Facebook Twitter

SHEPHERD REPRESENTS A MINORITY

SHARE SHEPHERD REPRESENTS A MINORITY

Karen Shepherd and her supporters continue the tack that criticism of her voting record amounts to "lies and untruths." Is it not fact and is it not truth that most of her constituents were against the Clinton tax increases in the name of "deficit reduction"?

Brutus, in his first anti-federalist paper, pointed out that all laws are derived from the consent of the people in a free republic; but that "the people do not declare their consent by themselves in person, but by representatives, chosen by them, who are supposed to know the minds of their constituents, and to be possessed of integrity to declare this mind."Does Shepherd really understand Brutus' message when she can ignore "the minds of (her) constituents" and vote "her conscience" which is in opposition to her constituency? Is she "possessed of integrity to declare this mind" when her vote is directly opposite the wishes of her constituency? Is it unnatural that many of her constituents feel a sense of betrayal when "the mind of the people" that she declares in the House is not actually the wishes of the majority of the people in the second district?

Does Shepherd realize that when she rubber-stamps the Clinton administration's agenda in opposition to her constituency, the "sovereignty is in a few," meaning Bill Clinton's hand-picked few? The people of Utah's Second Congressional District thereby lose our voice in the federal government that she was given the sacred trust and obligation to exercise for us.

M.I. Cox

Riverton