How is serving on a jury and serving in Congress similar?

Election 2014

The following was written by me on behalf of a candidate for Congress who sadly failed in his bid to represent his party. 

The Founders viewed service in Congress much like service on a jury: Both were the duties of citizens. They entrusted both duties to the intelligence and common sense of ordinary people. Uncommon education and experience were never considered prerequisites for either members of Congress or members of juries.

Some jobs can be mastered in a few days. Some take weeks and months. Others take years. Congress and juries alike function well with whatever knowledge their members bring with them despite the gravity of the decisions with which both are entrusted. Jurors make life and death decisions as well as decisions affecting the freedom and property of individuals, much like members of Congress make for the nation at large.

Both forms of service are intimidating, but fortunately, members don't need to face either alone. Jurors and members of Congress serve as a team or, at least, they should. Unfortunately, our team in Congress, especially during recent sessions, has been dysfunctional and good proposals have languished without action while poorly crafted legislation has been rushed into law.

Where do proposals for legislation come from? Most legislation is proposed by those who have a need for it. Individuals and organizations alert their Representatives to Congress to a need and work with them to craft rules and regulations that will alleviate the need. The Affordable Care Act (Obamacare) was popularly supported but written by lobbyists without concern for popular issues. Legislators had little to do with crafting it and few bothered to even read it before passing it.

Like juries, legislatures need individuals with common sense and a sense of duty. If there is a difference, it lies in the fact the duty of a jurist is to serve justice. The duty of a member of Congress is to serve the Constitution. In either case, the work products of both are decisions. Innocent or guilty. Aye or Nay. If there is a difference, it lies in the fact that jurists may not abstain from deciding. Legislators may duck their responsibility and abstain from voting. Ultimately, the people represented by such a legislator are denied the services that they have every right to expect.

To her credit, my opponent has fulfilled her legislative duties most of the time while serving in the California Assembly and State Senate. However, there have been times when she failed to help decide important issues regarding such things as large capacity magazines for weapons, changes in school testing processes, ensuring the privacy of minors on social media websites, standardization of health insurance plans, etc. Obviously, she is not the only legislator to abstain from voting. State legislator and US Senator Obama is infamous for abstaining more often than not. I can't help but thinking that if I ever once abstained from performing my duties as a jet fighter pilot landing on an aircraft carrier, I would not be alive today. I suspect that many others would have suffered as well, not to mention the taxpayers who would have lost a multi-million dollar aircraft. I take responsibilities seriously.