Authored Comments

This was an interesting event for sure. It brings to mind a couple of things:

1. To be heard is important. A large degree of discontent in this country is due to the government following the will of special interest groups rather than the will of the people.

2. The sheer volume of Tweets required moderation by a group of "representatives", very similar to the way our congress is organized.

3. The questions (and possibly the overall venue) seems to indicate a lack of understanding of the separation of powers. It is not the President's job to make the rules. That power belongs to Congress.

I think this event would be much more valuable if the venue were expanded to include all of Congress and that the will of the people (and their questions) be directed to those who are in charge of making the rules.

I'm puzzled as to why there seems to be a general notion that the founding of The United States of America was not open? The founders were very much afraid of too much government. As such, they tried very hard to limit the scope of government, making it clear that our rights are not granted by the government, but rather, our rights are "unalienable", and endowed by our Creator". Further, "To secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men." Therefore, Government derives its power "from the consent of the governed."

If anything, over the last 100 years, we have lost some of the checks and balances that were intended to keep government "open." The epitome of the "closedness" of goverment was when congress was asked to "pass the health care bill so we could see what was in it." That, my friend, is what the founding fathers abhorred. It was their deep philosophical belief that laws were to be written in plain language so that the common man could understand and take an active part in Government.