Why not a National Referendum on Major Issues?

Many years have gone by since there has been a definitive resolution on many issues that challenge our society today. Perhaps some may challenge the effectiveness of our representatives in exercising the will of the people. I think a National Referendum on key issues may be beneficial to this great nation. For example, it may take the wind out of the sail of an extremist activist judge or perhaps force an action by the government that will address issues like illegal immigration in this country once and for all; without the need for a political hanging by the way.

How about a referenda to finally determine the will of the people on Roe vs Wade? Since the decision was made up from thin air and the apparently constitution has much interpretive room then leave it up to the people to decide how they want their society to behave.

Perhaps establishing the final definition of a marriage would be ideal. Even concluding the gun control issue would be nice. Also, how much money do we spend in the legislature talking about the same darn issues over and over again? How much money do politicians spend on pork in each and every bill? Her is an idea, why not give the President his line item veto?

National referendums have taken place in Denmark. The people there voted not to join the European Economic Community until the Danes forced changes in the treaty. Others like New Zealand and Australia have this right so why shouldn't the American people have the right to be consulted, within the confines of the constitution, on major national issues? Are we too stupid? Are we the ones not to be trusted? Would we destroy our country? I doubt it.

The fact is, a referenda on an issue can defuse the political implications for the elected official who is too worried about being reelected if he or she were to endorse a certain charged issue. It can also remove the influence of special interest groups, who do not represent the majority of America. It will also give American people a direct voice on long standing problems within our society.

Obviously these measures would have to be within the constrains of the constitution. People would have to be held responsible for knowing the details of an issue that is up for a national vote. Also, perhaps a passed referenda can only be reviewed once every ten years or so. As long as there are constraints that govern this exercise of the people so as not to loose site of our laws and principles. Most importantly, it will give the politicians a better feel for who we are as a people and elliminate the need for worthless polls on serious issues. What say you?

I think you would sound more intelligent if you actually had some good ideas.

So let's see your next article that you write. I'll even give you all day to proof read it instead of the 5 minutes it took me to write mine.

You don't like to see mistakes? Don't comment...go to another thread.

You need a stronger argument for changing our form of constitutional gov't than you happen to like some of the results.

Why? I would think whether or not people like the results of a particular form of government is the only reason they would need to keep it or change it.

It's not much of a change, anyway. We already do it. For every good referendum there are bad ones. For every good decision by a legislature there are bad ones.

I think you would sound more intelligent if you actually had some good ideas.

Perhaps you should try reading my post again. I explained to you many of the reasons why your idea is unworkable. And inadvisable.

So let's see your next article that you write. I'll even give you all day to proof read it instead of the 5 minutes it took me to write mine.

I don't post vanities. Take a whole day next time to proof read. There's nothing timely about your idea.

You don't like to see mistakes? Don't comment...go to another thread.

If you are looking for an Amen Corner, post your tripe elsewhere. Free Repulic is supposed to be for the discussion of news and ideas about government. Not arguments for abandoning our republic for an absolute democracy.

You need a stronger argument for changing our form of constitutional gov't than you happen to like some of the results.

Why?

Why? Why? The Framers of our Constitution knew why direct democracy was a bad idea. Why not study them?

It's not much of a change, anyway. We already do it.

Who already does it? Did I miss the last big National Referendum? I thought this was someone's lamebrain suggestion that we radically alter our Constitution. Now I hear we already do this?

No. Why do I need another reason other than whether or not I like the results? That seems to be a good guide.

You see. We do it on a state level now all the time. Now just expand that concept in your mind. Imagine all 50 states voting on the same issue at the same time. It's just a little bit more than what we do now. Kind of like Powerball - a multi-state effort.

No. Why do I need another reason other than whether or not I like the results? That seems to be a good guide.

I guess if you don't want to have a philosophy, take heed of history, or think about the future, that's one option. Just think about short-term results.

You see. We do it on a state level now all the time. Now just expand that concept in your mind. Imagine all 50 states voting on the same issue at the same time. It's just a little bit more than what we do now. Kind of like Powerball - a multi-state effort.

Like I said, it's a bad idea because the public is fickle and ignorant. This is why we have a representative republic.

And like I also said, this would require an amendment that will never happen.

So, to sum up, it's a foolish idea and it will ever happen. So, other than that, I think it's great.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.