Subject:
|
Re: National vote on handguns?
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Mon, 23 Jul 2001 03:18:40 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
563 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Daniel Jassim writes:
> Number one: I am not blowing hot air.
Fair enough.
> Number two: I am not confused about the electoral college. I was, however,
> hasty and unspecific in that post but I hope I've clarified to your
> satisfaction.
Let it slide.
> Number three: Regardless of how detailed or unspecific we are, nothing you
> or I say on LUGNET adds up to a hill of beans because we are not wealthy nor
> are we in positions of local, state or national political power, nor do we
> belong to the Democratic or Republican parties.
You've said this before, and it's true, there is no doubt about that.
But it's not relevant unless the goal in posting is, merely by posting, to
effect this change. I don't see posting that way, but rather as a way to
explore viewpoints, understand the viewpoints of others better, refine our
own viewpoints, and once in a great while, cause someone to change their
mind about something... oh and to, believe it or not, have some fun and
lively discussion.
> I know that the Constitution cannot be changed via a referrendum and I don't
> recall ever saying that the national vote I am suggesting would, in and of
> itself, suddenly amend the Constitution. If I did say this somewhere, please
> point it out to me.
Until you clarified it, it was a pretty clear implication to me. It's
clarified now, thanks.
> But I was under the impression that a national referrendum can be used in
> support of a congressional motion to amend the Constitution. In other words,
> it would be hard evidence of public opinion to begin the legal process of
> changing the Constitution. Or it could also support a motion to accept
> national referrendums as a means of changing the Constitution. Either way,
> it would be hard for the politicians to ignore.
It would be hard to argue that it could not be so used (to "send a message"
to Congress, even a non binding one) because we've never had one. Ever. So
who's to say that if it happened that it could not be so used?
I'm still at a loss as to how to go about causing a referendum (maybe it's
in this case, if it's non binding, more accurate to call it a plebscite?) to
happen, though. Do you have any thoughts on that?
I would think that if one argued that we just wanted to have congress know
exactly how we feel, that taking an accurate poll, instead of an actual
count of every nose, might be argued (by opponents of such, not by me,
actually) as sufficient.
(I read a rather depressing little SF story in which such polling actually
took the *place* of elections, and culminated in the pollers finding the
"one average man" who got to decide on everything. Uck. Totally tangential,
of course, to the argument, since that's not being advocated at all, but I
did want to mention it since polls sort of scare me)
> Each and every American of legal voting age (as many as possible, not just
> the ones who show up on election day) deserves a say on this matter so that
> the laws being made will reflect public opinion. It can go either way
> (though I've stated which I'd personally prefer) but at least the people
> would be truly represented. That's about as much detail I can give on the >issue.
Fair enough. Here's another question then, is this the only issue you'd put
before the people this way? Or just the most important one, or just the one
that we happen to be talking about at the moment?
Maybe in another thread I'd like to dig into the notion of democracy vs.
republic, and my assertion before that I find direct popular decision making
to be not a good idea, but not this one, OK?
++Lar
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: National vote on handguns?
|
| Number one: I am not blowing hot air. Number two: I am not confused about the electoral college. I was, however, hasty and unspecific in that post but I hope I've clarified to your satisfaction. Number three: Regardless of how detailed or unspecific (...) (23 years ago, 23-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
110 Messages in This Thread:
(Inline display suppressed due to large size. Click Dots below to view.)
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
