disneydude
DP Veteran
- Joined
- Jan 30, 2006
- Messages
- 25,528
- Reaction score
- 8,470
- Location
- Los Angeles
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Liberal
The -purpose- of a Constitution is to define the powers/limits of a Government and provide protections for the rights of the people that live under it.
The method(s) specified to change the terms of a Constution do not defeat that purpose.
Sanme can be said for a constitution that requires 2/3 majority -- after all, with a 2/3 majority, slavery can be reinstated and women/minotiries be disnenfranchised.There is no protection for the rights of the people that live under it, if those rights are subject to a simple majority vote.
Sanme can be said for a constitution that requires 2/3 majority -- after all, with a 2/3 majority, slavery can be reinstated and women/minotiries be disnenfranchised.
Theres also 'some' protection in a 50%+1 system.However, at least there is some protection there, because the rights of the minority cannot be curtailed by a simple majority.
Theres also 'some' protection in a 50%+1 system.
You can disagree all you want - that doesnt mean you're right.I would disagree.[ Such a system provides no protection to the rights of the minority, because everything becomes subject to the will of the majority.
You can disagree all you want - that doesnt mean you're right.
You used the term "some". Its impossible to argue that a 50%+1 system doesnt provide "some" protection.
THen what does it mean when you speak five? :mrgreen:
Anyone who looks at their ballot and votes yes on a proposition that begins with the heading "eliminates the right..." ought to be ashamed of themselves.
There are many Christians that wouldn't mind living in a theocracy, as long as it was Christianity calling the shots.
40% of the people are not sufficient to change the constitution.Explain how you believe it provides any protection at all for the Constitutional rights of those in the minority.
40% of the people are not sufficient to change the constitution.
45% of the people...
49% of the people...
50% of the people...
You;re using terms like "any" and "some".
This means your position isnt tenable.
40% of the people are not sufficient to change the constitution.
45% of the people...
49% of the people...
50% of the people...
You;re using terms like "any" and "some".
This means your position isnt tenable.
Yes, I did, as you used the term 'any'.You still didn't answer the question.
Please apply this statement to a 2/3 majority systen.A Constitution is useless if fundamental rights are subject to the whim or tyranny of the majority.
Although I support it not passing, my gut tells me it will. And this makes me 'le panda of sadness', as the French say (yes, I can speak two languages. And speaking two languages means I am bisexual. Wait...that's what bisexual means, right?)
This election produced conflicting results.
The Presidential Election showed how far we have come as a country.
The passage of prop 8 showed that California, although we have come a long way, still has a ways to grow.
What is strange to me is that the Constitution is supposed to protect the rights of the minority against the tyranny of the majority. Consistent with this, the Federal Constitution requires 2/3 ratification of a Constitutional Amendment. However, California only requires a simple majority, which is inconsistent with this ideal.
Ironically, on the Los Angeles Ballot there was a tax measure to fund additional subway construction. Its passage required a 2/3 majority.:doh
Granting sexual orientation the same status as race is an absurd argument of extremists.
The message here is that radical judges and mayors like Gavin Newsome who wanted to shove this issue down the throats of the voters shot themselves in the foot with this one.
The California voters have made it painfully clear and now, as a Constitutional amendment, the issue will be settled. Thank the Gay radicals who, instead of working with those of us who felt strongly about this issue, attempted to shove it down our throats and now have gotten exactly what they deserved.
Sexual orientation is NOTHING like race and has NOTHING to do with our Constitution.
Expect the radicals to file lawsuit after lawsuit to prevent the will of the people from being heard and further polarize those of us who may have been in support gay issues.
I love it when people use the phrase "shove it down our throats" with anything regarding gay rights.Granting sexual orientation the same status as race is an absurd argument of extremists.
The message here is that radical judges and mayors like Gavin Newsome who wanted to shove this issue down the throats of the voters shot themselves in the foot with this one.
The California voters have made it painfully clear and now, as a Constitutional amendment, the issue will be settled. Thank the Gay radicals who, instead of working with those of us who felt strongly about this issue, attempted to shove it down our throats and now have gotten exactly what they deserved.
Sexual orientation is NOTHING like race and has NOTHING to do with our Constitution.
Expect the radicals to file lawsuit after lawsuit to prevent the will of the people from being heard and further polarize those of us who may have been in support gay issues.
Eh.....it will be on the ballot again in a year or two and will eventually pass.
The California voters have made it painfully clear and now, as a Constitutional amendment, the issue will be settled. Thank the Gay radicals who, instead of working with those of us who felt strongly about this issue, attempted to shove it down our throats and now have gotten exactly what they deserved.
Expect the radicals to file lawsuit after lawsuit to prevent the will of the people from being heard and further polarize those of us who may have been in support gay issues.
"Marriage is between a man and a woman," said 67-year-old Marie Barbagelata from Linden, a farming town about 100 miles inland from San Francisco. She voted in favor of Proposition 8, but added she's not opposed to same-sex civil unions.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?