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've always thought that one should be able to designate where they want their tax money spent.
TFeds have absolutely no interest in this because THEY are the brilliant, smart ones and WE are the unwashed, ignorant masses.
A great idea. Voters decide hot button issues rather than politicians and judges.
This would never work as liberals, especially, would be forced to admit publicly that the positions they claim "the vast majority of Americans" back, do not in fact enjoy that support.
Works for me.
In fact, that's the only rational way to settle those kinds of issues, including abortion, school bussing, drug laws, highway speed limits, and a number of other things.
In colonial days pols had no qualms about voting on such issues and there was a reason for that. The typical politician was a fifth or sixth son of a plantation owner and when he drew the short straw it was his turn to spend the summer in the state house repping the interests of his old man. The guy didn't even want to be there; he wanted to be back on the plantation chasing girls and figured with any luck it was somebody elses turn next year. Voting on a social issue was simply part of a civil obligation.
Our present professional politicians hate those kinds of issues and fear them. ANY vote on such an issue is going to alienate 45% of the guy's constituents, and then any sort of a clumsy act after that which alienates another 5.1 percent and the guy's out the door. Naturally he wants to shunt such decisions off to professional judges who behave like satraps and have no accountability to the people at all.
That's the entire reason for the present all-out war on supreme court positions and the accompanying insanity. The only rational way to settle such issues is via plebescite votes as you suggest.
BRAVO!
Perhaps the biggest reason is that we're a representative republic, and not a pure democracy.
In other words, it would require a massive re-structuring of our entire system of government through Constitutional amendment and approval by 3/4 of the states.
That's not going to happen.
People would have to be held responsible for knowing the details of an issue that is up for a national vote.
LOL. These types of things have been outlawed due to their use in discriminating against blacks. So we would need more Constitutional amendments and need to get them passed over the objections of people with an historical gripe.
That's not going to happen.
Also, perhaps a passed referenda can only be reviewed once every ten years or so.
"Referenda" is the plural. "Referendum" is the singular. You will sound more intelligent if you use the language properly.
What you are suggesting is that the people be able to write legislation that the Congress can not amend for some period of time. This may not even be advisable, and if it is, would require serious amendments which are not going to happen.
As long as there are constraints that govern this exercise of the people so as not to loose site of our laws and principles.
"Lose" means the opposite of "win" or "gain." "Loose" is the opposite of "tighten" or "bind." "Site" is a location, while "sight" is the sense of seeing.
You want to throw open all manner of political questions to the whims of the majority and yet still have "constraints" to not lose sight of our "principles." That's fine, until someone wants to protect civil rights as a "principle" and then your abortion referendum is a non-starter.
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?
It will certainly emasculate the politicians, but will also create chaos. Doesn't California have a referendum system? Don't all these crazy measures and spending bills become part of their Constitution because of that?
Yeah, let's do that for the whole nation instead of having the Constitutional Republic we've inherited.
SD