Why don't we leave moral laws being made or shaped up to the voters instead of by lawyers?

Question

I think we should make all moral laws based on the voters of each state and county it must be put on the ballot and voted for...not by lawyers in federal court...
for example:
gay marriage
death penalty
assisted suicide
abortion
etc...
let the people decide....

Answer 1

Well, that's part of America's government. Because we are actually a republic (and NOT a democracy) like the idiots on television like to say, we vote for people to represent us. So in a sense, the people do decide by electing representatives on their own behalf who represent their own beliefs to go to Washington to do crap.

As where in a democracy, the people vote on absolutely everything, which is expensive.

Answer 2

Because this country is not a democracy. Never has been.

It is a republic, and in that form of government, you elect people who make the decisions for you.

As far as lawyers and courts making laws, they don't. What they do is interpret the laws that are already in existence. And people only seem to have a problem with that when the interpretation comes down against their personal views.

Let the people decide? Less than 40% of the adult population is politically active. Of that, a bare majority of 51%-55% usually decides most issues. So that means around 21%-22% of the population is imposing their views and beliefs on everyone else.

Even if by some broad stretch of the imagination this small fraction of people were informed about the issues and made choices with awareness of the consequences, it's still a small fraction of people using might-makes-right to get their way.

The courts are supposed to ensure that individual rights are not trampled by the majority, whether voters or government. Granted, sometimes they come up with really stupid decisions. But I can't imagine how moving towards even more of a mob-based might-makes-right mentality would do better.

By the way, almost every one of those issues you mention would end up being decided on religious grounds, because at least half of the people who are most fanatical about those issues are basing their decisions on their religious/moral beliefs.

That means that the majority religion would end up dictating law, and that's exactly what this country was founded to prevent.

Answer 3

This is an interesting question. I presume by 'moral laws' you mean (legal) laws made on moral precepts.

From a philosophical point of view, you need to consider whether a moral 'wrong' actually becomes right if a majority of a certain population thinks it is. This could be a slippery slope. For example, if most or all the residents of a certain street vote that they do not want a Muslim family to move into the street, does that make their view 'right'?

If - as I think you mean - we decide, for example whether to allow abortion or abolish the death penalty etc. this way - then I agree it would be a good idea. And, of course, the result would be no more or less 'morally perfect' than when the decision is made by lawyers/politicians. But you have to remember that a landslide majority for a proposition might make something popular and expedient but doesn't necessarily make it good.

The 'nub' of the problem is that the US is not really very democratic. There is almost no real in-depth debate on important issues in elections. The politicians use advertising companies to 'spin' their positions on topics picked, not because of their interest to the public but their ability to garner support. The advertising business is based on deceit - and rarely if ever serves to actually enlighten anyone.

As they say, all politics is local. Getting people involved in decent and informed debate at local level would be a brilliant idea in the US - but is unlikley to happen while the country is governed by business interests such as the oil industry.

Answer 4

That's a complicated question. I think that was the original intent that most laws would be made at the state level. What makes it even more complicated is when you use the term "moral". What defines a "moral" law from any other? In fact are not most criminal laws based on a moral code (specifically Judeo-Christian). Thou shalt not kill, Thou shalt not steal, etc. But then you have the problem of people bringing up the establishment of religion clause of the constitution. Is there a sense of natural law which guides a society in these matters seperate from any religous teaching.?
Then theres the question of equity and fairness. If all laws were left entirely up to individual states would it really be fair when we today think of ourselves as "one nation"? Would it be right to Be able to commit an act in one state that could draw severe penalties in another? I realize I have given no answers and I'm not looking for any points, but this is a subject I've thought a lot about, and I'm afraid I have no answers. Just more questions.

P.S. The courts should not be making laws. The courts should be deciding cases based upon the laws and the constitution.

Answer 5

The problem is the government is also there to protect the minority from having their rights trampled on by the majority. In general what the majority wants it should get. However in terms of certain rights the minority can not be denied. Moral laws are especially vulnerable to trampling on the minorities rights. We consider everyone to have basic rights. If a group of gained control of Congress would it be alright if they said women can not talk unless spoken to? Of course not even if they have the majority of people on their side women have rights that can not be trampled on.

This is what creates the biggest problem deciding what is a fundemential right and what can be taken away simply because the majority believe that it should be.

This is also why the federal judicial system was setup the way it was. It prevents a majority from trampling the rights of the few. Like anything you will have problem people occuping the jobs because as humans there is no way to fully ensure how someone will work. If they are too far out of line there are even processes to remove them, which are not easy again to prevent it from happening just because you don't like the decison. There's a number of them I don't like, but that's because of how I feel. This however does not mean the judge hasn't done their job.

Answer 6

Exactly, politics are local. The whole democratic idea was that one group could not control the ways of anouther group, and it's sad that we've gone so far away from that.


Note that I said democratic idea and not idea of a democracy. What I mean is, that power is given by the people so that people can have what they would like done.

Answer 7

Doesn't sound like a bad idea. Unfortunately we do not have the power to do that, the lawyers do. And the lawyers are not going to give us that power because they just know they are smarter then the rest of us.

Answer 8

you are SO right !!! What happened to we the people?
Now it's we the politicians . It's like we don't even have a say
anymore. Voting doesn't work because they only count certain votes.

Answer 9

Dude, have you ever read the illiterate, ignorant, no-nonsense posts that people put on here? Why would you want them to write any laws? You wouldn't be able to understand them!