Where I Channel Jürgen Habermas on the Issue of Memorializing Resolutions

I disagree with the sentiment that the Metro Council's Memorializing Resolutions (MRs)--which are are uncodified expressions of Council expectations--"do not do anything." It is true that MRs do not have the force of the law behind them to coerce what they request. However, they are also not prone to prop up a tyranny, as in the case of Eric Crafton's "English Only," which represented a tyranny of the majority.

Are many MRs ridiculous grandstanding without teeth? Squanders of time and resources? Empty gestures? Sure. That is the drawback of MRs.

But if you compare the drawbacks of MRs to the risks of conventional resolutions that are codified and enforced, the hazards amount to nothing but minor annoyance at worst. That is because they rely on no force but the "force of the better argument." People, departments, and other parties can freely accept them or refuse them. The other resolutions rule by coercion, even when democratically checked and balanced.

And at the very least MRs communicate the concerns, expectations, or wishes of our elected representatives. What makes them seem toothless is the cynical overuse of them by grandstanding and opportunistic Council Members. And the force of their bite is wholly different in their appeal or lack thereof to conscience.