Politically speaking, should "fairness" be used as a determining criteria as to the legitimacy of legislation?

When deciding which legislation is necessary and which is not, should "fairness" play a role in deciding it's legitimacy?


If so, how great of a role should it play?





What is your political affiliation?|||No. Enumerated Powers Act should be the rule for all legislation.











Enumerated Powers Act - Requires each Act of Congress to contain a concise and definite statement of the constitutional authority relied upon for the enactment of each portion of that Act. Declares that failure to comply with this requirement shall give rise to a point of order in either chamber of Congress.


http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd鈥?/a>








This bill never became law. This bill was proposed in a previous session of Congress. Sessions of Congress last two years, and at the end of each session all proposed bills and resolutions that haven't passed are cleared from the books. Members often reintroduce bills that did not come up for debate under a new number in the next session.


http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd鈥?/a>





I am an independent libertarian with conservative leanings.|||Our Constitution should be considered first and foremost.|||No, fairness is different to everyone.





Libertarian whose idea of fair is to do whatever you want so long as it doesn't restrict the rights of another.





Blacksun is correct, the US Constitution is first and foremost.|||Fairness is a matter of perspective. What's fair to one group is probably unfair to another.





Life is not fair. People need to get a grip and stop whining. Legislation should be about what is good for the country, not what is good for a group.|||Fairness in tandem with the accuracy for the need. Dem|||Who said life is fair?|||Fairness should be a concern, but not the deciding factor. What is best for the whole and based on the will of the people. If the majority of people favor a specific piece of legislation that is the deciding factor, that is who the Politicians work for and represent. Republican.|||This is kind of a broad question. Legislation should not be based on fairness but when crafting the actual legislation fairness should be considered along with many other factors. Ultimately, on the Federal level, the Constitution is the most important thing to consider..





This question is better suited for a protracted discussion rather than a simple answer..





Democrat|||All legislation should be Fair and Just and not skewed to place undue advantage upon any one individual or group.|||God, no! Who decides what's fair! If he's a moslem from Saudia Arabia, I don't think he'd stomach gay marriage well.|||POLITICALLY, anything can be used as criteria when deciding which legislation is necessary.|||Well, yes and no, depending on the law in the bill and who be targeted.





Generally, fairness should play no role and only the constitution should be considered, the Bill of Rights should be the deciding factor in any new laws proposed.





The Bill of Rights is a fairness doctrine.|||Fairness is highly subjective and can be defined in too many variations to be given much weight in the legislative process..Some will always claim unfairness when it doesn't conform to their ideals..|||No because life just isn't fair. Just because I work hard and have money doesn't mean it is unfair that someone else doesn't. They should just work hard to get it. I am a conservative who has voted Republican. My dad came from a very poor family, he was a blue collar worker and worked for every dime he got. I went to school and made every dime I have. (Just letting you know so I wouldn't be accused of being another "rich republican".)|||OF course not! Let's face it when we elect the people who are going to represent us in Washington D.C. we what those people to be the voice for US the people who voted for them.... So if I voted for an elected official of OHIO then by all means I want them to do what's best for OHIO..... and be our voice not the voice of Alaska etc....





INDEPENDENT|||No....solution of a problem should be the criteria. If all laws were crafted to be fair, the poor would be paying huge taxes, like the rich. "Fairness" is an attractive term for many but is used by the power hungry to gain control. In the long run it enslaves the people who all suffer equally. There is no incentive to acheive.|||There may be slight variation in the view on what is "fair" but, despite what people are saying here, it is not entirely different.





Liberals understand that expecting everybody else to pay for their lives isn't fair.. they just don't care.|||The Constitution is 1st and foremost.


Do you know what's fair? Working for a living, providing for you and your family and not believing other people owe you simply because you exist. My husband just retired, after working 30.7 years, giving 200%. Why do we owe someone who wants to sit on their fanny?


My husband's father's family believe it or not were share-croppers. He came from an underprivileged back ground. My father-in-law only had a 5th grade education, but worked, managed to buy a house, and feed and clothe his family.


My husband put himself through college, working and going to school. Has never expected people to give him a hand-out. We give to charities and assist others when possible.


Party affiliation is Independent, which means none.|||Some say "equal justice under law", but those are ancient words. The Constitution is "fundamentally flawed" in that it does not sufficiently tell government how it must redistribute wealth.





I appreciate those who call for fairness. If this becomes a powerful majority, then we can provide for them, in exchange for their votes.|||Often, a thief uses "fairness" as an excuse for the theft.





True fairness is attained through "justice".





What is fair is not always just but what is just is always fair.








Any legislation that imposes a view that fairness is derived by taking from some what belongs to them for the benefit of others is "just" legislation is nothing more than the rationalization of the common thief applied to society as a whole.








The overriding principle in our Federal Constitutional Republic regarding "necessary" legislation is that the legislation must occur under a "proper" power of government as determined by a 75% majority of states, not a simple majority in Congress. The government nor the majority of people that seat it have the power to say what is a "proper" power of Congress.





Any government that says the "necessity" of the act is enough to make it "proper" is an unconstitutional government and in fact has unlimited power.








"Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves." 鈥?William Pitt (1783)





"The only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others. His own good, either physical or moral, is not sufficient warrant." 鈥?John Stuart Mill, On Liberty (1859)





"The ultimate touchstone of constitutionality is the Constitution itself and not what we have said about it." 鈥?Felix Frankfurter, Graves vs. New York; 1939





"There is all the difference in the world between treating people equally and attempting to make them equal." 鈥?F.A. Hayek








The Congress has often, out of "necessity", used the "commerce clause" which gives the government the power to regulate commerce "among" the states to regulate commerce "within" states and with the passage of the Health Care Law, the government has given itself the power to regulate commerce among individuals.








Libertarian.