Can you call your congressman?

People talk about it but maybe without having a number right in front of them they tend to be like "yeah... like they are going to answer the call"

Can you really call congress?

I signed an email petition and was sent a follow up telling me I could also call a Capitol Switchboard.
I'm not sure if that was a good idea or a bad idea since they know we don't vote for congress mostly and only for the president (if we get around to it)... so why do they have to listen to us so called voters? Online voting would eliminate all that crap. Maybe when we complain to congress, we might also want to mention that we hope to have an online voting database one day and if enough people keep talking about it, maybe it will at least give them a damn good migraine considering the consequences of it really happening.

I'm mean we still have not REALLY gotten to impeach anyone. This is totally unfair and a clear indication we are not allowed to use these so called rights. I mean sure, they've threatened... even gone through the motions but it never really happened did it?

I haven't dialed the number yet (because it's late) and don't want to spam a link because I'm not sure if that would directly be against T&C... even though it isn't my link by any means.

Even if we can't post a link I'm sure I can tell you the org site which is USAction and maybe some of you have tried and have some comments. It is promoting diplomacy over war and I did get an auto reply back from the congressmans office... although I doubt it will be answered directly, but the email did reach the office.

I'm sure that is probably their spam folder but according to the site, if you call... they want to know the results.
So if they don't answer, we can complain about that too.

Check your states laws about recording private conversations (and DC, I've yet to do that but my state is a 1 party consent state)....and maybe the calls can be recorded, but check first...always check before you do that because in some states it's illegal without consent of both parties... then we can have a bunch of lame YT videos about congress not answering our calls if we need to prove they are a bunch of dicks.

After signing an online petition to congress, I got a reply back from the congressman's office. I'm sure it was an auto generated reply to all who signed the petition but what is in the letter, to me, has some importance.
I feel it is a positive step to know that according to this letter at least by July, Congress was actively intervening. At least it sounds positive. Maybe there is something I'm not seeing about this endeavor that is not as helpful as I think so I don't want to sound naive but it sounds like a positive thing to me. Maybe other ATSers can look at it or have had a similar experience with *their* congressman after signing a petition like this about Syria.

Are some in congress actually trying to do what they are appointed to do? They must get their votes somehow and maybe some of them DO want to represent the people but feel that the people are not really paying attention as much as special interests, so maybe some feel they have no choice but to represent special interests instead and try to pick the "least bad" from the special interests.
I mean who is really backing them up when it comes to groups that lock onto the business of congress to get what they want? Are WE backing them up? How can we be when many people don't even know who their congressman is???

While I'm still a believer that the conflict is being directly fueled and of course, I don't think any congressman is prepared to start attacking washington on that issue although I wish they would, at least this congressman is not one sided as some in Washington are and seems open to the possibility that there are multiple sides to the story... and that all of it is debatable and that there could be serious consequences.

On August 30, 2013, Secretary of State John Kerry expressed high confidence that Syrian President Bashar Assad is using chemical weapons against rebel forces. Given their historically hostile position towards Israel, it is important for the United States to not turn a blind eye to President Assad's regime.

However, we must proceed with extreme caution in this situation. While I'm concerned with the use of chemical weapons and deeply troubled by the attacks against innocent civilians, we must have a thoughtful debate over the merits, goals and consequences of U.S. military involvement in that country. It is unacceptable for the Obama Administration to once again proceed alone in its actions when the law clearly mandates a role for Congress.

That is why I joined over 100 of my colleagues in signing a letter on July 28, 2013 to the Obama Administration urging them to get the approval of Congress before using military force in Syria. Additionally, I am a cosponsor of H.R. 2501, the Congressional Accountability and Oversight in Syria Act. If enacted into law, this bill would prohibit military operations in Syria without Congressional approval. As a member of the House Armed Services Committee, I am continuing to closely monitor the situation in Syria and expect the President to receive Congressional approval before launching an attack.

I will look more into this act and am pleased that they saw this coming and were acting on it before this last attack even occurred.