I'm not sure that this is an either/or proposition, both the "will of the masses" and the "good of the people" must be respected. The problem, of course, is that there is no objective definition of what balances these two competing interests in an effective way.

Obviously, there is a particular amendment proposal floating out there that has given this debate a sense of immediacy. However, I've noticed something interesting across the various debates on this topic that have included the discussion of a constitutional amendment: those in favor of the amendment seem to worry that current bar for creating an amendment to the constitution may be a bit high and the opponents o the amendment worry that it may be far too easy to amend the constitution and other requirements must be put in place. Therefore, I think that, for the most part, the current requirements do a pretty good job of balancing the needs of the majority and the good of the people. This is not to say that every amendment proposed (or even passed, see Prohibition) will be a good one, just that in an imperfect world, the balance may be just about right.

Just my $.02.

There is an inherent problem with the option 'good of the people'. Who is going to choose what is 'good' in the 'good of the people'. Should it not be the will of the people to chose what is good of the people.

The biggest problem I have with this is appointed(not elected) judges are making the decisions for the majority when they are opposed to that decision.

If there are those who believe that decisions for the good of the people should be made by a select few. Wouldn't that be an Oligarchy form of government?

It really seems to me that Americans have a tendency to disregard the constitution ENTIRELY when it suits their purposes, and this argument is a prime example. The judges are doing EXACTLY what they are supposed to do. Decide on the constitutionality of the law of the land. Now, you'd have to look at the constitutions of the individual states in which their respected Supreme Courts are acting, but the principle is universal across the United States.

How is this different than an Oligarchy. The answer is very simple, checks and balances. Say what you will about the shifting weight of the power of each branch of government, the fact is that NO SINGLE BRANCH can decide how government operates. What they can do is act in the area in which their mandate dictates. For the Supreme Court, that area is:



Now it seems to me that if someone feels that their rights are being denied (as set forth from the Constitution of either their state or the U.S.) then it is PAINFULLY OBVIOUS that it is the responsibility of the Courts to look at their case. The fact that you deny this indicates that you are either simply aggrieved of the decisions being made (in which case your argument has no integrity) or you do not approve of the process in which they are being made (in which case your argument has no merit.)

Now as for actually amending the constitution; here is the problem I have. Bush is LEADING the campaign for an amendment. While legally he is not the one proposing it, he IS the one actively pursuing it. This certainly seems to me to be a direct rejection of the Constitution yet again, which states:



The Constitution makes it quite clear that amendments should only be sought by Congress (or Legislature as represented by both houses or each separate body.) It is neither the Presidents province nor obligation to modify the constitution. That particular part of the constitution has some more meat for this particular discussion:



Now, nowhere in the Constitution is marriage mentioned. Nowhere in the Constitution is "tradition" mentioned, nor "history." So how on earth can ANY amendment having ANYTHING to do with marriage be considered a valid part of the constitution? And if it is not valid, how can it be a legitimate amendment as defined by Article 5?

The question is which concern should control amending the Constitution, and for this purpose the "good" is defined and determined by "the will of the people"- just at an earlier date. The relevant events now and in the past where a majority has disagreed with what was in the Constitution brings in to play what TheCook was discussing: is it too easy, too hard, or "just right" in difficulty to amend?

I think it's "just right" and that's this amendment, especially as currently written, will die. The "will of the people" shouldn't be able to throw out Constitutional rights with the current fad. That's why the Drafters made it so difficult to alter the Supreme Law of the land. The "activist judges" are reading their constitution- in the case of Mass., pretty clearly- and "the People" have the recourse of changing their state constitution to exempt gays from the protection against 2nd class citizenship. If that happens, it will be twice that"the will of the people" has defined the law in Mass. by creating or retracting constitutional rights.

Bush is simply responding to this issue because of Judges in Mass. and the Mayor of San Francisco initiated this in the first place. This would have not even been an issue had not the the above taken place.



Also nowhere in the Constitution is the 'environment' mentioned. Would you be comfortable with right-wing activist judges telling large chemical and oil companies that they don't have to obey any laws and regulations pertaining to the environment?

And please don't use the General Welfare clause in regards to the environment. That one clause is the reason for MANY laws on the books now regarding Social Security, Welfare, medicare and countless other redistribution laws.

I see a HUGE difference between protecting the environment (keeping big business from depleting forests, banning or limiting products that deplete the ozone layer, trying to stop pollution of our water and air, protecting endangered species (a minority, I might add )), and discriminating against a minority of our human population through amendments and court decisions. If you don't, I am having a hard time understanding your logic.

I find someone dying their hair and getting plastic surgery unnatural. That doesn't mean I think the Constitution should be amended to ban people from doing these things. Many religions frown upon divorce, but it's still allowed. None of these actions should be added to the Constitution to ban people from doing them, they don't impact the rights of other citizens. Rights should only be limited when they infringe upon the rights of others. If not, leave the Constitution alone.

My argument is based on same principal as the "the constitution does not mention marriage" argument.

How convenient that it is completely different when it is put in a different light that it does not apply.

I personally don't have a problem with gay marriage. What I have a problem with is the arguments people are making about the constitution. It shows you are being Janus faced about it because of your response.

The word 'marriage' does not appear in the constitution nor does the word 'environment', or anything about protecting it. So judges should be able to rule that laws pertaining to marriage or the environment need not be followed.

Again, I do not agree with the wording of the Amendment...I feel that there should be a popular vote in each state to determine gay marriage's place in specific states. Marriage is a cultural issue, all Americans should have a say on cultural issues.

Personally, I feel that I have an extremely open stance towards gay unions...In fact, I'd be willing to bet that most conservatives stand for gay unions...Just not marriage.

CP

Often times I hear people throw around the notion that our Founders established this nation, this DEMOCRACY, on the foundation of God. I am skeptical of this, but that is not the topic I wish to discuss here.

It's the idea of DEMOCRACY. It was never the intent of the Founders and Framers to establish a DEMOCRACY for the United States. One only need read our Constitution to discover this fact:

Article IV, Sec. 4 states that "the United states shall guarantee to every state... a REPUBLICAN (emphasis mine) form of government..."

Nowhere in the Constitution is the word "DEMOCRACY" mentioned (Citizens For Constitutional Government).What is troubling is that most people, attorneys, teachers, politicians, and ConservPat do not know the difference between a DEMOCRACY and a REPUBLIC.

In a DEMOCRACY issues are decided by majority rule. James Madison gave this type of rule a special name: mobacracy, or mob rule. Our Founders did not wish the United States to become a nation based on mob rule or a whimsical tide of emotion, nor did they want our government to be unduly influenced by factions, or special interests. The conflict over same-sex marriage is exactly that. There are 2 factions at work: those who oppose same-sex marriage (the religious right and left, as well as those who oppose it based on more personal reasons)and those who support it.

A REPUBLIC, such as what our Founders intended, is a "government in which the sovereign holds authority granted by the people and ruled according to law(the Constitution)." A DEMOCRACY gets its power from the mob, and the REPUBLIC gets its authority from the Constitution. If we take a step back and view this situation objectively, we can see that the proposed Constitutional amendment to ban same-sex marriage is rooted in mob rule.

What is so very wrong about this picture is that our President has taken an oath and sworn to "preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States", even if this means that it flies in the face of those who for religious or personal reasons object. What we are witnessing (and this is nothing new really, and certainly not exclusive to the Conservative right), is our President ignoring Rule of Law and courting popular will and emotion. The rights of the individual are not being protected. One does not have to like the fact that the Constitution is meant to limit our government and protect individual rights, but it is imperative that one recognize that this is the true intent of our Founders. James Madison articulates this very well in Federalist #10. What the Constitution does NOT say is that individual rights apply only to a certain class of individuals. No one ar two or even three groups are singled out for recognition. Individual rights apply to ALL who reside within the United States, even if they do happen to be gay.

From Websters:






I understand your point about the US being a Republic and Not a Democracy. However, ConservPat did not say it was a democracy he said it was a REPRESENTATIVE DEMOCRACY. Since it is a Democratic process that is used to select the elected officials who them have the power I don't see this as an inaccurate statement.

One thing I found interesting in this little exercise is that the definition of Democracy (at least according to websters) seems to have changed with the times. Take note of the first definition. Specifically: ...or indirectly through a system of representation usually involving periodically held free elections

No, they shouldn't. Cultural issues should be left to EACH AND EVERY CITIZEN. Neither the government, nor the population has any right to pass judgments on, and outlaw people's culture. That is everyone's personal business. The government has one function: securing rights. Protecting it's citizen from people that want to hurt them (NOT themselves). Not to go around telling people what their culture should be like.



That's an extremely open stance? That's like saying "I'm not racist, I belive the black schools should have the same kind of conditions as white schools. Just separate." There is nothing open about this stance. An open stance is complete equality, not in the future, RIGHT NOW.

I have ZERO desire for the government to tell me I couldn't have married my wife. For whatever "cultural reason" they might have. I don't understand why YOU feel the need to let the government dictate this.

This should not be up to the federal government, or to the states, but solely to the people.

An amendment should never be passed to take away rights, but to secure rights only. Not to dictate morality. Not to preserve a 2000 year old shaggy dog story. In fact, an amendment should be passed saying THAT, since some people refuse to accept the fact that this is the whole idea that our country was founded on.

And my point was that letting the environmental laws be disobeyed would result in catastrophic consequences. Allowing gays to marry would not.

Also, environmental laws are not rooted in religion, bans on gay marriage are. Environmental protection laws are rooted in the notion that if we destroy our sources of oxygen and water, we will die. Bans on gay marriages pretty much say, we are xxx religion and I am offended by gays.

The Constitution should not be ammended to cater to the will of a religious group, throwing out the rights of others. Allowing gay marriage does not infringe upon a church's right. They don't have to marry gays if they don't want to, I have seen no argument saying that should be the case. Banning gay marriages does infringe upon gay's rights.

Oy vey folks, you guys are painting me as some anti-Gay, ultra-right wing wacko...

Wrong, I know exactly what the difference is, I just feel that in the case of important issues, the poeple of a state should be able to voice their opinions [especially when they are ignored by politicians]. I know exactly what the difference is, and I think that the Republican form of gov't is the right way to go.

I would honestly like to applaud you [I'm being very serious], you are the FIRST person that I've encountered to agknowledge the religious left...Thank you

This is ridiculous. Let me make this as clear as I can to you folks who CANNOT UNDERSTAND THAT I WANt EQUALITY FOR GAYS, ready, here it comes...I BELIEVE THAT HOMOSEXUAL INDIVIDUALS HAVE EQUAL, GOD-GIVEN RIGHTS, THAT SHOULD NOT BE TAKEN AWAY FROM THEM, I BELIEVE THAT THESE RIGHTS SHOULD NEVER BE TAKEN AWAY!. This is very simple, marriage IS NOT BETWEEN TWO MEN or TWO WOMEN! It just isn't. That's not what the WORD marriage is. Let me make myself clear, I'm arguing over what TO CALL the institution that GIVES GAYS EQUAL RIGHTS! It is offensive to me to have people say that MY stance isn't open, after seeing people on TV, Bible thumping, and denouncing homosexuality and all those who practice it, that my friends is a closed stance, not mine.

CP

Isnt it more acurate to say 'hasn't been' (because this right has so far been denied) instead of 'just isn't (because who says so?). Marriage has also been between one man and many women and it was redefined then. Why it cannot be redefined now to be more inclusive is really the question, which so far has not been able to be answered effectively, except," well, its just wrong!"

On this topic , unfortunately, this mass hysteria is sweeping the nation. This morning the Alaska State House approved a constitutional ban on homosexual marriage AND CIVIL UNIONS, as have many states in the last days.

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&ie=UTF-...G=Google+Search

Again, the socially accepted definition of marriage is between a man and a woman. If there is a way of preserving this culturally, and socially accepted definition, without denying rights, why not do it?

CP

Some of us are not interested in preserving a culture that doesn't belong to us. My community has homosexuality, divorce, unmarried parents, productive children, and very little religion. Our culture is not the same as your culture. There is no reason - I have heard no reason - why your culture should be held as more important than my culture.

To preserve a socially accepted definition makes no sense. In my community, the socially accepted definition of marriage encompasses much more than a union between a man and woman.

And you really can't expect an answer to questions like "why not preserve culture?" unless you can answer the questions we asked you first, like "what reason do we need two terms for the same rights"?

The majority of Americans are [hence the outcry against gay marriage].

And that is the attitude that results in cultural institutions being changed unneccesarrily.

I've used this analogy in another thread...Why not call baseball football...Because the two are different...Sure, they're both sports, but they're different, and a distinction needs to be made, that doesn't make one better than the other, it just establishes the differences THAT EXISTS.

CP

Conservpat, I have to admire your fortitude!



I consider 60% to be a slim majority. Certainely not enough for a Constitutional amendment. 90% and I might concur, even 80%.



'Uneccessarily' is subjective, depending upon which side of this issue you are on. Children of gay people certainley must consider that their protection as citizens under the Constitution is quite necessary.
Civil Unions and rights of same sex couples are being considered in the legislatures of many states today, and a ban on ALL rights to same sex couples unions passed the Alaska house this morn. I have overestimated the fairness and lucidity of politicians once again. Luckily we have referendum here and it will have to pass by the people also. Im anxious to see how well we are represented by our zealous politicians.

It appears to me that many hetero's see same sex marriage as some kind of threat to their way of life, which is really beyond my comprehension. I dont get the whole 'Word' issue at all. Neither will ever affect me, nor you for that matter.
Like Nightimer said way back, in 20 years we shall be wondering what the whole problem was. Unless we are appealing all the bans we put in place in these days.

And here's where the interracial marriage argument comes in:

Marriage: Mix and Match (You need to register for free to see it, but it's worth it)



Get it now? We're living history!

I didn't vote.

The question pre-supposes that the majority could not also be the good of the people.

The courts CAN make decisions that both go against the majority AND the good of the people, that is why we have many sets of political entities, from the Local through the Federal level to allow for Amending the Constitution.

But the majority population could want something that is not good for the minority population. Amending the Constitution that only addresses the majority and could potentially harm the minority is not good for the people.

Agreed, yet the basis of the poll itself is loaded and I was simply pointing that out. It's kinda like asking someone "Have you stopped beating your wife?" Either way you answer you look a fool.

Look, this is how it works. The Legislative branch of the Government passes a law believing they have the common good of the people in mind (in theory), then the Executive Branch can sign the Legislation or Veto it believing that they are acting for the common good (again in theory). This ends things until someone files suit with the Court to determine if the "legislation" is Constitutional or not. If the Court finds what the Legislative Branch and the Executive branch enacted is not Constitutional then "the People" have a chance to "overturn" even that decision by demanding for and passing a Constitutional Amendment.

Some would make you believe that Court Judges are "all powerful" and "all knowing" and would always act for the "common good".

If so, why are so many "decisions" overturned on appeal?

The Writers of the Constitutions were very wise to leave in the possibility of Constitutional Amendments so that activist Judges would not control the Country.

Yes, I do understand your point. I can't think of another way to get the point across which is that what is good for the people is NOT always what the majority want.


What one calls an Activist Judge I call a Judge doing their job, Protecting the rights of all, as written in the Constitution. When the majority fear that Judges are going to protect the rights of all they are called Activists. When the majority fear that their discriminatory views are going to be proven to be unconstitutional, the answer just amend it so we don't need to discuss this anymore. Amending the Constitution is a serious act. To have leaders that would even consider supporting an amendment that is not good for ALL does not a good leader make.

An activist judge may indeed beleive the same, the framers realized this and left the ultimate, final word to the people and the peoples representatives at the State level.

To add that the President has no business proposing amendments, a job which belongs either to the States or Congress by Constitution.

I find it interesting that some of the same people that say that the Constitution should not be done only to reflect "the good of the people", over the "will of the masses", are saying almost the opposite is true in the debate on the Electorial College (which would require a Constitutional Amendment)......

When it comes to certain topics (ie the election of our president) I think the will of the masses and the good of the people has a decided overlap. I am not against amending the Constitution in all cases, I am against amending it for the purpose of making discrimination legal.



I'm no fan of GW or the proposed marriage amendment, but thought it should be pointed out that Bush did not propose the amendment, he is merely endorsing it. I don't know if you were implying he had proposed it, but wanted to be sure. It was proposed by Congresswoman Marilyn Musgrave (R-Colorado).

And if you were a member of the majority and disagreed with decision of the activist judge would you say the judge is doing his job----? or if you were a member of the minority and the activist judge ruled against your view would you say the judge is doing his job?

By the way what makes a judge an activist? Some who agrees with the minority?

I would not label a judge for doing their job, even when I disagree with their rulings. Have I implied that I would? That tactic is one meant only to diminish their position. If I disagree with their rulings there are constructive ways to respond. Labeling one an activist judge is not one of them.

Premise: I support equal treatment under the law for the gay community! Whether you want to call it bondage, graftage, or (maybe) marriage, I'm old enough to think cultural traditionalism trumps "me right now" relativism.

Question: Can you give me a non-politicized definition of an "activist judge?
Seems to me there are two definitions currently in play politically!

1. good for the minority!
2. good for the majority!

Largely the term seems to be a pejorative to the current majority. Am I wrong?

Is the role of a judge to support minority rights or our Constitution which, believe it or not, supports the "will of the people" not the "good of the people". Who is to say what the "good of the people" is other than the will of the "majority of the people"?

God? I hope not--given the people he has purportedly spoken through historically. What I say to Relativists is, just because age has given me an understanding that tradition matters, don't call me a ------- Christian!

A constitutional amendment, whether called for reluctantly by the President to garner or support the political will of the majority or by you or me, is designed to record the collective "good of the people" as determined by the "will of the people" whether you, I or God like the result or not. The Judicial branch of government is not the final arbiter. The people by Constitutional amendment are!

Again, what should be the definition?

Ok let me see If I understand, you have an issue with the fact that I don't consider judges that rule in favor of a minority group to be activist. Well I don't and again I will say that I wouldn't consider them activist even if they didn't agree with my views.


Not sure how I can come up with a non political definition. I feel like we are splitting hairs. Just because I don't like the use of this term is not going to stop the use of it.


That is my point! Our impasse, though, is that my interpretation of the will or good (as I view the both as the same) of the people is to include all people, not just the majority. The President or Congressperson have a duty to represent all of the people. I view any change to the Constitution as serious. I view any leader that supports a discriminatory amendment as one that does not represent the people. The judge's job is to interpret the Constitution as it relates to each case. Because the President and whichever Congressperson that introduced the amendment don't like the fact that judges have deemed their views to be unconstitutional they run to amend the Constitution. An act I can not, nor will I ever, support.

To repeat the premise: I support equal treatment under the law for the gay community! Whether you want to call it bondage, graftage, or (maybe) marriage, I'm old enough to think cultural traditionalism trumps "me right now" relativism.


(emphasis added}

Do you recognize that you've just defined the unobtainable. "All" people agree about anything? It will never happen. Respectfully, I submit that this view is symptomatic of socialistic thinking. e.g. I believe it's good so everyone else "must" think so also. In effect, it's humanistic so all humans must agree with me! If you take that to the ultimate it's Hitlerian or Stalinarian.


(emphasis added again)

Again, an idealistic view that just can't happen. If the "majority" doesn't ultimately govern then the minority of a few or even one governs. That's ultimately known as totalitarianism! Whether of the "intellectual elite" or a Putin-like autocrat.

Ok! Who defines what is discriminatory; you, the leader, the judge, God, or the majority? I think it's the majority and I believe the drafters of our Constitution though so also! If a leader doesn't support the majority who do you suggest the leader support? If the leader believes the majority is wrong does he or she stand on personal principal? I hope so! Even if the majority (rightly or wrongly as judged by history) votes him out of office, so be it. If, for example, we make our own terrorist nests by joining the "axis of appeasement" then we have to sleep in them.



They are not running to amend the constitution, they're proposing an amendment based upon personal belief and the belief that the majority might support it. They have the same rights that you and I have!

Would you like a system where you were not able to propose an amendment, garner majority support, and have it passed by the majority? Are you denying them the equal right to propose an amendment just because we elected them?

The intent of this debate (and I shame myself for referring to the particular amendment in question) was for this not to become another Gay Marriage Debate. My intent was to look at any possible amendment that could possibly discriminate a minority population. I understand that you, in regards to Gay Marriage, support rights for all. My responses, though, are based on generalization of any amendment.

With that said, I would like to respond to some of your points.

My views, even if you view them as idealistic, are based on what the Framers of the Constitution intended. My ideology is liberty for all. I believe in limited government, State Sovereignty to govern as they see fit. I view the Constitution as only to limit the power of the Federal Government and grant rights to the individual. I hold the same view of factions (as described in the Federalist Papers) as a possible result of majority rule (and yes I admit that factions can be formed by minorities). Perhaps you deem this ideology as Socialist, Totalitarian, or whatever else, but this is my ideology, and I stand by it.


Yes they have a right to propose such an amendment. I have a right not support those that wish to change our Constitution so that they can not only "lawfully" discriminate against a group of people but also take away the State's right to Sovereignty.

I agree this is about Constitutional amendment. The only reason for defining the premise was to keep the debate focused where it belongs, on the Constitution, and away from gay rights activists and religionists.



So Was Mine! Your views, which are IMHO, idealistic are not as you state what the Framers intended in the Constitution. At least in my opinion, they framed a Constitution, not a Declaration of Independence, which specifically calls for an amendment process where the will of the majority controls the process.

"Liberty and Justice for All" makes sense as a stated and declared goal. Its just that, an unobtainable goal that can be strived for; an ideal! It has absolutely nothing to do with a Constitution designed to govern an often fractious bunch of idealists, religionists, capitalists, socialists, and "I'm just right cause I'm right" anarchists.



I couldn't agree with you more! You have an absolute right not to support anyone you disagree with. If you support the concept of republican democracy you also have the obligation to support the will of the majority in your State and the will of the super-majority of the States of our Republic. If you and a majority of like thinking individuals can peacefully, within the constraints of the "rule of law", change the majority view you have met your Constitutional responsibililies . Thank whatever deity that may exist that we have this right!

Much of our world still doesn't, which included 25 million people in Iraq until 1 year ago! Thanks to Dubya's "lies", they now at least have a chance!

Just a question. Why do you think the Amendment process exists for this common good, or will of the people, or any of that junk when the "people" are not mentioned in the Amendment Clause of the constitution at all? Offwind, what are you basing your opinion on? Surely not the Constitution, because there is nothing there to support your opinion.

As I'm sure you know, amendment is by affirmative vote of 75% of the states. Although the procedure varies from state to state, I think of the Constitutional Convention process where the delegates are elected, generally with their position on the amendment known, by the majority of registered voters. I didn't say a damned thing about "good of the people" did I other than that their elected representatives vote on behalf of the state?

Umm, yes you DID say something about "the good of the people"... in fact you did it yesterday:



I ask you again, what in the clause on Amending the Constitution leads you to believe that the framers intended it to be a device excercised by the general will of the people; especially since the Senate (which was NOT an elected body at the time) plays such a vital role.

I have a few questions, not directed at anyone in particular...Who determines what is "good for the people"? Why are these people qualified to judge what is good for over 200 million people? And why in a representative democracy should the people not be involved in the changing of the Consitution that they themselves hold their gov't to the restrictions of?

CP

I vote for the good of the people. Just because it may not be popular doesn't mean it's not right. Equality has always been a hot topic throughout our nations history and this is just another hurdle for a minority to overcome. Whites were just as adamant about blacks being able to vote and having equal rights. The same thing with womens suffrage and the plight of the Native Americans. It may not be popular at the moment to give gays the right to marry, but it was also popular 40 years ago to make blacks use separate public bathrooms and for them to ride in the back of the bus.

BJ: Welcome back! I understand what you are saying, and obviously agree with you in the case of civil rights, etc. However, now, modern times...We just don't have those huge social problems...But I digress, who decides what is best for over 200 million people?

CP

The majority of the 200+ million people generally via delegates directly elected by them to represent their desires at state constitutional conventions. These are convened solely to act on a proposed amendment. Ratification of the amendment is accomplished by the affirmative vote of 75% of the States. Failure to obtain a 75% majority results in rejection. In a few cases the elected state legislatures retain the right to vote on behalf of the constituents although this has become less and less common.

Article 6 US. Constitution

Right, and if these representatives vote against everything that they're people are for, who are they representing?

CP

Thanks Conservepat! It's nice to be back. Some times you gotta take a break from debating or you end up debating your partner and it ends up with me sleeping on the couch!

What! you don't like a representative government? Amend the Constitution to change it! You don't like your representatives? Vote them out!

No, not at all, I'm all for it...What I asked, once in a prior post, and in my latest post, that have gone unanswered are:

CP

If I said "good of the people" it was only to redefine the original question to state that the "good of the people" is determined by the "will of the people" as controlled by our Constitution--which is subject to amendment by the will of the people. Circular Right?

See Article I and Article 6 of the Constitution.

All you're doing is parsing words! In All cases the members of the Federal legislature were elected directly by the people of each state or indirectly by representatives elected by majority of the people of each state!

Just like I didn't say "good of the people", I didn't say "democracy" . I said republican democracy. Probably should have said "representative republican democracy" to quiet the word parsers!

CP



The people via elected representatives. If the majority doesn't like their representatives they can throw the bums out! It's called recall! Or on constitutional matters via elected delegates as I mentioned earlier.




If you're talking about legislators it's because the majority of the people in each state or congressional district elected them to be their representatives. See item 1. If you're talking about Judges that's a whole new thread!



They are involved. See item 1 and prior posts on constitutional amendments and conventions.



Obviously themselves, other Pols, lobbyists, special interests, and Moveon.org!
See item 1.

There are plenty of elected officials who are unpopular, don't represent their people, that aren't being recalled [Dennis Kucinich for one, I'm sure our Ohio ADers can back me on that]. Just because these people are eleceted, that doesn't mean that they are going to make the decisions that are for the "good of the people".
And as I said, just because they are elected, doesn't mean that they do what they're supposed to do.
Not as directly as they should be. The Constitution was originally in place so that the people could decide the restrictions that are placed on the gov't.
Lol, I've got to agree with you there. But that's kinda my point.

CP

CP,

All I can say is "See Item 1"

offwind: I've adressed that "item". Just because the people have voted for them, doesn't 100% legitimize them. By acting in the interest of their people they are legitimized. And also, can you adress my other points...Those that don't have to do with "item one".

CP