Why not just have a binding referendum State by State Province by Province on the issue and make the lobby groups lobby the public instead of the government ?
This wouldn't be government by referendum it would be a referendum on key issues that really should be decided by the people
Don't like the results ? Move to another State Province where your views are more reflected in the populus -
This would be democracy at work ?
So what stops it from happening the government is afraid you'd vote the wrong way ?
2007-07-18 13:14:41 · 11 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
joevette
Fine make it nationally binding question then
On things considered this important one would think that the people not a handfull of government(s) should be consulted
2007-07-18 13:41:07 · update #1
Wonderful question.
I'm pro-life, and what you're suggesting is all I really want on the abortion debate. What's wrong with overturning Roe v. Wade and returning the issue to state legislatures?
Seems to make sense to me.
2007-07-18 13:24:48 · answer #1 · answered by replicant21 3 · 1⤊ 3⤋
We are not a true Democracy we are a Constitutional Republic. The Constitution is for federal law that covers all of the states. On some issues you must have federal law or else you would have to close the borders between states. Kids cross the border for younger drinking ages for example, we cross the border to buy fireworks that are illegal in our state. Abortion is too heavy an issue to leave up to individual states with open borders. Each state does in fact have their own capital punishment laws for crimes committed in that state and the fed has its laws for federal crimes.
Unfortunately if you let the average individual vote for every issue the government would grind to halt ( not that it's much better now) and it still wouldn't really be representative because most of our apathetic brethren wouldn't participate anymore than they do once every four years.
2007-07-18 20:31:39 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Trouble maker that is not my intent, I don't care what a person does to their own body it is the other body that I think needs protecting. The problem with the askers idea in my opinion is that it would basically be like states that wanted to succeed from the Union. We are one country and as such we need to have laws that are binding through out all states.
I think it should be put to the ballot as all other laws except war declarations and the only reason I exclude them is due to the fact that action must be taken right away. We are not that far apart on this issue, we both think the people should have more control if I understand you.
2007-07-18 20:35:56 · answer #3 · answered by joevette 6 · 0⤊ 1⤋
In the case of abortion then if my county or state had a ban you could always go to a neighboring state to receive the wanted medical treatment you desire .
This would keep the majority of anti abortionists unhappy because they could not control you from getting an abortion which is the intent after all .
These people are driven by religion and thus also want even greater control over what people are permitted to do .
2007-07-18 20:22:13 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 6⤊ 0⤋
Capital Punishment already works that way in America - it's decided state by state.
Democracy, of course, is expected in all 50 states.
Abortion was taken out of the perview of the states by a supreme court ruling in 1974.
2007-07-18 20:26:29 · answer #5 · answered by B.Kevorkian 7 · 3⤊ 0⤋
That's what people wanted to do for Civil Rights, as well, but it would have left a lot of southern states continuing segregation, and even enforcing laws forbidding interracial marriages, to this day. There's a point at which a country has a right to say, "This is (or isn't) allowed in this country."
But you're right that this point can be awfully fuzzy sometimes.
2007-07-18 20:29:02 · answer #6 · answered by Vaughn 6 · 0⤊ 1⤋
and what happens when in a state like in the Midwest where the Conservatives tried to get a law passed outlawing abortion and it was voted down. Then they turn to the old way and just tried to pass one themselves?
2007-07-18 20:23:30 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋
because government is about controlling the masses for the economic gain of a chosen few - democracy is the ultimate evil as far as politicians are concerned.
2007-07-18 20:26:02 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 1⤋
Rowe vs. Wade is based on the premise that abortion is a constitutional right. It's another attempt to interpret the constitution "liberally", to such a "liberal" degree that you might as well say murder is a constitutional right. It should be a state issue.
2007-07-18 20:23:33 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 3⤋
that is where it will go once Roe Vs Wade is struck down..probably with the Democrat bill in Louisiana
2007-07-18 20:19:38 · answer #10 · answered by UMD Terps 3 · 0⤊ 3⤋