What do you think?
2007-06-03 10:08:08 · 5 answers · asked by VmanAK47 2 in Politics & Government ➔ Law & Ethics
Priorities change, so no I don't think it is a viable idea. Besides, to have a contract you have to have a signed agreement between two parties...don't think that's happened.
And just what reduction in services are you referring to? By and large, the worst we have seen...at least at the national level...is a slow down in "increases" of services...not a reduction of services. There's a big difference.
2007-06-03 10:17:56 · answer #1 · answered by kathy_is_a_nurse 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
No!
That is why you have the vote!
If you don't like what government is doing, or not doing, vote in someone who agrees with your perspective.
You also have the power to lobby and petition for your preferences.
Just think it you could vote to replace such suspended services that you believe are important. You would have to prove that they are Constitutionally required. Just consider all of the things that government does which is not derived from a delegated power.
2007-06-03 11:54:48 · answer #2 · answered by Randy 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
The depends on which services you are referring to and how much notification they gave of their policy change before they reduced the services.
2007-06-03 10:20:31 · answer #3 · answered by FaerieWhings 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
absolutely not. there was never a contract in the first place.
2007-06-03 11:20:17 · answer #4 · answered by brian 4 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Technically YES, but you try this and see how far you get.
2007-06-03 10:58:49 · answer #5 · answered by WC 7 · 0⤊ 1⤋