We don't care what the voters say.

**archibaldcrane** · 2012-01-13 14:46

You're right - referendums are stupid, and the proposition system is the surest way to lead a state to ruin. The machinations of this particular referendum are irrelevant.

Is your argument really that if a law is failed to be created via a referendum then said law should never be created by any other way?

**Kuya** · 2012-01-13 14:49

Is your argument really that if a law is failed to be created via a referendum then said law should never be created by any other way?

What?

**archibaldcrane** · 2012-01-13 15:17

Originally Posted by Kuya

What?

You said the legislature shouldn't ignore the shooting down of this personhood referendum, right?

**Kuya** · 2012-01-13 15:25

Originally Posted by archibaldcrane

You said the legislature shouldn't ignore the shooting down of this personhood referendum, right?

Yes, unfortunately, i'm wondering whether there is no rule or law established on what the relationship between referendums and legislatures should be, otherwise we get arbitrary terms. That is, how long after a referendum should a legislature wait before it tackles the issue? Should legislatures be forced to always refer to the same issue only via referendums? Are legislatures forced to wait until the next election for them to tackle the issue again?

I believe the legislature shouldn't be able to touch the issue except via referendum until the next election. That seems sensible to me, but it's up to individual states to establish how the relationship between decisions made in referendum and legislatures should be handled, or whether they even allow referendums at all. But i agree with your previous sentiment: if you're not gonna respect decisions made in referendums, then don't have referendums because they clearly don't matter.

**archibaldcrane** · 2012-01-13 15:26

Wasn't this a referendum because it was an attempt to amend the state constitution? Pretty sure the legislature can't amend it themselves.

**SwampdonkeyPLD** · 2012-01-13 18:59

Originally Posted by Kuya

They meant land owning rich white people from the rest of the landless population of the US.

Where do you pull that from?

**quannum** · 2012-01-13 19:01

Originally Posted by SwampdonkeyPLD

Where do you pull that from?

4th grade civics class?

**Elvis** · 2012-01-13 19:13

Originally Posted by SwampdonkeyPLD

Where do you pull that from?

Hi Swamp. Hate to break this to you, but they didn't mean slaves either.

**SwampdonkeyPLD** · 2012-01-14 00:44

So....out of his ass then?

**hey** · 2012-01-14 06:56

Originally Posted by SwampdonkeyPLD

So....out of his ass then?

Have you never taken a history/civics class before? Or are you not in the usa?

Honestly, not sure how you could not know this...

**BaneTheBrawler** · 2012-01-14 10:30

For cereal. Before the various civil rights/suffrage/war etc, only white land-owning men were considered citizens and allowed to vote.

**SwampdonkeyPLD** · 2012-01-14 10:50

BG is the only place I've read that the purpose of our constitutional republic was to protect rich, white landowners.

**BaneTheBrawler** · 2012-01-14 11:14

You must not do any reading, then.

**SwampdonkeyPLD** · 2012-01-14 11:19

So enlighten me.

**Viq** · 2012-01-14 11:21

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...istoryzinn.jpg

Seriously, there are people that still haven't read this?

**Elvis** · 2012-01-14 12:06

Originally Posted by SwampdonkeyPLD

BG is the only place I've read that the purpose of our constitutional republic was to protect rich, white landowners.

I think Kuya meant original intentions. Maybe. If so, he's right. Women couldn't vote, remember? That's a good example.

Or do you think BG is the only place you've read that the purpose of our constitution in 2011 was to protect rich, white landowners?

**SwampdonkeyPLD** · 2012-01-14 12:34

Originally Posted by Elvis

I think Kuya meant original intentions. Maybe. If so, he's right. Women couldn't vote, remember? That's a good example.

Or do you think BG is the only place you've read that the purpose of our constitution in 2011 was to protect rich, white landowners?

So they didn't let women vote b/c it would hurt rich, white landowners? All I'm asking is where is this cynical view backed up? Is the fact that women couldn't vote all the evidence there is for that?

And yes to the 2nd question. I've never heard this theory anywhere else.

**Elvis** · 2012-01-14 12:43

Originally Posted by SwampdonkeyPLD

So they didn't let women vote b/c it would hurt rich, white landowners? All I'm asking is where is this cynical view backed up? Is the fact that women couldn't vote all the evidence there is for that?

And yes to the 2nd question. I've never heard this theory anywhere else.

What about asking, generally, why they didn't let women vote? And how could it ever be considered cynical? This was how things were back then. Women's suffrage was not a uniquely American cause so I'm not singling us out.

**SwampdonkeyPLD** · 2012-01-14 13:29

That is what I'm asking. Is preventing women from voting is a piece of evidence that the founders set up our government to protect rich, white landowners.

**hey** · 2012-01-14 13:46

You would think, that with such a big sense of history, you'd know these things swamp.

Thread: We don't care what the voters say.

Thread Tools

Latest Threads

Up & Coming Threads

Hottest Threads