|
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend Bookmark this thread |
This topic is archived. |
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) |
madinmaryland (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Wed Nov-04-09 01:26 PM Original message |
Why is it that a simple majority "popular" vote can amend a state constitution, yet for the US |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
FBaggins (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Wed Nov-04-09 01:38 PM Response to Original message |
1. A few things |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
paulsby (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Wed Nov-04-09 01:47 PM Response to Reply #1 |
2. well put nt |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
MattBaggins (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Wed Nov-04-09 02:09 PM Response to Reply #2 |
7. Well put? |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
paulsby (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Wed Nov-04-09 02:11 PM Response to Reply #7 |
8. his comments were spot on as to how the law is |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
FBaggins (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Wed Nov-04-09 02:38 PM Response to Reply #7 |
15. Hey... we're family... shouldn't we get along? |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
MattBaggins (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Wed Nov-04-09 02:47 PM Response to Reply #15 |
18. No it is a blow to liberty |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
FBaggins (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Wed Nov-04-09 02:59 PM Response to Reply #18 |
21. The OP described a political PROCESS |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
MattBaggins (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Wed Nov-04-09 03:14 PM Response to Reply #21 |
22. Yes the outcome pissed me off but it is not "the outcome" alone that I disagree with |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
FBaggins (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Wed Nov-04-09 03:28 PM Response to Reply #22 |
23. The problem is that you first have to convince them that it's a "right" |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
MattBaggins (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Wed Nov-04-09 03:43 PM Response to Reply #23 |
24. No I shouldn't have to convince them. That is the courts job |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
FBaggins (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Wed Nov-04-09 03:51 PM Response to Reply #24 |
25. You have an odd definition of "fight" |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
MattBaggins (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Wed Nov-04-09 04:07 PM Response to Reply #25 |
26. Maybe we are not using the same terms |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
TygrBright (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Wed Nov-04-09 01:49 PM Response to Original message |
3. Because the drafters of the US Constitution knew bloody well... |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
X_Digger (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Wed Nov-04-09 01:51 PM Response to Original message |
4. Because the framers understood 'tyranny of the majority' |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
madinmaryland (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Wed Nov-04-09 02:02 PM Response to Reply #4 |
6. If it was good for the Federal Government, why are state constititution not modeled |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
damntexdem (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Wed Nov-04-09 02:38 PM Response to Reply #6 |
16. Because that is up to the states. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
MattBaggins (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Wed Nov-04-09 02:51 PM Response to Reply #16 |
19. Because when it comes to the bill of rights and amendments |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
X_Digger (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Wed Nov-04-09 02:44 PM Response to Reply #6 |
17. Less danger at a state level.. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
sui generis (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Wed Nov-04-09 02:02 PM Response to Original message |
5. it's state's rights to discriminate |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
slackmaster (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Wed Nov-04-09 02:14 PM Response to Reply #5 |
10. No, states don't have rights. Only people have rights. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
slackmaster (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Wed Nov-04-09 02:12 PM Response to Original message |
9. There is nothing wrong with it |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
sui generis (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Wed Nov-04-09 02:24 PM Response to Reply #9 |
11. yes, but. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
slackmaster (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Wed Nov-04-09 04:52 PM Response to Reply #11 |
27. I agree that it should be, but sexual orientation is not yet a federally protected status |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
dflprincess (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Wed Nov-04-09 02:35 PM Response to Reply #9 |
14. The Federal government has stepped in when states were denying other groups their rights |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
MattBaggins (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Wed Nov-04-09 02:52 PM Response to Reply #9 |
20. The constitution repeatedly tells the states what to do. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
slackmaster (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Wed Nov-04-09 04:53 PM Response to Reply #20 |
28. There is also that pesky Tenth Amendment that very specifically limits federal powers |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
KamaAina (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Wed Nov-04-09 02:24 PM Response to Original message |
12. You'd never know it now, but initiative and referendum were originally progressive reforms |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
damntexdem (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Wed Nov-04-09 02:32 PM Response to Original message |
13. Because each constitution determines how it can be amended. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) | Fri Apr 26th 2024, 09:29 PM Response to Original message |
Advertisements [?] |
Top |
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) |
Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators
Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.
Home | Discussion Forums | Journals | Store | Donate
About DU | Contact Us | Privacy Policy
Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.
© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC