Quite so, and that is how it should work in representative democracy. Holding referendums for everything under the sun (as Alliance Party wanted to do) would be totally the wrong thing.
It's time to bring the death penalty back!
- Thread starter Simpleton
- Start date
Quite so, and that is how it should work in representative democracy. Holding referendums for everything under the sun (as Alliance Party wanted to do) would be totally the wrong thing.
We are arguing about semantics here. To me, if the legislature repeals death penalty by a vote in the Senate and the House that would be scrapping it. Courts striking it down is simply that, courts cannot make any laws, so they cannot really scrap it. All they said was that the law was unconstitutional; I don’t think they ruled on death penalty as such. So presumably the courts may find another death penalty law constitutional.
That is why I think it is in limbo at present, it is not abolished or scrapped.
So "ordinary people" aren't qualified to voice their opinion directly on "complicated matters?" Only legal minds are qualified? Perhaps the documents need to be simplified so that "ordinary people" will be able to understand them.
What you're saying is that it's OK for "ordinary people" to vote in elections, but when it comes to the important stuff, their opinion isn't worth a thing. That's a highly disturbing and dangerous train of thought.
There goes that Freudian slip again. Are you saying that women shouldn't be taken seriously in our political system? You consistently leave out the female gender when you are talking about anything of importance. No matter what you say, remember that people are judged by their actions, not their (stated) intentions. Your actions continue to show that you are very prejudiced against women in politics.
For the record, I believe women should be just as involved as men in politics and other important stuff. I believe they should have equal status.
So what you're saying is that the average citizen should not be able to have an opinion on anything the courts rule on? That courts are, and should be able to operate independently of society and its needs, opinion, and positions on anything? You paint a very bleak picture of a democratic and free society. Do you really believe what you are saying?
I know a few people who like to have a few pops at the bar on the way home. If they were the only ones who could vote on a drunk driving law, they would be perfectly happy with your position on voting.
I think you might want to think a bit before you comment...just a quick reality check.
And just when did we hold a referendum on drunk driving? You are quite right, it is not a proper subject for a referendum, it is something for the legislators to deal with.
I fail to see what is your point here. We are talking of referendums here, how does drunk driving come into it?
Close but no cigar- only when ALL the parties with a valid interest have the ability to vote. So with abortion that would be the women of child bearing age X 3.
Just an extreme example of allowing only those with a vested interest to vote on certain things. Of course, I'm not as good as you when it comes to extreme examples, so I apologize for not coming up with a better analogy in order to bring some fairness and balance to the discussion. I'll keep trying...
No need to apologize.... Lord Ha-Ha doesn't have the monopoly on extreme examples. At least yours was logical.
As with anything here is Massachusetts, the Democrat Majority Legislature will decide for us what is best...in there minds.
You got it; ordinary people are not qualified to judge complicated legal or constitutional matters. Thus it is OK to have the average person as a juror, but no way can he serve as a judge, that would be a disaster.
Indeed, what you are saying is complete nonsense. Are you saying that ordinary people must be regarded as experts in law, experts in economics, expert in finance, experts in international politics? That way lies chaos, confusion, disaster.
So should we then employ ordinary people as economics experts, as scientific experts, as doctors, as lawyers, as judges? What nonsense.
Ordinary people have the right to vote. But to say that they must have the final say in complicated constitutional matters is absurd.
Really? My, my aren’t we being progressive. You believe that women should be involved in politics? No!!!! You are really scraping the bottom of the barrel when you accuse me of not wanting women in politics. You continuously accuse me of assuming what you are thinking (which I rarely do, I base my opinion upon solid evidence), yet you have no problem concluding that I don’t want women in politics.
Anyway, a conservative like you accusing a liberal alike me of being against equal rights for women, accusing me of wanting to subjugate women like they do in Saudi Arabia is like the Devil quoting the Bible. Conservatives opposed vote for women, they consistently opposed equal rights for women.
Even today, there are very few female MPs in conservative party. There was only one prominent female cabinet minister, Rhona Ambrose; Harper replaced her with a man. This is the conservative party you idolize; think that it is the greatest thing on earth. And you have the nerve of accusing me of treating women as second class citizens? I must say I admire your chutzpah.
You conservatives have as much credibility when it comes to women’s’ rights as Dracula would have when it comes to guarding blood bank. The more extreme of your party wants to put the clock back at least 50 years on women’ rights. The more extreme wing of your party hates women, there no other way of putting it. If you are accusing me of being against equality for women, you are really scraping the bottom of the barrel. I wonder you didn’t accuse me of wanting to bring back the slavery.
Or how about accusing me of wanting to carry out slaughter of Jews, a la Hitler? That would be as colorful and as true as claiming that I want to reduce women to second class citizens.
This tells me that you have ran out of arguments.
Last edited:
Average citizen may have any opinion he wants, he is not allowed to be the final arbiter when it comes to constitution. He is not qualified to interpret the constitution.
This is not the first time that conservatives have claimed that the ordinary citizen knows better than the expert (judges in this case). Religious right routinely makes the argument that since a majority of American people believe in Creationism, it is right, that scientists are wrong in believing in evolution, and that Creationism must be taught in public schools. Your argument is on par with that.
The courts are the final arbiters when it comes to constitution and it will stay that way. If ordinary people don’t like what courts decide, they have the very difficult avenue open to them of constitutional amendment. But an average citizen is not competent enough to judge complicated constitutional issues.
I wouldn’t want to judge such issues. Now if you think you are a constitutional expert, try to become a judge yourself, but don’t try to make every Canadian a Supreme court judge.
Unless laws concerning the issue have an effect on everyone else. And there are a lot of things that directly or indirectly have an effect on more than just a small minority. Internet childporn, for instance, it affects the families of kids, not just the kids. Jeez you are incredibly myopic.
Really? It doesn't affect doctors, medical suppliers, clinic owners, etc. ?
Only in your tiny mind, I suppose.
Should we allow laws to be made that affects Canada Revenue? Like gay marriage laws for instance? Yeah only a small handful of people are affected by how much the feds rake in for income taxes. :roll:
We are a society of people and what goes on inside this society is everyone's business.
So let me get this straight. You want to hold a referendum among drunks to decide if killing during drunk driving should be legal. You think that is equivalent to gays voting on whether homosexuality should be legal. So in your mind, homosexuality is tantamount to a drunk driver killing?
A typical conservative view.
Why bother posting if all you're going to do is talk to yourself then? roflmao
YOu are not catching on fast Countryboy :lol::lol::lol::lol: The courts are the only ones qualified to make complicated decisions, BUT when it comes to applying the death penalty they are not qualified.