, but also strong leadership to get things done.
In Congress over the years, there have been both ways present. Sometimes there is strong leadership and other times a lot of freedom. If a Congress that can act quickly and decisively as a body is desired, then strong leadership should be what is wanted. Restrictions should be on debate and there should be few stalling tactics. If a congress in which the interests of individual members and the people they represent are desired then Congress should definately go in a different direction. There should be freedom to debate and have committee activity. Basically, depending on how the people want things to be run is how the Congress should operate. When things just need to get done, Congress should go for the strong leadership, but when the Congress wants to have individual views expressed, we should go with the latter.
I think there needs to be a balance. Too much freedom and nothing would get done in Congress. Too much leadership and stuff may get done, but not everything would get the chance to be heard. Like a couple people have already stated, both ways have been present in congress in the past and it will most likely continue to fluctuate back and forth.
there should be an amount of both freedom and restrictions, because if there are too many restrictions nothing would get accomplished though well thuoght out, but if there is alot of freedom then risky moves could be made that would make thing bad and risky.
Congress should be run under a lot of freedom so they have plenty of opportunity, and with too strong leadership they would fear tyranny and feel threatened. Too strong leadership would probably take away from their debate and decision making and reduce the productivity of Congress.
Congress needs to strike a balance between the two. With too much power a person becomes a tyrant like in a dictatorship, but with too weak nothing would get done like in the articles of confederation. Generally the amount of freedom changes with what needs to be done, if the country needs a strong leader then a person shall fill the role, if not then there will be freedom.
In general, members should be allowed their freedom. Each represents different locations, cultures, and beliefs. Allowing members to chart their own course allows these different facets of America to be represented, and multiplies the amount of ideas (thus improving the chance of revelevant, quality legislation). That said, there are times strong leadership is useful. When a tough situation comes a long (scandal, war, etc.) and quick action needs to be taken, strong leadership can serve as the decisive spark.
9 comments:
I don't think a lot of freedom would be good for Congress right now. I think that there should definently be rules and regualtions to keep organization and productivity going. It seem that our Congress is very slow on taking on issues, or if they even take them on at all. I think that with Congress' approval rating the last thing they need is more freedom.
Congress should not be run by one strong leadership,but by a coalition. If a strong leader rises, one might see the loss of debate among congress and the ideas of others not being heard.
Congress should allow its members a lot of freedom, including the freedom to have powerful leadership positions if they so choose. This would allow the ability to, as Heather mentioned, form a coalition of leaders, where any idea could be represented as long as there was enough support. This way, you have a more representive congress, with full freedom, but also strong leadership to get things done.
In Congress over the years, there have been both ways present. Sometimes there is strong leadership and other times a lot of freedom. If a Congress that can act quickly and decisively as a body is desired, then strong leadership should be what is wanted. Restrictions should be on debate and there should be few stalling tactics. If a congress in which the interests of individual members and the people they represent are desired then Congress should definately go in a different direction. There should be freedom to debate and have committee activity. Basically, depending on how the people want things to be run is how the Congress should operate. When things just need to get done, Congress should go for the strong leadership, but when the Congress wants to have individual views expressed, we should go with the latter.
I think there needs to be a balance. Too much freedom and nothing would get done in Congress. Too much leadership and stuff may get done, but not everything would get the chance to be heard. Like a couple people have already stated, both ways have been present in congress in the past and it will most likely continue to fluctuate back and forth.
there should be an amount of both freedom and restrictions, because if there are too many restrictions nothing would get accomplished though well thuoght out, but if there is alot of freedom then risky moves could be made that would make thing bad and risky.
Congress should be run under a lot of freedom so they have plenty of opportunity, and with too strong leadership they would fear tyranny and feel threatened. Too strong leadership would probably take away from their debate and decision making and reduce the productivity of Congress.
Congress needs to strike a balance between the two. With too much power a person becomes a tyrant like in a dictatorship, but with too weak nothing would get done like in the articles of confederation. Generally the amount of freedom changes with what needs to be done, if the country needs a strong leader then a person shall fill the role, if not then there will be freedom.
In general, members should be allowed their freedom. Each represents different locations, cultures, and beliefs. Allowing members to chart their own course allows these different facets of America to be represented, and multiplies the amount of ideas (thus improving the chance of revelevant, quality legislation). That said, there are times strong leadership is useful. When a tough situation comes a long (scandal, war, etc.) and quick action needs to be taken, strong leadership can serve as the decisive spark.
Post a Comment