America wins...

[DanKroh]

Hmm. I think I missed another bout of censoring.

 

Lisabob,

Thanks. That's interesting to know.

[Ohio_Scouter]

Fred,

 

Under Godwin's law, when posting, don't you actually have to mention Hitler by name to forfeit the debate?

[OldGreyEagle]

I only use Godwin's law when I see the word Hitler or Nazi myself. Also I would probbaly add SS if the context was right. Whatever happened it wasn't me.

 

Now, I don't think I explained myself correctly. I will try again. Lets say I think we elected an unqualified candidate to be President. However, the people have spoken, we would have what we have. So the people of California passed Prop 8. They also have spoken. How can the will of the people be something that must be obeyed one time and not another? OK, so the answer back may be but selecting leaders is different than setting the rights of a minority, or rather limiting them in this case. But it is still the will of the people. When people say Government by the People, Of the People and For the people this is what sometimes happens.

 

For people who disagree with me, how do you argue that the people are right when selecting their leadership and not right when it comes to establishing the social context in which they wish to live? Do you see, perhaps not understand why, there is the appearance of an inconsistency between saying elections of leadership are the will of the people and must be upheld but voting on values the majority hold dear is not?

 

It does play into the idea that the results of an election are ok as long as I agree with them. The People were right when they selected Obama, he a great man and the American people certainly showed their wisdom and intelligience in electing him, but they are totally clueless when it comes to Gay rights, how did these morons even find their way to the polling places? I see an apparent oxymorpn

 

Another argument may be ok, so if the people vote that anyone with a background in Scouting must now pay triple income tax. I would have a choice, to either stay and pay or leave, a third would be stay and fight and realize I am trying to change a culture. It is said sooner or later people get the government they deserve, but sometimes the apearance is we get the government the Courts want to give us

[SR540Beaver]

No gang, there was no censoring. It was a veiled comparison to Hitler and the Nazis that didn't use Obama or Hitler's name.....but the intent was very clear. Thus the mention of Godwin's Law.

[Merlyn_LeRoy]

OGE, the difference between the will of the people in electing the president vs. referenda is that these acts have different standards to meet.

 

For president, there are still some people who claim Obama isn't a native born American; if he isn't, there goes the will of the people, right? Obama would not meet the requirements to be president.

 

For referenda, state constitutional amendments have to be passed according to the amending requirements of that state constitution, and state constitutions can't violate the federal rights of citizens. Prop 8 is being challenged on both these grounds. If prop 8 is somehow invalid along these lines, again, the will of the people isn't carried out because the proposition didn't meet the requirements.

[SCOUTER-Terry]

OGE - the difference here is that the California law recognizes two different degrees of changing their constitution... minor changes may be done through "amendments", but major changes (such as takin away rights that impact a minority) is considered a "revison". Revisions require two-thirds vote of the people. This really doesn't come as a surprise to the proponents of Prop 8... they knew from the start the proper ballot initiative they needed to bring was one that required a super majority, but that they didn't have the votes. So instead they tried to "amend" the constitution, knowing full well they would either lose out right, or the courts would likely set aside the ballot initiative as improper and the wrong attempt to change the constitution. The result, unfortunately, is just a bigger wedge. You can argue whether this issue rises to the standard of requiring a super majority (ultimately that's the role of the courts to decide), but there's no arguing the rules of changing the constitution were already set by the people of California.

 

TERRY HOWERTON

 

[OldGreyEagle]

Would it not be a good idea to only allow referranda that were constitutional? Or is that too loaded a question? Or is that allowing more Court interaction?

 

First off, I don't see a real problem if Gays were allowed to marry. This is more of an issue as to whether or not "the people" have a right to shape the society in which they live and how do they accomplish it?

 

 

[Merlyn_LeRoy]

It would be simpler if all referenda, and all laws, that passed were constitutional. I think any challenge on constitutional grounds against a referendum or law that hasn't yet passed would just be rejected by a court on grounds of mootness. There's really nothing to challenge before it passes.

 

Since marriage is a right under Loving v. Virginia, it looks like it might be hard-to-impossible for state constitutions to carve out limitations. Imagine if a bunch of conservative Muslims managed to pass a state constitutional amendment that said women may not speak to men; it's clearly infringing on their first amendment rights, and pointing out that they still have a first amendment right to speak to other women doesn't "make up" for it. Yet banning gay marriage is limiting the right of marriage based on the sex of the people involved in exactly the same way.

[scoutingagain]

Or since women make up the majority of the electorate, they could get together and deny men the right to vote.

 

SA

[Merlyn_LeRoy]

While that would have similar problems, voting actually ISN'T a right in the US. If it was, ex-cons probably couldn't lose it.

[OldGreyEagle]

SO, women could take away a man's right to vote but California can't define marriage as between a man and a woman?

[Merlyn_LeRoy]

The 19th amendment would still prevent it.

[OldGreyEagle]

Seeing as how amendments can be repealed , what if the 19th amendment was repealed? Now, all this admiitedly theoretical of course. The Constitution gurantees life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Not a guranatee of happiness mind you but not a right to vote

[scoutingagain]

OGE,

 

No, my point was exactly the opposite. If the California Prop 8 is allowed to stand, I see no reason why women wouldn't be able to restrict the "opportunity" for men to vote, if they chose to do so. (Although I recgonize there would probably be some women who would vote to allow us to continue to vote, but who knows.)

 

I guess what I'm saying is, as white males, some of us may want to think long and hard about supporting any intiative that allows a simple majority to limit the rights and or opportunities of any specified minority, as that's where we're headed, if we're not there already.

 

SA

 

(This message has been edited by scoutingagain)

[SR540Beaver]

Speaking of voter's rights, you should hear radio talker Neal Boortz go on his occasional tear about who should be able to vote. He firmly believes the average American are idiots and should not be allowed to vote. He says there should be an intelligence test administered in order to get to vote. Also, any person who is jobless or doesn't own property shouldn't be allowed to vote. He honestly believes that being able to vote should not be a right, but earned based on certain criteria. He can get really worked up and just go on and on. I will say this about Neal, he is my favorite radio talker because he is honest. He tells you that he is an entertainer and not to blindly accept anything he says. He tells his listeners to take what he says and weigh it against their own research and what they know and come to their own conclusions. Now that is a rarity in talk radio and agree with him or not, he has my respect for it.(This message has been edited by sr540beaver)