Actually since I started the debate, this is how I premised the debate:



Huh? I have an obligation to support the will of the majority of my State? Perhaps I am reading this incorrectly, but as a free thinking individual I have the right to support whatever I choose.

Actually it requires 2/3 (66.67%) affirmative vote.
To be honest I would prefer 75% affirmative vote and if you read the rest of the thread Piper Plexed addressed that. I, though, am not looking for a Constitutional Amendment to change the current system. At least that is for now .


It is my belief that unless one individual is harming me or restricting the government’s ability to impose its will on me then I don’t see how it is a good for the people. How does that justify amending the Constitution so that rights can be taken away from individuals?
According to the Amendment X

Again unless it is delegated to the US Federal government, in the Constitution, it is left to the States or the People. I view the first course to be the States. I do not respect the idea that because the Federal government does not like how the States are handling their issues that Federal government has the right to step in and take over.

CP,

The point that I'm making is that it always comes down to "item 1" in a representative republican democracy. Unless of course you live in a state like California which has a referendum and initiative process.

There just aren't any other answers that I can think of. Maybe others have better ideas that can't be debunked, but I doubt it. All other systems that I've seen, even the successful ones, have their warts too.

What do you mean by this...Are you talking about a specific case [gay marriage?] or in general?

CP

First my bad I just reread this



Proposing is 2/3 ratifying is 3/4. I feel better about that.


I am talking in general but I would say that the definition of marriage falls into that argument.

Actually the "whole" point I was making is the "will of the people" IS the "good of the people" in a representative republican democracy. If this is not true the counter question again is: Who's will is it if not the people expessing themselves under the terms of the constitution? Your will? My will? God's Will?



Read What I said again! You have an obligation to support the will of the people as expressed in laws passed by your representatives. Do you deny this? Did I not say that you have the right to attempt to lawfully change the majority view and therefore the laws that have been enacted?






Sorry, You're wrong! read Article 6 of the Constitution:

Article V

Ok I wasn't sure if I was misreading your statement. Yes, if there is a law I have an obligation to abide by that law and I have a right to lawfully challenge its merits. I also have a right not to support Representatives that enact such laws.

See my previous post, I retracted the statement about ratifying.

I conceded to, I believe Redliner, but I will post again for you:


Since it is my contention that the majority does not necessarily represent the people I couldn't think of a better way to get this point across. Also I believe the Constitution should only grant rights and limit the Federal Government powers. I still can not see how amending the Constitution so rights can be taken away not only from the individual but from a minority population as well as States right to govern themselves then how is that good for the people? If the amendment was meant to protect me from being harmed by another I would agree.

CP:

I agree with your questioning completely. That is why I didn't vote, the question is loaded. If you vote for "the will of the masses" then you look like a bully, if you vote for "will of the people" you can count yourself as one of the "politically correct" and above reproach.

The truth is this is a case that the two are not mutually exclussive. The original question is nothing more then a trap.

I may be beating a dead horse here but let me ask the question again in another way.

Your contention is that the majority does not necessarily represent the people. This is true if you add "all" to the statement. I submit that "all" of the people will never agree on anything.

If your representatives pass a law that requires everyone to wear a red tie or scarf on Friday at penalty of incarceration you agree you're obligated to comply. Right? Everyone but you thinks its a fine law but you hate red. Is it a bad or unjust law? If you don't wear an red scarf on Friday and are incarcerated is your incarceration unjust? I submit that the law is not unjust solely because you don't like red!

The Constitution should do only what the people, throught the representative process and amendment process, want it to do.

You say that you cannot see how amending it to "take away rights" is good. I submit its good if that's what the people, complying with constitutional requirement and process, want! You'll just have to wear a red scarf on Fridays until you can convince the majority to change the law whether you think its discriminatory or not.

BTW I hate red ties!

I could not answer the poll. It's like asking if I would prefer having a knitting needle shoved into my ear as opposed to having gasoline poured over my eyeballs. "Will of the people" is mob rule, and it doesn't get more subjective than "good of the people". However, I do wonder why it took a constitutional amendment (#18) to criminalize sale and/or transportation of the mood-altering chemical known as "booze", and another one (#21) to decriminalize it, but there has been no constitutional amendment to criminalize the sale and/or transportation and/or possession of mood-altering chemicals known as "drugs". Personally, I would support an amendment that required that for every new law enacted by the Federal government to go in to effect, at least 500 existing Federal laws be repealed. I would support this at the state level as well but would increase the number of laws to be repealed to 1000 per new law.

And Offwind, please tell me that you are kidding when you say-



Or do you mean that it is not one's dislike of red that makes a law requiring the wearing of red scarfs unjust but rather that it is the requirement of wearing a scarf (period) that is unjust?

I'm going to be an annoying European / Brit and suggest that you ditch your Consitution altogether and be like us!

Because we have no formal constitution, but rather base everything on traditions and 'common sense', these dilemmas don't come up in UK law. Instead, everything is predicated on what the law makers think the UK public will tolerate (and it is assumed that they won't tolerate much!).

So instead of will of the masses vs good of the people, we go for 'good of the people until the masses get *** NOTICE: THIS WORD IS AGAINST THE RULES. FAILURE TO REMOVE IT WILL RESULT IN A STRIKE. *** off'.

It aint pretty, but it works.

So does our Constitution, thank you very much. Many of us hold our Constitution very dear to our hearts, your making light of it, if you're joking, I can have a sense of humor. But seriously, we really do think it's political ingenuity. Well, at least I do.

nikachu,



Interesting point. I had not considered that Britain approached things this way. Seems like you guys are more politically mature than we are.

With our dichotomous two party system, it seems that all both sides want to do is anger and frustrate the other side.

I see in the U.S a Constitutional problem and maturity problem in that we think that our grand way of doing things influences the entire civilized and uncivilized world (including the UK). This is a mistake in my opinion. We have seen what a break down in compromise does to this nation (Civil War), and I would argue that particular war has not rectified it. You can find divisive issues anywhere you look. Slavery was only one of the causes of our Civil War. States rights vs. Federal rights were not adequately addressed (clarified), and a much greater cause of our current problems if you ask me.

What have to follow our own path we set for ourselves. I think this means that we don't need willy nilly amendments all over the place but very carefully thought out ones, starting with some greater clarification of states rights v Federal.

Another point and I will leave you alone. You guys have a rich history of royal heritage, and what do we have? Hollywood. Seriously, we treat our Hollywood much like you guys treat your royal family (at least the gossipers - of which I like to consider myself 'not a part of' - do). It is human nature to gossip no matter how much I despise it, but we are subconsciously trying to force the model, so to speak. But it doesn't fit.

No, we have to get back to our roots. That is: foresight and compromise. It is the only way for us.

Have a great day!