[tpaine]

"-- SUPER MAJORITIES RULE --" so claim certain misguided freepers:

"-- What makes a government a republic or a democracy, and how does this distinction relate to politics today?

Democracy as a form of government has been described as a "mobocracy," because it represents mob-rule, or the unbridled will of the masses.
In short, a simple majority has unlimited power to restrict or eliminate the rights of any minority or individual citizen.
-- In reference to the dangers of unbridled majority rule, the Framers had repeatedly warned against the "excesses of democracy."

Thus the Framers of our Constitution decided in peaceful assembly in 1787 to create a representative republic under a written Constitution. "The American Experiment" as it has been called, was the first time a government had been instituted in which the common people retain the majority of their rights and the ability to govern themselves, while at the same time the minority and individual were protected from the arbitrary or selfish desires of the masses.

The principal instrument which accomplished this was the Constitution, the supreme law of the land which formed our government, and provided the standard by which all subsequent laws are measured."

We are all pledged to support & defend the Constitution. - Calling for unbridled majority rule is akin to sedition, imo.

Are you saying the referendum process in several states is seditious?

What gives you that idea? -- Read the above for 'what I said'; defending unbridled majority rule is akin to sedition, imo. ..

State referendums are 'bridled' by both Article VI and the 14th Amendment, are they not?

Are you saying a political movement that would champion an amendment to the US Constitution to implement a national referendum would be sedition?

If that proposed amendment 'championed' ignoring our individual rights to life, liberty or property, -- you better believe it would be seditious.. - Can you agree?

Have you ever heard of CA Prop 13? Are you opposed?

I worked and voted for it. Nothing in prop 13 violates human rights. - Can you agree?

[Sunnyflorida]

"I worked and voted for it. Nothing in prop 13 violates human rights. - Can you agree?"

I see you use the term 'bridled". The use the US Constitution as the governor. I agree. Laws restricting smoking are either "bridled" of"unbridled". If you feel they are implemented "unbridled" then take it to court. You can challenge the process or the outcome, or both. But until you win in court or the sphere of public opinion (i.e. ballot) box you cannot say smoking laws are illegal. You may not like them, and I support your position to challenge them, but it is a political choice. The concept that smoke is an unbridgeable right is bunk.

Nothing in FL Six abrided rights either.

"If that proposed amendment 'championed' ignoring our individual rights to life, liberty or property, -- you better believe it would be seditious.. - Can you agree?"

Nope, if it was political. I say the rights we have come from good sense and the Constitution. I do not believe "individual rights" are absolute and neither do you. Do you? If you do you have a problem with consistency. Is your right to property superior my right to building codes? property taxes? confiscation? Is your right to life mean there cannot be a death penalty? Does you right to liberty include your right to walk down the street blasting a boom box at 4Am? We are a society of laws. And people have the right to lobby for any law. You cannot support some individual rights and not others. Unless you have a system of laws. I think the supreme right is the right for citizens to make and change the law. This includes amending the Constitution. One thing for sure. We have building codes and safety codes and other common good regulations. Smoking is not protected in the Constitution.