Subject:
|
Re: National vote on handguns?
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Mon, 23 Jul 2001 12:57:34 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
653 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Christopher L. Weeks writes:
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Larry Pieniazek writes:
>
> > I happen to think that
> > referendums are a terrible idea at the national level, because I think a
> > more representative and less straight democratic government is better.
>
> I think I disagree, though I'd invite anyone to convince me. I think we >should
> do away with all our laws, start over, and put everything up for straight
> democratic vote. And each and every law/issue would need 75% in favor in >order
> to pass. I'd bet good money that we'd end up with a preferable system.
I like the part about doing away with all our laws and starting over. There
is a part of _Moon is a Harsh Mistress_ where the professor is lecturing the
constitutional convention and he is urging them to think out of the box on
government types. (I admit I cribbed my previous proposal for voting in
proportion to taxes paid net of subsidies from there)
Anyway, he as one of his suggestions) suggests that there be two houses, one
that is charged with passing laws. Any law needs 2/3 vote to be enacted
because "if less than 2/3 think it's a good idea, it probably isn't". The
other house is charged with ABOLISHING laws. Any law needs only a 1/3 vote
in that house to get removed... because "if more than 1/3 think an existing
law is a bad idea, it probably is"
I'd love to see *that* tried. Heck, I'd love to see laws (other than the
basic "thou shalt not kill" type common laws) get sunsetted.
But anyway my problem with referendums (although the 75% margin is a good
safeguard) is just fundamentally that I am not keen on "anything goes" and
fear that referendums could deal with ANY topic whatever. If some demagogue
could convince 75% (of those who bothered to vote, or of all?) that
redheaded lefthanders ought to be taken out and shot, then it's law.
Yes, the constitution could be changed to say that too, but it's a bit
harder to do that because the process has deliberate speed bumps.
> > Me, I'd love to see a constitutional convention. We've never had one of
> > those. It would give a chance for wholesale change to the constitution
> > rather than one amendment at a time change.
>
> Agreed!
In view of the above I can see why it would be scary to have one held...
I freely admit these are all wishes on my part, not proposals that I am
clear on how to go about getting implemented.
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: National vote on handguns?
|
| (...) I asked about this before: (URL) I wanted to clarify your answer. Specifically, would you support "starting over" with new laws even if those laws ultimately conflicted (perhaps diametrically) with your own views? And, in addressing the 75% (...) (23 years ago, 23-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: National vote on handguns?
|
| (...) I think I disagree, though I'd invite anyone to convince me. I think we should do away with all our laws, start over, and put everything up for straight democratic vote. And each and every law/issue would need 75% in favor in order to pass. (...) (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
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
