Why does the will of the people matter on some issues and not others?

Question

Lets start with gay marriage and stem cell funding.

Claddaghmmma....

70% of the people in this country support
stem cell research. Thats the will of the people I'm talking about.

But I guess you dont see that on Jerry Springer.

Chris S....good point but where in the Constituion does it support your side?

Chris S here is some of the Roe V Wade decision you wondered about....

"Constitution does not explicitly mention
any right of privacy" the court found support for a constitutional right of privacy in the First Amendment, Fourth Amendment, Fifth Amendment, Ninth Amendment, Fourteenth Amendment, the penumbra of the Bill of Rights. The court found "this right of privacy" to be "broad enough to encompass a woman's decision whether or not to terminate her pregnancy."

Again you made good points, so if the States are upholding the will of the people in regards to gay marriage, why do we need to change the constituion?

You see we can do this without name calling.....

Answer 1

Well, let's see...gay marriage? Eleven states put the question of banning it on their ballots in 2004, and it passed in all eleven. Sounds like the will of the people was served there.

Stem cells? Only federal funding for it was vetoed today. If you want it funded, you can still contribute to the cause yourself.

Then let's continue with abortion. A handful of unelected men in black robes read something into the Constitution that isn't there, and we're supposed to take their decision as final forevermore? How was the will of the people served there?

Edit: I'm not sure which issue you're referring to. If it's gay marriage, the Tenth Amendment covers that. It reads as follows:

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

This means that barring Constitutional amendment, the states have the right to decide whether or not to allow gay marriage.

It's silent on the stem cell question as well.

As for the abortion issue, it takes a serious twisting of the verbage to reveal a right to abort a baby. If I remember correctly, the case was decided on the grounds of the Fourth Amendment, citing a right to privacy, but no such right exists in the Constitution itself, or its amendments. The Fourth Amendment only protects against unwarranted search and seizure.

Second Edit: Thanks for filling me in on Roe v. Wade. I didn't get around to looking it up.

As for the amendment regarding gay marriage, I think they consider it necessary in order to prevent an activist court from overturning the Defense of Marriage Act, which specifically protects states' rights concerning gay marriage. The legal sequence goes something like this:

Gay couple gets married where it's legal; say, in MA. They then move to a state that doesn't recognize such a union, and apply for some benefit that married couples are entitled to. The state rejects their application on the grounds that it doesn't recognize gay marriages, and the gay couple sues, claiming that the DOMA and state law is unconstitutional. Activist court overturns these laws, which would then require all states to recognize gay marriages (by virtue of Article IV, Section 1 - Full Faith and Credit) against their will. If the courts could be trusted not to do this, the amendment wouldn't be necessary, but as we saw in MA in 2003, they can't be.

I have a compromise solution on the gay marriage issue, which would involve legalizing civil unions. Basically, it allows gay couples a legal union and benefits in states that choose to confer them, but doesn't change the definition of marriage, and protects the will of the people at the same time, through their state legislatures. Check out the link below - I detail it in my answer to that question.

I'm calling it a night here. This was a very good question - thanks for a great debate without any nastiness or name calling. Take care and God bless.

Answer 2

In the United States, the "will of the people" is most commonly (and I believe correctly) expressed through their elected representatives (the legislative branch) which writes the laws we must follow.

The main exception to this procedure is the option (in some states) for a citizen petition to place a referendum or initiative on the ballot for a direct vote. In some states (e.g. California) the ballot initiative has become quite common, with numerous propositions offered for consideration in most elections.

Some would say that the ballot initiative process is badly flawed. Special interests pay professional signature-gatherers to obtain the requisite number of signed petitions. Then well-financed campaigns for and against the resulting initiative serve mostly to confuse most voters. The confusion is often intentional. The propositions are written in legalese and many voters casting a NO vote are actually voting to support the proposition they oppose!

Also, there can be unintended consequences. For example, the California 3-Strikes law (passed by ballot initiative) has sent someone to prison for life for stealing a pizza.

Our elected legislators are in a much better position to write good laws that reflect the will of the people. The presidential veto is one of a number of checks and balances among the three branches of our government. This is as our founding fathers wanted.

If the "will of the people" is to allow government funding for stem cell research, eventually they will elect enough like-minded legislators to override a presidential veto. Or they may elect a like-minded executive.

Finally, the biggest threat to the "will of the people" is an unelected and activist judiciary. Judges are supposed to assure that existing laws are constitutional and that they are followed. Judges finding new constitutional rights that are not enumerated is NOT in the best interests of America. If we don't like what's in our constitution, there are ways for "we the people" to amend it.

No one needs to do it for us.

Answer 3

Here's my deal: the will of the people should USUALLY be the deciding factor 99% of the time.

An exception should be made when the will of the people is to exclude certain citizens from civil rights or privileges enjoyed by most of the population simply because they are of a minority group. People shouldn't be treated as unequal citizens simply because they are unpopular. For example, if, after Brown v Board of education, people had gotten it together and there was a national vote on segregation, do you think segregation would have ended? I bet not, because white people, who at the time were the ones with all the voting rights, didn't want their kids in schools with blacks kids, overwhelmingly. That doesn't mean Brown v Board of Education was a bad ruling, it just means it was an unpopular one. It was still vital to ensuring that black people eventually become treated as equal citizens in the US, and are not excluded from rights and privileges simply because of race. I feel the same way about gay marriage now, living in MA. I don't feel that it's necessary for the people to vote on gay marriage, because marriage is legal privilege that is being denied certain citizens, simply because of sexuality. Just because homosexuals aren't popular doesn't mean they shouldn't be treated as equal citizens. People shouldn't get to vote on other people's civil rights!

Answer 4

Stem cell research is supported by the american people and people think the federal gov. should fund it:
http://www.abcnews.go.com/sections/politics/DailyNews/poll010626.html

Bush is clearly going against the will of the people.

As for gay marriage. Marriage is controlled by the states. Republicans say they support states rights and say the federal government should be small and not interfere in states rights. Apparently they do not live up to their own ideals.

Answer 5

I agree with you to a degree the will of the people have not been respected on immigration and I wonder why myself. The issue of gay marriage and stem cell funding are not supported by the people in the US. but it was a nice try.

Answer 6

first of to all you people who think we are a true democracy we are not, we are a republic, a democracy is one where everyone votes on every matter which in our age is physically impossible, when the founders of this country planned out this country, it wasnt done overnight, hell it wasnt done easily, it was done tirelessly and relentlessly, the matter of how our government was created was finally agreed on as a republic, this was done because our founders knew that the citizens werent intellectually capable and responsible enough to be trusted with all the issues, they didnt trust the people too much you see so whether they created the republic so intellectuals like themselves would have the power is controversial but controversial or not that is how our government is set up today, sooo back to the questions no the will of the people really doesnt matter, our will only matters on who we elect to represent us, but our elected have the power to vote whichever way their beliefs carry them, so you can argue that the will of the people and the power of the people is miniscule bc the people with all the power?... my friends those are the geniuses we have decided to elect and run this country, thats why voting is so important and that is why idiots choose presidents and senators based on appearances and first impressions without knowing many of the facts, or my fav here in california this excuse, o i pick the lesser of two evils

Answer 7

Do you have the confidants to assert "Penis" needless to say you have a small length, i'm no longer judging you via your length only the way your asking the question. And sure your precise a guy who makes use of Male Enhancement is a stupid foo, and a girl who says that's the scale that counts is a stupid B****. yet your going to get slightly mad when I say this, it somewhat is the form you manage the lady (style of like "that's the form you employ it"). manage a girl with admire, and without appearing such as you like slightly some thing some thing (which isn't your undertaking) and then whilst she does fall in love with you and once you do get married, it does no longer count approximately your length. i don't be conscious of why your irritating now, you in basic terms could desire to chillax. BD

Answer 8

We elect people to represent our will. That's democracy. Trouble is, we elect people who pretend to represent us so they can get elected.

In terms of the "will of the people", homosexual marriage is on very shaky ground. If it is generally mandated, it will be by a narrow court decision, like Roe v. Wade, not on a general referendum.

Stem cell research? There is so much hype is so many directions on that subject, who knows wherein will lie the truth? Scientists want grant money, so they, like politicians, might say what we want to hear to get it.

Answer 9

Are you saying that the "will of the people" is for gay marriage? That has been proven wrong.
As for stem cell, well, they can become children, you know.

Answer 10

We are a Representative republic, therefore, we elect our Representatives. If they do not do what the people want we have the choice of voting them out next election. I hope for the country's sake that this happens in November.