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?
I see you use the term 'bridled". Then use the US Constitution as the governor. I agree.
Fine, we agree that State referendums are 'bridled' by both Article VI and the 14th Amendment.
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.
Wrong.. I can say that, just as Marshall said that in Marbury. -- 'Laws' repugnant to our Constitution are null & void from the minute they are enacted. -- Are you sure you got a "A" in constitutional law?
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.
Smoking is not protected in the Constitution.
Unenumerated rights are protected in the Constitutions 9th.. You're wrong again; - grade "F".
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?
Nope, if it was political.
You proposed a political amendment, not me. Now you say "if"? -- How weird.
I say the rights we have come from good sense and the Constitution.
I say our rights are self evident & inalienable. -- They do not "come from" the constitution. - Another "F".
I do not believe "individual rights" are absolute and neither do you. Do you?
Of course not. - Not that this will stop you from your sermon about "if you do":
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've never posted otherwise.
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.
Yep, we have far too many such 'regs', -- in good part due to lawyers just like you, imo.
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?