Civics 101: the powers of government were divided into three bodies to prevent one body of government from gaining totalitarian powers over the people. "Checks and balances" were put in place as a means for the branches of government themselves to hold the other(s) in check, not for the government itself to hold the people in check. How incredible that a 'constitutionalist' party member could be so deluded as to its purpose and construction. The U.S. has a representative republican form of government, or as said often before, it is a democratic republic. The premise that election of candidates effectively ends the voice of the people in matters of government, is substantively flawed.
Originally Posted by Rhino
I'll refer to The Declaration of Independence, (a document I would suppose you to be familiar with):
Learning of our history, and the often-orated beliefs of the founding fathers themselves, how could you possibly concieve otherwise, that our system of government was designed for the people's voices to be heard, not ignored, and for the government's powers to be limited? What does "deriving its powers from the consent of the governed" mean?
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.
Truthfully, not long, but because the people's will for these institutions to end, not because of the government's interventions. Although my premise for saying this is perhaps a topic for another day. Real, lasting, and substantive change occurrs by the will of the people, and the progress of the enlightenment of the masses, not by will of a government, nor by even the election of a President. There are those who claim that the election of an African-American president is historically significant, but the pathway to that point is the cause which motivated the effect, not the reverse. The government didn't elect Obama, the people did.
If that were the case- how much longer do you think slavery or segregation would have continued?
Slavery, as issue, became a cause of the greatest tests to our plan of government, that being the ability of the States to govern themselves, against the overbearance of federal powers. This matter is not at issue here. The USSC has delivered its opinion on the topic that we debate here, as Maclean so poignantly stated. The opinion of USSC was that this was a matter for the States to decide. Now then, how would the USSC consider the constitutionality of a State's decision to hold election of the people, then defy them by manipulation of the rule of law, for the purpose of pandering to a minority vote?
Perhaps the greatest 'right' of the people, is the right for their voices to be heard in a representative government. If, indeed, that is a view of the libertarians, it would seem that the core value would certainly be to demand government's responsiveness to the people, and not the subjection of the people to the whim of government.
The Libertarian viewpoint, in short, means the government should only be there to protect our rights and settle civil disputes. Those rights being the right to (and protect) our life, liberty, and property.
If you consider the majority of the voters of the State of California, 'a mob', then perhaps.
What smacks of dictatorship is a concept as simple as mob rule.
When you base a logical argument on an illogical supposition, you circumvent the credibility of your own reasoning. However, I'll go with it... why not?
What if right now the majority of Americans decide countybear, for no reason at all, needed to be put down like a rabid animal? Maybe they don't like your opinions or they just think you smell funny?
When a majority of Americans wish to deprive countybear of his 'right' to life, it is already constitutionally secured that countybear is entitled to due process of law. Thus, I must be given all possible means of defense, all reasonable doubt, and exhaust the appeals process before that right is forfeit. Its called the 'rule of law'.
Proposition 8 isn't a deprivation of right, it is a refusal of recognition, and such is certainly not tantamount to a deprivation of life itself. Big difference.
See argument above, and please, you beleaguer the point. Beat another dead horse.
What if the majority of americans believed that people with red hair should be made slaves? Or that people borns with disfigurements or disabilities should be put in internment camps?
See above, again. Then, see it again... then, see it again... If you aren't by then convinced of just how utterly ridiculous this is, I give up.
When you speak of majority rule- you are speaking of mob rule. And that is about as un-American as you can get.