There’s this whole thing called “Representative Democracy”. I’ve heard it’s good. 
Yeah, well how do we decide whether or not we allow the populace to vote on something? Ultimately, it’s the populace which will vote in the politicians, and if the populace really wants to vote on civil rights issues, there is no way to prevent them from doing so except by a non-democratic process.
I don’t see your point. The question in the thread isn’t, “How do we get the people to give up ballot initiatives on these questions?” It’s just whether or not questions of civil rights should be put to the electorate. But to answer, you could propose a constitutional amendment which includes the limitation of ballot initiatives as part of an overall package the public will approve of. That wouldn’t be an undemocratic process.
When civil or legal rights are expanded through Constitutional Amendments, the nation as a whole goes through a process of debate and discussion the the result is some sort of national consensus. Even if your side lost, at least the discussion was held and some sort of vote was taken- even if it is only the ratification process.
When civil rights are simply invented or creted anew without national debate discussion and resolution- they are a prickly point in the side of the citizenry for a long long time. Thus we have the divide over abortion and affirmative action.
How is it any different for a judge to “force” same-sex marriage than for a judge to “force” interracial marriage? Prop 8 was nothing more than glorified mob rule. What’s the point of even having a written constitution if it’s ridiculously easy to amend?
The problem arises when the majority gets to vote on minority issues. A straight majority might vote that gays cannot marry. A white majority might vote that blacks cannot go to the same schools. A Christian majority might vote to put Jews in a ghetto. Some issues should not be decided by the entire community because they are not issues that affect the entire community. It’s the same as if everyone in America got to vote on who the governor of California was - it’s an issue that only effects Californians so why should people in other states get to vote on it?
Maybe the problem is that taking a right away is too easy if it only has to be 51% on a ballot? Its one thing when a large percentage of society isnt ready for it and quite another when you just need to convince enough people to sign up to vote to have it taken away.
It seems to me that granting a freedom should need less votes or requirements than taking one away, maybe a system could be developed around that?
Otara
That is part of what I was trying to get at in my OP.
You might be on to something. I know that to raise taxes, many times there has to be a majority of voters voting, the so-called double majority. Many of these gay marriage bans have been constitutional amendments. Maybe to amend the constitution, you should need the double majority too.
IIRC, Ataraxy Florida did have their own form of “supermajority” provision (60% of the vote) for their similar amendment, and it passed with no problem. But at least it shows some sense of making it not just one more consultation on library financing (and it works both ways: Florida’s will be much harder to overturn than Cali’s) And no, Otara, it would not do to make the amendment to “take away” be harder than to “give” (in any case, here NO amendment “gave”, specifically!); that’s not how these legal systems work.
I myself just find California’s model of seemingly unfettered rule-by-inititative a bit too loose, but even further, having worked with legislation for over a decade I feel that making it a routine thing to laden a constitution with specific ground-level operational policies, be it marriage requirements or water district assesments, is bad legislative form, whether done by the people or by the representatives.
I have a funny feeling that if we did that, we’d soon be seeing initiatives demanding the “freedom” to hire people at two cents an hour, or the “freedom” to produce cars that ignore emissions requirements, or other such “freedoms”.
Yes, yes, democracy is the tyranny of the majority on the minority (as opposed to monarchy, which is the dictature of the minority over the majority. Only not the same majority. Nor minority. But gay royalty sounds fun.).
What else is new ? Care to offer a better system ?
@Otara : I demand freedom from the oppression of my downstairs neighbour. He insists my playing the drums at 3 AM bothers him, but that’s just an expression of my God granted right to freedom of speech ! Art is my preferred form of expression, and we’re not going to censor artists are we ? By all that’s holy and the Declaration of Human Rights, he should be put away for a long, long time. Or at least until I’ve got 16th hi-hat notes cum double bass polyrythm under control.
post-edit window addendum : for what it’s worth, France got around the whole gay marriage thing by mutual compromise : the government provided everyone a new kind of civil union called PACS (acronym for I Have No Idea Civil Something, but now that I think about it, the sonority is not innocent at all, is it ?) which grants the recipients every tax break, heritage mechanics and whatnot regular marriage does.
The religious right grudgingly agreed on the grounds that “at least it’s not marriage”. The gay community (and atheist hetero couples) grudgingly agreed because “at least we’ve got the same rights”. Democracy in action : nobody’s happy, but it sorta works. Provided both sides quit acting like 4 year olds ;).
But ultimately they get to vote on it anyway. To use one of your examples, it is theoretically possible white Americans could vote away the civil rights of black Americans. They can’t do it easily, but they can do it; you’d need to have them vote in a President, a House, a Senate, and 38 state legislatures and governors willing to sign off on the Constitutional amendment. It’s a hell of a long shot, but it could be done - and if there was actually a willingness among white Americans to do it, it would be possible. You can’t eliminate that possibility without eliminating democracy entirely.
In a democracy, the only structural issue is how immediate the connection is between voting and result. Ultimately, all power derives from the people, and that means voting; what most democracies have done is to institute measures by which the government moves deliberately and slowly. In most countries, laws are hard to pass at all, or can be vetoed by the executive, or shot to hell by the judiciary. But it’s always possible, if the populace is sufficiently determined, to get past those barriers.
What makes the California situation striking is the immediacy of it, because there’s no check or balance on a ballot proposition. It can be reversed just as easily, of course, or could be reversed the hard way (by electing a legislature and governor willing to change the Constitution of the State of California in a way that could negate this result.)
But either way, it’s always the people talking. The only issue is how quickly and easily you want opinion changed to law.
Yes, direct democracy is a horrible idea brought in by the Progressives (99% of the stuff brought in by that movement is statist crap), and it should be gotten rid of. Republican Democracy is a much better and stabler way of going about things. I do not, however, support legislation via the courts. For one thing, if we give them the power to unilaterally decide issues of civil rights, what happens when they rule *against *their expansion or even for their reduction?
Valete,
Vox Imperatoris
No it wouldn’t. But what if the public decides later to change it, and they elect politicians who change the constitution so that it does allow direct voting on civil rights issues? You can set it up that way democratically, but you can’t keep it that way democratically if the people don’t want to keep it that way.
So, no, there is no way to ensure that civil rights can’t be voted on by direct popular voting except by non-democratic processes.
That makes sense. But what has it to do with the question at hand?
Vox I. - could you please offer some evidence - aside from the tenets of your own peculiar idealogy - supporting your claim that 99% of the what the Progressives brought to government was statist crap?
This is a two step process:
1- produce an exhaustive list of all changes brought to government by the Progressive movement
2- produce analysis or evidence that it is all statist crap
I don’t understand the confusion. It gives a direct answer to the OP’s question:
Sure, you can ensure that the people never vote on civil rights issues, so long as you are willing do so by undemocratic means.
Which is pretty much what I said in my first post, and **Miller **said in his, and which you’ve been challenging.
Rights are something that is “imposed”? Really? Upon whom, in this case? Please clarify.
Do note, btw, that the right in question is not gay marriage but equal protection of the laws. Can you explain why that should be limited?
Interesting imagery there. Perhaps even Freudian.
Miller, that’s why we have a Constitution, and why it takes a damn good argument and a lot of work to amend it. Among other things, it’s an articulation of the rights we do require to be safe from temporary passions, and not subject to simple majority vote or local nullification.
Respecting the rights of minorities is something that is imposed on those who otherwise might refuse to do so.