Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: autumnraine

Exactly the point.

Can’t endorse a process because it produced a favorable outcome in one case or a few cases.


18 posted on 11/04/2009 7:39:42 PM PST by indianrightwinger
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies ]


To: indianrightwinger

You can’t “endorse a process”, but you can condemn a legal method of redress under the state of Maine’s constitution.

Your reasoning on this appears to be oval - not even rising to the level of circular.


34 posted on 11/04/2009 7:56:26 PM PST by MortMan (Stubbing one's toes is a valid (if painful) way of locating furniture in the dark.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies ]

To: indianrightwinger
Can’t endorse a process because it produced a favorable outcome in one case or a few cases.

Conversely, I can't say that I'd not endorse a process just because it might, at some point in the future, produce a disfavourable outcome.

Referenda exist as an outlet for the expression of the will of the ultimate earthly source of sovereignty in a representative system - the people.

If the people pass a law you don't like, then you can either lump it, try to change peoples' minds, or move somewhere else. Referenda are a quite legitimate expression of the rights of the people of the States under the 10th amendment.

44 posted on 11/04/2009 8:31:32 PM PST by Titus Quinctius Cincinnatus (There are only two REAL conservatives in America - myself, and my chosen Presidential candidate)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson