The power of the law makers and all of Washington, from the Supreme court to the President belongs to the people of America. If there is a law or a change in the law it should be put before the people of the United States. If there is an issue brought before the supreme court that effects the rights of all people then america should vote yes or no to the issue at hand. It does not take a person with a law degree to judge whether something is right or wrong. Laws should be based on ones moral convictions.
The question is are the people really truly capable of governing themselves. I'm not saying they aren't, I'm just saying that's the question. And then in a country as large as our's is, should it be done on a local (state) or federal level?
You said "Laws should be based on one's moral convictions."
Whose moral convictions? The majority's moral convictions, I guess you mean. And again the question remains is the majority capable of doing so in a fair manner? Or does that matter?
Of course we can govern ourselves, we already do! Everyday we make moral, ethical, and economic decisions that affect us. In fact, I'll argue that we can govern ourselves much better than our government can govern us!
Well yeah. Some of us anyway. But as your first post demonstrates you clearly understood what I meant. Can we as a voting mass effectively decide governing laws that would be fair to us all, to each individual.
No and we shouldn't have to. We should be able to do whatever we feel is right for ourselves, as long as it doesn't hurt someone else in the process.
But it does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods or no God. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg.
-Thomas Jefferson, Notes on Virginia, 1782
Ah, but, refering to the Jefferson quote, it would have if his neighbors were able to vote on say the separation of church and state clause. I remember him being quite vexed about a certain book that was censored and he had to have it smuggled in.
if a bill is put before congress that states in God we trust should be taken off our currancy the goverment should let the people decide if they want to take it off. It should not be put before a bunch of crooks to decide this for us and once it has been chosen by the people then the bill should be dead in the water from then on never to be brought up again.
Never to be brought up again!!!!!
But the values of a society changes, as do the beliefs. Besides which, the people never voted to have it put on the money in the first place.
To be brought up again does sound mighty strong but it should not be brought up so often, does It? I mean how many times should a bill be brought up before it should be dead in the water? doesn't it get old? But I guess if your in the minority it dosen't. However if the majority want's things to stay a certain way then let it for a time lol or at least in my life time and my kids and grand kids too.
I understand your reluctance to change, and believe it or not I understand the concern about morality.
I think changes have to be made to get to where we're going. Some of them are unpleasant, difficult, and none of them on their own can fix things.
Wow, I just found a usage for Zeno's Paradox. But I digress, that's another thread.
Morally, or rather as regards human rights, I think we're headed in the right direction. I understand that you don't, but let me ask you, if morning prayer is so important to you, can parents who choose to not do that with their children in the privacy of their own home? While muslim, jewish etc do their's in their own? How does that really affect your life or your personal rights?
How does having In God We Trust affect them, or how does prohibiting gay marriage make your life better?
You will say something about a general state of moral decay, and we'll disagree on the cause. I believe there is a general state of moral decay, I don't think it's due to the same things you do.
I see where your coming from and I believe that we will not see eye to eye on the matters before us. I just think that we as americans should have more of a say on what goes on in our country then what we do and I would hope you would too. We don't need new laws or so many laws we should just simplify the ones we have.
Thanks for the visit
Spoken like a true Politican.
Don't you agree that if any thing is brought before goverment that changes the lives of the people should be put before the people so we can cast our vote in order to pass a bill in to law. Or do you believe that the Congress should have the final say so on the matter.
Well I certainly don't! Do you really want the majority telling you how to live your life? They are banning salt in NY restaurants! Do you want some liberal mob telling you, you can't eat salt, because it's bad for you?
This is why we're a republic! Just look at the Taliban. Imagine if they were the majority? Would you want to be forced to live like they want you to live, especially if you're a woman?
Do you really think that the majority says no salt, I really doubt it. I personally like salt and I'm sure there are more like us out there so I would trust to put it up for a vote. I believe there are more unhealthy people like myself then there are these self proclaimed health nuts.
Well maybe the majority wouldn't but waht if they did? You're fine with the majority as long as you're a part of it, but what happens when you're not? That's why we're not a democracy!
we are the majority. those who are not in the majority want you to believe otherwise. It has never been put to a poll asking how many americans want prayer taken out of school, because if it was polled I know without a doubt kids would still pray every morning to start the school day off.
I think the separation of Church and State has been misapplied. It should be up to the individual states whether to allow prayer, or the individual school districts.
I disagree, but that brings up a point. When should it be a states' right, and when a federal? On civil rights issues I tend to think it should be a federal decision.
The constitution says what the federal government is allowed to do. What ever isn't in the constitution, is reserved to the states and the people by the 10th amendment.
In my view the Feds overstepped their bounds on school prayer. Now, I'm not suggesting that everyone has to pray or that they have to respect any particular religion or any at all, it should be at the students option, at the same time, I see no reason why prayer should be banned all together. After all, isn't that promoting atheism?
No. this is a local issue that should be decided by school district.
No it's not promoting atheism. They're not reciting Dawkins in the place of morning prayer. School is for academic learning, as much as is within any community's ability to do that. Church is for public group praying.
The reason I think civil rights ought to be a federal matter is because that way you get a more balanced outlook.
Amen! And the same goes for all the other rights that have been given and taken away it should have been by the state and not the country.
Which would not be fair to the children of atheists, muslims or jews, or to their parents who have the right to raise their children as they see fit.
Or Buddhists, true true.
Heya Hokey, where did your sexy avatar go, you hot young thing you.
Hello Pandora!! True Democracy is a wonderful concept but was never what this country has been. That is why they created the electoral college because it was believed that people were not educated enough to make decisions. It would turn to campaigns and would still be controlled by people or corporations who have money.
Yes, and it really doesn't make a huge difference whichever way because the people don't elect the brightest of the brightest with the most integrity, they elect whoever they think agrees with their personal viewpoint the most. Still the balance is there, and generally speaking the over-all majority get their way.
We just have to wait until the over-all majority changes its viewpoints.
Not if the majority says it should be otherwise.
You say "We are the majority." I'd like to know who your "we" is, according to you.
with out fighting I know we are not in the same majority but I like visiting with you anyway.
And I'm sure you're a fine upstanding person, for the most part, but I'm also sure you'd be quite happy to have my rights taken away from me, as well as further squashing the rights of my homosexual friends and acquaintances. I understand where you're coming from, I just can't agree with you.
Honestly, I don't believe the masses are educated enough to vote in a responsible manner.
A few reasons. Number one reason being most people don't want to be bothered with it. Some issues are simple, and some are more complicated. When the issues are complicated, the vote would come down to something like flipping a coin because most people wouldn't take the time to learn all the facts and consider all the ramifications.
This was the conclusion of philosophers I think in the mid to late 1800's, may have been Witgenstein but I am too lazy to go find it, it is the biggest argument for education of the 'masses' (that will be us I guess).
It came about the time they really understood that one function of religion is to keep us stupid so that mr upstairs could get on with ruling everything, to justify governments, or kings then, ruling us morons, and keeping us moron by religion.
If you don't believe me then just take a look at the self perpetuating drivel that comes in the religious threads - if you were unfortunate enough to get yourself born into it how do you ever get to see the wood through the preaching trees.
To your post about what Witgenstein said you must remember that he is a philosopher "a deep thinker" you have to have faith in what he says in order to believe it, right? I believe whole heartedly in God almighty, If you don't thats fine, however I don't find what I believe in as from the wisdom of men but from Gods inspired word. I do hope that you will open your bible to search it to find the truth and not listen to the wisdom of men.
Not right - I have to be able to understand what the guy means but more importantly how he gets to his ideas; he is teacher and I am pupil. This IS the difference - if I understand enough of what he says and what others say I form my own argument, my own opinion, and can keep up with things. If you open any religious book and just believe what you read then you catch up with how people thought two or three thousand years ago.
Get with the times - in those days it was thought to be god's prerogative to smite from the heavens with thunderbolts, these days we have these powers, last time it was some a**hole in Washington raining hellfire and damnation on the peoples of Iraq - these days we have the power and we need to be discussing how to control it and use it for good rather than he modern equivalent of your evil.
I believe you, but I'm not convinced that religion alone is the culprit responsible for the ignorance of the masses. I'm sure it has ALOT to do with it, in many ways, but then you just can't get past the fact that some people would get in the voting booth and play eenie-meenie-minie-mo.
So I still don't think the popular vote would be the way to go, at least, not on every issue. Clearing up religion would probably go a long way towards clearing up civil rights issues though.
Government is already so slow. If every decision had to be put to a popular vote nothing would ever be decided and could you imagine the costs. Think we are in debt now? Just imagine. Nationwide campaigns for every decision.
Well, we're not a democracy and the founders crafted us that way on purpose! They were afraid that under a democracy the majority would be basically mob rule which is why we are a republic with the power spread among the states and the people. The idea is to protect INDIVIDUAL freedom.
I agree, however when should goverment put a law into effect without asking the people to cast their vote of whether they are in favor or not?
I will not pick an issue to debate over but I will say they are to numerous to count and they have all been passed without asking the common people what we think.
That's true. They were worried about Teabaggers!
Once again you reveal in your arguments that you have no argument, you have only your philosophy, socialism, a central authority with ultimate power to distribute wealth evenly and fairly, to "fundamentally transform" America, to bring "hope" and "change" to the masses, to instill "social and economic justice" for all!
All of the wonders of socialism can already be obtained in places like Cuba, China, Venezuela, and Europe. I invite you and all "progressives" to consider moving to a country of your choice to get what you "deserve", because none of you deserve the protection of freedom of the constitution.
That's a bit harsh! Ralph is only for the other party
unless that was me you were aiming at by mistake in which case you are too late, I am already living where you think they will learn a lesson. You would certainly learn something I think.
Harsh? How so? Why should a group of people force THEIR vision of government on those of us that wish to adhere to our founding documents?
America doesn't need to be "changed" in the way they are advocating!
Uh, no - it was the British who were worried about the demand for no taxation without representation. Remember Boston . . . around 1773 ?
Agree, to a point. However, all the "problems" we have today are just symptoms of the greater atrocity. That atrocity, in my opinion, took place around 1900, the affects of which continues through today.
Personally, I doubt the vote of the people means much anymore. When you consider lobbists, contributors to campaign funds, and other "money" situations that float around politics and political issues it seems morals are on short supply. Greed seems to have enveloped the people who "represent" us on the political front. Not every politician is corrupt..... yet. (Some may never be).
The way the government was set up by the fore-fathers, and the evolution (amendments to constitution etc...), that have eroded the freedoms of the individual have changed the way votes work. And the proof is in the pudding, so to speak, with the electoral college doing it's will, (for example), rather than the will of those who are being represented.
Also, there have been changes in resent history that have quietly effected the freedoms of the individual. But we the people are too busy making a living, raising our families, and sometimes just surviving, to read all the bills and what not that are voted on in congress and the senate, (plus the wording can be so confusing you don't know what you're reading anyway), and so we have just passively let things change in our country. I don't expect them to ever change back.
I feel confident we the people will never have the CHANCE to "vote yes or no" on issues above the local level, since we elect representatives to go to Washington to do our voting for us. Where they are met with lobbists, and other special interest people and groups who wave the flag of money, and the cycle rolls on.
In this "land of opportunity", (a consumer society), greed runs amock. I believe the political arena is the "pro bowl" of the greed game. And we the people seem to be stuck in the cheap seats watching it all happen.
Never in the history of BS was so much offered to so many by so few.
- Ernie Churchill
except one person might say:extend the hunting season
person 2:it's fine how it is
person 3:let's get rid of hunting
that's just an example of how everyone's moral standards are different. probably why congress argues so much.
i say live and let live. you do your thing and i'll do mine.
I want my own island. I'm tired of all the bickering and politics. I want an island with simple laws, autonomy, a house, and some farm land on it. That's it. No more voting. No more wondering about politician's lies. *sigh* Just me and the palm trees and the waves.
and me!! I'm coming too!!!! Waves? Been surfing all my life!!
I'm writing a song called "Fat Politician"
Every man is an island. (Subject to the terms and conditions which apply to whatever part of the world wherein it resides.)
I believe people still have enough of a moral compass to make logical and reasonable decisions. However, that would only pertain if we lived under a democracy. We do not. Our form of government is a republic. The political parties have convinced a large number of people that we do live under a democracy. There is a big difference between democracy and a republic. In a democracy, majority rules. Unlike a republic which has representitives. Just like Rome, we have a problem with those who are suppose to represent us. Greed and special interests are our biggest obstacles to moral, logical, and reasonable governing. Also, a republic demands a very high level of responsibility from citizens. There too lies another of our shortcomings. Our citizens would rather pursue thier own objectives than GIVE time to the governing of thier nation.
Logic requires honesty. Politicians contradict all logic with their constant lies and hypocrisy.
But that is Democracy - people are not interested in governing because we are all over-governed. Laws and international stuff has got so unneccessarily complex that it is kept out of reach of most people. My Opinion - The answer lies somewhere where all the governments are smaller with a smaller remit, smaller budget, smaller effect on daily lives. Unfortunately I do not have any idea how.
The only answer I can think of is education starting at a very young age, with a devotion to keeping that education honest. Endoctrination or propaganda won't work. Getting people to care requires dealing with a social culture that teaches me, me, me. That could be even more difficult.
WE THE PEOPLE are telling our elected members of Congress and President Obama that the Healthcare Reform bill, in it's present form should be abandoned.
The Democrat leaders in the house are not listening. The President isn't listening.
Unemployment is 9.7%, the economy is stagnant,the housing market hasn't recovered,oil prices are rising,health insurance cost are rising,the media is exposing the waste and pork in the stimulus bill,congress is passing legislation ( without regard to pay-go) increasing the budget deficit and after 15 months into Barak Obama's administration,jobs jobs isn't a priority for Congress and the President.
We the people have elected them to serve the people. It's apparent that they refuse to hear our voices.
Enough is Enough,call your representative, call him today and make him accountable for his inaction.
It's either the party or the people!.
You are not THE PEOPLE you are a few of the people, a minority is few, the majority elected the guy to do his stuff.
He wasn't elected to rape us and give our money to his cronies!
Just so - so you should be looking at how you elect people and you should look at the media that lies to you as they lick the ass of whoever owns them. If you don't like this President and nobody else liked the one before and on and on through Nixon etc then it is time you looked at the system itself.
The system is fine. We just don't have very good candidates to choose from.
I have to strongly disagree - you get the choice of leader from two parties with the same basic greed agenda and a few relatively unimportant differences - when compared to all the other issues involved. The UK has the same kind of problem with a slightly different system. I do not ascribe to any system or party or offer any alternative - I do think it is time to start discussing a change however.
Enough of change!
The system is fine. It's the handlers of the system that are corrupt and tyrannical. Especially the current handlers. Kick Obama out and we'd have a fine start toward bringing American back to its good values.
What change would you be happening to talk about?
Brenda my dear lady, WHO do you think the handlers are exactly?
I'm sure we are to disagree on this one particular subject, because you're obviously thinking of the officials in office and I'm thinking it's the PEOPLE of the country.
But, I'll let you stew on that.
If you mean the "majority" who supposedly got Obama elected and who push for the liberal agenda, then yeah, even those "handlers" are corrupt.
So, either way, it's not the system that's wrong, it's those who wield the power.
I'm a Republican. I hold to Republican values. The USA is a Republic, which means a nation based on specific moral and patriotic values, not a "democracy" where the "majority" can be corrupt and still wield the power.
Don't you agree that if an issue was brought before government that effected your life in some way "you pick the issue" wouldn't you want to have your fellow Americans to cast their vote instead of a payed politician who is looking out for their special interest.
I mean there are probably more folks that think like you out there then there are in Washington.
I have too many hubs that directly pointing out too many things gone wrong in America, to put up a post here on the complete subject.
Someone, if the post gets too long, might just tell me to hub the information, that it would be better.
I've done that, so pick at your own choosing.
You mean bring Bush back ? you need to start another religious backed oil fuelled war ?
quit pointing out the majorities failings how will they ever learn if not from the mistakes they make
How about we restrict anyone with a law degree from holding office, put a ten year temporary ban on Republicans and Democrats from holding office, and get a constitutional amendment designed to balance the budget and get our nation out of debt. Any takers!
How about thinking up a new system that puts the power in the hands of the people.
Banning lawyers and judges, and stripping power from embedded political parties, would come closer to putting power in the hands of the people than anything else I can think of.
"Banning lawyers and judges"
That's nice and emotional, but you don't really want that.
It would be a start - but these things are only symptoms of the illness. To make politicians accountable in the first place is the issue, as they start by working for the dollar, then the people.
The profiteers who run things are supported out of stupidity be those people who spout off out of emotion but don't really think about what they are saying. You can see which ones by the short pointless posts that are only irritating and have no real content.
"How about thinking up a new system that puts the power in the hands of the people."
We've already got one.
It's nice and easy to say things like "let's change the system!" or to shout stupid things about getting rid of all lawyers and judges, but the fact is that in any case most people would have a gripe regardless. Folks spout off out of emotion but don't really think about what they are saying.
I appreciate your inference to stupidity. NOT! My point in that particular matter is that lawyers and judges have more of a tendency to get so caught up in the details, they lose the bigger picture. Hence our system is loaded with unreasonable laws and tons of burecratic bullshit that leaves "The People" wanting for common sense AND JUSTICE!
HEALTHCARE REFORM SPECIAL LIVE FROM WASHINGTON
On Saturday 3/20/10 EXCLUSIVLY on FOX NEWS cable at 10:00am to 12:00 ET time
A special program regarding healthcare reform '' LIVE AND UNCUT '' direct from Washington , hosted by Neil Cavuto.
BOTH SIDES OF THE DEBATE?
Try not to miss it. Will congress pass a bill against the will of the people? Will it be the party or the people if a vote is taken?
The program is only on FOX NEWS and wondering if excerpts will be shown or even discussed on the main street media .
The only question remains if Pelosi got the VOTES required to pass the bill? Either way, it should be an interesting program.
If the majority is corrupt or just plain wrong, then the minority should have the power.
Which is why we have such things as laws and jails to house those who break those laws.
Or...we HAD good laws. Until...pretty recently, actually.
Do you guys think American citizens should have the opportunity to vote on the health care bill?
Absolutely! And if we can't have a direct vote now, we sure as hell will have an indirect one this fall!
And what I mean is---there should not even BE a health care bill in Congress right now! At least NOT one that originated from Obama. Obama's the one who's pushed this crap onto the American people, including bullying Congress into pushing it.
New laws should originate from the PEOPLE when there's a need for a new law. The man is not only a fool and a tyrant; America is foolish to have even let him make such decisions.
There shouldn't even be any more new laws or for there to be talk of exceptions to old laws and if there has to be new laws then we ourselves should be the ones passing them. look at the laws now and at the laws 200 or even 100 yrs ago and then count the laws up. Back then they had less laws and more upright people and less problems.
Yes, by allowing we the people to vote is allowing us to put our stamp of approval on the bill and once the vote is taken then and only then can it be made law. Also if it were to be put before the people it has to be written in plan English without all the lawyer talk.
by James Packard 3 years ago
Should voting be mandatory in the U.S.?President Obama said Wednesday mandatory voting would be "transformative", referencing a potential change in how money is spent in campaigns. There might be less vying to get certain groups to come to the polls, but more to get certain groups to...
by Pamela-anne 6 years ago
Do you agree with the goverment possibly rising the age of retirement?I was hoping the goverment would have been extending the weekend to a three day weekend instead of extending the age of retirement.
by dutchman1951 7 years ago
I am studying, really hard. Trying to make a solid research attempt. Note cards all of it. Pouring over the Stacks, @ Vanderbilt, Univ. of Tenn., on-line, Libraries etc...I want to know what Jesus really said. What I am finding so far, is not what is coming out of the Pulpit at church. What is...
by JON EWALL 6 years ago
How many elected officials in Congress will reconsider their YES vote when repealing Obamacare ?
by Beyond-Politics 8 years ago
With so much vocal an organizational opposition to President Obama and his policies (such as they are) after only 9 months in office, is such criticism warranted? Does the opposition reflect minority intolerance, or a fear of growing minority influence?
by Reality Bytes 7 years ago
Sovereign citizens are a loosely organized group of people who claim they are not subject to government laws...........from the linkhttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/05/1 … lnk2|64172I have been a Freeman On The Land for many years, I do not condone violence in any way. Yet the govt...
Copyright © 2018 HubPages Inc. and respective owners. Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners. HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc. HubPages and Hubbers (authors) may earn revenue on this page based on affiliate relationships and advertisements with partners including Amazon, Google, and others.
|HubPages Device ID||This is used to identify particular browsers or devices when the access the service, and is used for security reasons.|
|Login||This is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.|
|HubPages Traffic Pixel||This is used to collect data on traffic to articles and other pages on our site. Unless you are signed in to a HubPages account, all personally identifiable information is anonymized.|
|Remarketing Pixels||We may use remarketing pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to advertise the HubPages Service to people that have visited our sites.|
|Conversion Tracking Pixels||We may use conversion tracking pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to identify when an advertisement has successfully resulted in the desired action, such as signing up for the HubPages Service or publishing an article on the HubPages Service.|