Swiss Voters Approve Ban on Construction of Minarets

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=agTGRi25eC_M

“The ban “contradicts human rights, in particular the freedom of worship. And it contradicts the European Convention on Human Rights,” (Swiss parliamentarrian Andreas) Gross said.

Someone tell Andy maybe he should propose a minaret be built for every Christian cathedral constructed in Saudi Arabia.

‘Misdirected by Emotions’

Andreas Gross, a member of the Swiss parliament’s house of representatives and president of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe in Strasbourg, France, called the ban a “slap in the face to everyone who has an idea of the human rights. This is clearly the result of a lack of information and political education in Switzerland.”

yeah we know it sucks when the people express their own will instead of beeing governed from self claimed elites (who of course are the only one who know what is good for the people and how they should act) .

The link says Bloomberg, but it goes to the poster’s own website.

I don’t think that will sit well with the FR Moderators.

Under the progressive code, “Human rights” only apply to murderers, rapists, thieves, tyrannical regimes, and all enemies of America and Israel. Of course, you know that already.

yeah we know it sucks when the people express their own will instead of beeing governed from self claimed elites

In Switzerland, voters can put a constitutional amendment to a popular vote by referendum, after obtaining a certain number of signatures. I believe it also has to be approved by a majority of cantons (states.) So the Swiss appear much more able to express their will than Americans are. Our system leaves us beholden to the elites.

In the American system, the amendments have to originate in the national legislature, and be passed by 2/3rds majority, then it must go to the states, where it requires 3/4ths majority of the state legislatures.

The American Declaration of Independence says:

"it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish" government that is destructive to their rights.

But when the Constitution was ratified, that changed. Now it should read:

it is the right of the people to alter or abolish it, providing such alterations receive two thirds majority in both houses, and then receieve 3/4ths majority of the state legislatures.

There is also a convention process, which requires greater than a simple majority. I believe the Swiss system requires a simple majority.

Here's what Patrick Henry said at the time about the Constitutional amendment process:

Hence it appears that three fourths of the states must ultimately agree to any amendments that may be necessary. Let us consider the consequence of this. However uncharitable it may appear, yet I must tell my opinion — that the most unworthy characters may get into power, and prevent the introduction of amendments. Let us suppose — for the case is supposable, possible, and probable — that you happen to deal those powers to unworthy hands; will they relinquish powers already in their possession, or agree to amendments? Two thirds of the Congress, or of the state legislatures, are necessary even to propose amendments. If one third of these be unworthy men, they may prevent the application for amendments; but what is destructive and mischievous, is, that three fourths of the state legislatures, or of the state conventions, must concur in the amendments when proposed! In such numerous bodies, there must necessarily be some designing, bad men. To suppose that so large a number as three fourths of the states will concur, is to suppose that they will possess genius, intelligence, and integrity, approaching to miraculous. It would indeed be miraculous that they should concur in the same amendments, or even in such as would bear some likeness to one another; for four of the smallest states, that do not collectively contain one tenth part of the population of the United States, may obstruct the most salutary and necessary amendments. Nay, in these four states, six tenths of the people may reject these amendments; and suppose that amendments shall be opposed to amendments, which is highly probable, — is it possible that three fourths can ever agree to the same amendments? A bare majority in these four small states may hinder the adoption of amendments; so that we may fairly and justly conclude that one twentieth part of the American people may prevent the removal of the most grievous inconveniences and oppression, by refusing to accede to amendments. A trifling minority may reject the most salutary amendments. Is this an easy mode of securing the public liberty? It is, sir, a most fearful situation, when the most contemptible minority can prevent the alteration of the most oppressive government; for it may, in many respects, prove to be such. Is this the spirit of republicanism?

What, sir, is the genius of democracy? Let me read that clause of the bill of rights of Virginia which relates to this: 3d clause: — that government is, or ought to be, instituted for the common benefit, protection, and security of the people, nation, or community. Of all the various modes and forms of government, that is best, which is capable of producing the greatest degree of happiness and safety, and is most effectually secured against the danger of mal-administration; and that whenever any government shall be found inadequate, or contrary to those purposes, a majority of the community hath an indubitable, unalienable, and indefeasible right to reform, alter, or abolish it, in such manner as shall be judged most conducive to the public weal.

This, sir, is the language of democracy — that a majority of the community have a right to alter government when found to be oppressive. But how different is the genius of your new Constitution from this! How different from the sentiments of freemen, that a contemptible minority can prevent the good of the majority! If, then, gentlemen, standing on this ground, are come to that point, that they are willing to bind themselves and their posterity to be oppressed, I am amazed and inexpressibly astonished. If this be the opinion of the majority, I must submit; but to me, sir, it appears perilous and destructive. I cannot help thinking so. Perhaps it may be the result of my age. These may be feelings natural to a man of my years, when the American spirit has left him, and his mental powers, like the members of the body, are decayed. If, sir, amendments are left to the twentieth, or tenth part of the people of America, your liberty is gone forever…

The link says Bloomberg, but it goes to the poster’s own website.

Sorry about that. When I put the Bloomberg link, it gets rejected. When I put no link it gets rejected. Next time I will forward it to a random AP link. Would that work for you?

yes i like the swiss form of direct democracy too. they have votes on allmost everything. something we should learn from them. you are correct it looks like they really just need a simple 51% majority to even change the constitution!
“We” (Austria) too need 2/3 majority like in the US for changes in the constitution (i guess this would even count for votes in a national election over a constitutional change. for the rest we have the same system like the swiss. every one can start a referendum. if you get enought votes the government is forced to hold a national election over this (and the result is law binding for the government).

Interesting. Thanks for sharing that information. When I have time lately, I’m trying to explore other constitutions and methodologies employed around the world, to see what forms work and what don’t. It’s just a hobby.