sanctuary?!? (design, title, best)

[Moose Whisperer]

Originally Posted by Glitch

It is for the legislature to decide, not the people. We don't live in a democracy, thankfully. If the people don't like what the legislature decides, let them elect a new legislature, but the people should have no direct say in any state policy.

Yep, better do away with all those pesky State ballot measures and initiatives. Can't be letting the citizens circumvent their legislatures and have a direct say in their State Government. Heaven forbid.

[Glitch]

Originally Posted by Moose Whisperer

Yep, better do away with all those pesky State ballot measures and initiatives. Can't be letting the citizens circumvent their legislatures and have a direct say in their State Government. Heaven forbid.

State referendums and initiatives are relatively new. They didn't exist before 1910, and it could be argued that they violate Article IV, Section 4, Clause 1 of the US Constitution. States are suppose to have a republican form of government, not a direct democracy.

[Floyd_Davidson]

Originally Posted by Glitch

State referendums and initiatives are relatively new. They didn't exist before 1910, and it could be argued that they violate Article IV, Section 4, Clause 1 of the US Constitution. States are suppose to have a republican form of government, not a direct democracy.

There is nothing about a "republican from of government" that outlaws having an elected Executive and an elected Legislature which can be overuled under limited specific circumstances by a vote of the electorate. It would perhaps be significant if there were no special circumstances required, and virtually all law was generated by ballot initiatives... but no state does that.

It might be equal and just as frivolous to say that an appointed Judicial branch makes our government other than a "republican form".

[stiffnecked]

Originally Posted by Glitch

It is for the legislature to decide, not the people. We don't live in a democracy, thankfully. If the people don't like what the legislature decides, let them elect a new legislature, but the people should have no direct say in any state policy.

The people should absolutely have the right to interject themselves into the political process through the initiative petition process. Including but not limited to the removal of elected officials.

If you don't do a good job for your employer you can be fired, terminated, given the axe. Even if your work is covered by a labor union contract you can still be fired even though your employer has to jump through more hoops to do it.

Why should legislators be offered more protection? If they aren't doing the job and representing their constituients why should they have 4 years of job protection?

If politicians knew they had this hanging over their head they would be much more preceptive to the desires of their electorate. Same with legislation. They pass some dumb stupid laws. The people should be able to address this and get them changed on their own volition.

Government is supposed to be, of the people, by the people and for the people.

[Glitch]

Originally Posted by stiffnecked

The people should absolutely have the right to interject themselves into the political process through the initiative petition process. Including but not limited to the removal of elected officials.

If you don't do a good job for your employer you can be fired, terminated, given the axe. Even if your work is covered by a labor union contract you can still be fired even though your employer has to jump through more hoops to do it.

Why should legislators be offered more protection? If they aren't doing the job and representing their constituients why should they have 4 years of job protection?

I disagree. If people want to interject themselves into the political process, let them run for office. As far as the legislators you dislike, you are free to vote them out of office when their term expires. They have no protection, only by obtaining the majority of the vote can they retain their position. If they don't get the majority of the vote, they are gone. Just because you might disagree with their vote is no reason to recall the representative.

The State referendum/initiative process amounts to "mob rule" which does far more harm than good. That is why we are suppose to be a republic and not a democracy.

Originally Posted by stiffnecked

If politicians knew they had this hanging over their head they would be much more preceptive to the desires of their electorate. Same with legislation. They pass some dumb stupid laws. The people should be able to address this and get them changed on their own volition.

Government is supposed to be, of the people, by the people and for the people.

The politicians have to face the popular vote every time their term expires. So it is already "hanging over their head." If you don't like the way they vote, elect someone else. Recalling a politician because you don't like the way they vote is very childish, extremely damaging, and never intended by our Founding Fathers.

Although it is a nice platitude, government has never been "of the people, by the people, and for the people." The people never had a say in the creation or ratification of the US Constitution. The people never had a say in the creation or ratification of their own state constitutions. If government was "for the people" why is Homeland Security issuing terrorist warnings on American citizens who disagree with Obama's policies? So while that phrase is a nice myth, it has nothing to do with reality.

[stiffnecked]

This is why our system is so screwed up. There's no reason to keep inept politicians around until their term expires. The initiative process does have a place in shaping and setting state government policies. It's done in many other places, no reason it can't be done here. We'll just have to disagree even though my viewpoint is obviously the better one

[Moose Whisperer]

An interesting contrast in perspectives here:

Originally Posted by Glitch

Although it is a nice platitude, government has never been "of the people, by the people, and for the people." ...So while that phrase is a nice myth, it has nothing to do with reality.

Originally Posted by Abraham Lincoln

Four score and seven years ago our fathers brought forth on this continent, a new nation, conceived in Liberty, and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal.

Now we are engaged in a great civil war, testing whether that nation, or any nation so conceived and so dedicated, can long endure. We are met on a great battle-field of that war. We have come to dedicate a portion of that field, as a final resting place for those who here gave their lives that that nation might live. It is altogether fitting and proper that we should do this.

But, in a larger sense, we can not dedicate -- we can not consecrate -- we can not hallow -- this ground. The brave men, living and dead, who struggled here, have consecrated it, far above our poor power to add or detract. The world will little note, nor long remember what we say here, but it can never forget what they did here. It is for us the living, rather, to be dedicated here to the unfinished work which they who fought here have thus far so nobly advanced. It is rather for us to be here dedicated to the great task remaining before us -- that from these honored dead we take increased devotion to that cause for which they gave the last full measure of devotion -- that we here highly resolve that these dead shall not have died in vain -- that this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom -- and that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth.

[Glitch]

Originally Posted by stiffnecked

This is why our system is so screwed up. There's no reason to keep inept politicians around until their term expires. The initiative process does have a place in shaping and setting state government policies. It's done in many other places, no reason it can't be done here. We'll just have to disagree even though my viewpoint is obviously the better one

But "the system" is not screwed up. Article V of the US Constitution provides a means for making alterations. If you think six years is too long of a term for US Senate, for example, or you want to limit the number of consecutive terms an individual may serve, get an amendment proposed, passed, and ratified in order to change it to whatever you like. The document has been changed 27 times since its ratification, the last time in 1992. There are more than 40 proposed amendments currently pending in Congress. Maybe it is time for another change.

The initiative process does have its place at the state level, true. When making changes to the State Constitution, it should be ratified by at least two-thirds of the popular vote. Which is the way it works now. However, the initiative/referendum process should not be used to enact law or remove politicians or judges. That is why we have a legislature, to enact laws and impeach crooked politicians/judges. Even the impeachment process is "mob rule", which is why no punishment beyond removal from office is allowed. AFTER they are removed from office, then they can face criminal proceedings and go to trial, but the politicians are not allowed to inflict punitive measures.

Your method would make you extremely popular with the masses, for as long as it lasted. The Founding Father's method, which I support, would ensure a more stable state government. As we are witnessing today, when the masses learn they can vote themselves the largess of the treasury, democracy fails. Direct democracy is the path toward the entitlement mentality.

[Glitch]

Originally Posted by Moose Whisperer

An interesting contrast in perspectives here:

Yes, it is indeed a lovely turn of the phrase, but as with all political speeches, devoid of substance.

[Moose Whisperer]

Originally Posted by Glitch

As we are witnessing today, when the masses learn they can vote themselves the largess of the treasury, democracy fails. Direct democracy is the path toward the entitlement mentality.

Of that, there is no disagreement. However, I would ask then what really is the difference? Either the masses directly vote themeselves a free ride, or elect pandering politicians who do it for them (as we see today). It would seem to me that once the entitlement mentality gains the numerical majority, the end result is the same in either case.