Why not just have a national referendum on FOUR issues

[SoCalDem]

and end it once and for all..

It could be done so easily.. A special election..one person ..one vote..

yes or no

strict gun laws/limits per person/assault ban

right to choose..except the last trimester except to save the mothers life (physical danger)

rights of gays to marry

complete separation of church/state
churches who mix in politics must pay taxes


These could be done every 10 years..like a census.. That should take into consideration the changing demographics..

It would take them off the table as "wedge issues"..

all of these things are emotionally charged issues, and should not be decided on the whim of a few senators or congresspeople.....

These votes should be mandatory too.. If a citizen cannot get out and vote for 4 things every 10 yeras, they do not deserve to be a citizen..

on the first "vote" the electoral college should be an issue too but that would not be a recurring vote..

1. instant run-off voting
2. no electoral college...boo-hoo to the small states.. they have had "more than their fair share for too many years
3. regional primaries..6 regions..2 per month

[Shoedogg]

1. Hey, I want

some drug law reform in there, too!

On edit: None of this would ever be allowed to happen. I don't think a national referendum vote on any of these subjects would go the was the administration would want.

[SoCalDem]

2. Seeeeee..that's where we start to have problems

too many issues.. Hey.. let's save a bundle and get rid of congress altogether:)
Turn DC into a gigantic "theme park".. Looneyville,USA :):)

[Bertha Venation]

3. Why not? Because rights are not subject to plebiscite.

Rights are inherent. They're not debatable.

I can see a vote on the gun issue because IMO, the right to bear arms is debatable. (If you flame me I will not respond.) I can also see a vote on the church/state issue, maybe. But the RIGHT to marry and the RIGHT of a woman to make her own choices can't be left up to a popular vote.

[OhioArtist]

6. Exactly

majority rule = loss of individual rights

[rogerashton]

8. It does seem to me

that your sorting of these into rights/debateable categories reflects your own preferences on how things ought to be. Ignore me if you will, but I don't think this is a flame -- what is the difference of principle you see here that leads you to treat two as rights and the other two as democratic options?

[Bertha Venation]

9. The gun issue is debatable -- IMO -- because

The Second Amendment can be interpreted many ways. Does it or does it not give an inherent right to bear arms? That is the question.

The woman's right to decide what her choices are is as inherent as her right to breathe. However I do see how even this could be thought of as debatable -- surely anti-choice folks think it is.

And no, your post wasn't a flame.

[rogerashton]

15. What makes the right to marry inherent

(which I take to mean independent of whether the constitution or any international convention or any law asserts it or not) and the right to bear arms dependent on the writ of law? Could one not argue just the other way -- that there is no right to marry because it is not mentioned in the constitution at all, but that the right to bear arms is inherent as an aspect of the inherent right to self defense?

Not that I support that argument myself, mind -- I just don't see why everything on this list isn't debateable.

[Bertha Venation]

17. Yes, I suppose it could be argued the other way.

I don't know how the Supreme Court has ruled on matters of gun ownership, so I can't really offer any information on that. I wonder if anyone from the gungeon is lurking on this thread.

I do know what the Supreme Court has said about marriage: In Loving v. Virginia, Chief Justice Earl Warren (citing Skinner v. Oklahoma) wrote for the majority: "Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival."

I also know what the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights says about marriage. Article 16 (1) reads: "Men and women of full age, without any limitation due to race, nationality or religion, have the right to marry and to found a family. They are entitled to equal rights as to marriage, during marriage and at its dissolution."

(The UNDHR does not mention firearms.)

When I was a fundamentalist & Republican, the issue of gay marriage wasn't around, so unfortunately there are no arguments against it for me to try to remember (as I can clearly remember my shameful past of picketing "abortion chambers"). So, try as I might, I cannot see how this one issue of gay marriage can possibly be debatable. I do, however, see how RKBA is debatable: because clearly there is more than one way to interpret the 2nd Amendment.

And do you truly think that the right to reproductive choice is debatable, or are you just playing devil's advocate?

I'm willing to discuss this further if you wish.

[rogerashton]

19. Of course it is debateable.

You made reference to the necessity of "interpreting" the constitution on guns. I note that the legal writs you cite are both consistent with the idea that "marriage is between a man and a woman." No, I don't say I adopt that view, but how can it be refuted?

I was also making a distinction between legal rights and inherent rights. They may overlap but would require different kinds of support. For example, if we regard the right to self-defense as inherent, that provides a tentative basis for a claim that gun ownership is inherent as an aspect of the right to self-defense. Not saying I buy that argument, but I do feel I understand it.

Since I feel it is wrong to judge what one does not understand, I'm hoping for an argument I can understand. If that makes me a devil's advocate, then "Go Devil!!"

edit: bureau of redundancy bureau

[WhoCountsTheVotes]

12. the right to bear arms is as debatable as the right to marry

and the right to choose. not a flame, just a point

[Bertha Venation]

14. The right to marry is inherent. It's not debatable.

It's been affirmed more than once by the USSC, and it's part of the UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Do you know of any such affirmations for RKBA? Not flaming either -- I don't know. It's an honest question.

[Muddleoftheroad]

18. So, YOUR rights are inviolate, but MINE, who knows?

That's silly. Guns, right to choose, rights for gays to marry, rights to religion are all the same.

Yes, this would never be approved because those who are winning on each issue would fear change and those who are losing would fear losing too fast.

[Wickerman]

4. Nah,

that makes too much sense. Why woudl the RW want to take all the hot button items off the table? They would be left with nothing left to energize the base.

good thought, actually, just wouldn't wash with our cadre of professional politicians.

[H2O Man]

5. Why not?

Simple. Constitutional rights are not based upon popular vote. That's the whole idea of, for example, the Bill of Rights. Let's just say Utah decided to outlaw black people. I know, I know, that could never happen in this country, right? But the majority has the potential to try to deny rights to minorities. Now, if you take your idea, refine it a bit, and decide ....hey! let's vote for people in the House of Representatives, the Senate, and the President every so often! Hot dang! If people put the energy in, they'll get good government, and protect those constitutional rights! What an idea!

[Mick Knox]

7. Yep wilpitt correct

It is why national referendums are not in the laws... great foresight by the forefathers..

[kayell]

10. Because constitutional issues are not decided by a vote

That is why we are not a pure democracy. The founders of this country were concerned that a pure democracy could lead to the "tyranny of the majority". They made some pretty smart choices.

Time for a bit more reading on your part.

[SoCalDem]

11. I know.. I know.. I am just sooooooo damn sick of these same

issues being "debated" ad nauseum.. I don't know how old you are, but these have been "debated" for 30-40 years (except for gay marriage)..

It would be like we had to keep "debating" prohibition every time we turned around..

Our adversaries are like pit bulls.. they will NOT let this shit GO.. I acutally have faith in my fellow citizens.. I believe that MOST people are liberal.. The media tells us otherwise, because its in THEIR interest to do so.. If a HUGE enough number of people finally DID have their say, it would go a long way to resolving these things..

Okay.. make it non-binding.. but get a general consensus, at least :)

[sweetheart]

13. perhaps more than 4

Energy policy trends should be set also, with the people's vote
deliberately choosing war as a solution by not taxing gasoline per its
real cost in armed incursions and "protection".

Gerrymandering needs to be ended as a form of descrimination or we
won't yet have a democracy. A standard grid mandate.

mandatory voting for all citizens. Absentee ballot and flexible
arrangements made, but it is a citizen's duty in democracy.

I agree with your "proposition" election, perhaps as with california
propositions, these things can be introduced as citizen laws at the
federal level.

Some complex areas of reform that soundbyte debates totally flatten
the truth in serious argument.

Economic reforms to sustain human rights and labour rights across
borders (WTO/NAFTA)

Comprehensive public electronic media fairness reform, to assert the
public media common as a public obigation of media stations to keep
licenses.. that fairness, equal time and general media pluralization
and fairness statute can lead the body of law, rather than litigation
making it for us, 100 years from now.

Comprehensive election reform, to remove all partisan offices and
allow proper election oversight.

I like the idea socaldem, just why not make it open ended.. the
10 year national ballot.

[rogerashton]

16. Several state constitutions

have the "populist reforms" including initiative and referendum. Recall is another one of these rights. They allow the issues to be put on the ballot by petition. It would be necessary to amend the constitution to get these rights at the federal level.

I have long supported this, but there is a downside. Remember that referenda in California have contributed to the tax cuts that have led to the decline of what was once the finest public higher educational system in the world. Remember that the Governator came in on a populist recall petition. Thing is, it takes money to circulate petitions, so big money can use petitions, recall and referendums for their own purposes.

The answer to that is, of course, to take down big money -- easier said than done.