Jesse Ventura - A vote by the people would lead to slavery

[332nd]

He ain't got time to bleed

Then somebody give that **** a tampon so he'll shut up.

 

[Dr Adequate]

I think he's saying that decisions should be made by representative bodies rather than by plebiscite.

Perhaps they should, or perhaps they shouldn't --- in the abstract. What I don't see is where he gets off telling us that a plebiscite is unconstitutional if the constitution of the state in question allows for plebiscites.

 

[Dr Adequate]

Perhaps; but in that case why the charade? Why ask the people at all? Just let them vote every four years and that's it. Oh, and would you say the same if the pro-gay-marriage proposition were supported by the public?

If I was to reply to this post, that would be ... me talking about ... your opinion about ... Puppycow's guess about ... what pipelineaudio was trying to say about ... the Constitution.

Perhaps we should wait until pipelineaudio clarifies his position.

 

[pipelineaudio]

Could you elaborate a little on this theme? So that we know what you're talking about?

Ballot measures are normally put their because our elected officials are too afraid to do the job that they are paid to do, which is to decide matters like this according to the constitution.

No councilman wants to be known as "my super friendly to gay marriage guy", even if he wishes gay marriage were legal. He also doesn't want to be known as "gay hating homophobe guy" if he were to vote against it. The way they deal with these issues is to put it to a ballot measure whereupon the masses of stupid, greedy idiots the constitution was made to protect us from, get to vote to take away rights.

It gets even more fun in that ballot measures aren't candidates so there aren't the same laws limiting campaign contributions. The amount of money a drug company making stop smoking products was spending on an anti freedom ballot isn't disclosed on opensecrets.org the way the amount of money going to obama was.

The lengths some of the ballots go thru to fool people as to what the ballot really is is amazing too.

For instance in 2008 we had one called " Arizona Stop Illegal Hiring Act "

Can you guess what this ballot was about?

Think again. If passed this measure would make the state law enforcement agencies wait until there was a federal case against an employer before charging them with a crime.

 

[pipelineaudio]

Perhaps they should, or perhaps they shouldn't --- in the abstract. What I don't see is where he gets off telling us that a plebiscite is unconstitutional if the constitution of the state in question allows for plebiscites.

The constitution of the USA sets us up as a republic with specific ideals limiting the power of the government to oppress the people. It was also argued by the founding fathers, that a strict democracy was just another term for majority rule, where the unpopular would be oppressed by the popular. It sets up a system whereby the people elect their leaders, but those leaders are bound by the restrictions set forth in the constitution.

If you want to argue that a state constitution should supercede the protections against oppression that the federal constitution sets forth, I guess I have no real answers or ideas who does take precedent. I know who I believe SHOULD.

 

[pipelineaudio]

To hear these folks, the fact that in every single state where gay marriage was legalized, it happened after legistlative or -- usually -- court action, and that in every single state where the people were asked in a ballot what they think, they rejected it, can mean only one thing: the people are stupid and racist, and should be forced to do the right thing by their betters.

I think the argument is, that people shouldn't be allowed to have their rights taken away by the tyranny of the majority. Mob rule is one of the things the constitution was specifically set up to adress, which is why we are a Constitutional Republic and not a democracy

Why SHOULD anyone be allowed to vote to limit the rights of gays?

 

[Hawk one]

So, until there is a proven scientific cause for homosexuality, I don't see how the choice of sexual partners counts towards discrimination, or the lack there of. (Hmm, if homosexuality were once more considered a disease, ADA might help out?)

I'm putting this straight on the head, and start demanding evidence that homosexuality is something one conciously chooses. Because as it is, I've never ever seen any such evidence forecoming. I know for sure that I never felt anything even resembling a choice with regards to my heterosexuality, it was simply there.

So, where is the evidence that homosexuality is a choice again? I mean, it's not limited to humans, for one thing. Hundreds of different species show homosexual behaviour (some even making lifelong partners), most of them species that doesn't exhibit the self-awareness that are prevalent amongst human beings.

I'm going even one step further and directly claim that "homosexuality is a choice" is a mythical meme that Christian elements keep perpetuating, mostly so they can keep up their scary propaganda "If we let gay men do X (be a boy scout leader, join the army, get married), they will try and turn everyone around them gay as well."

And to suggest it needs to be exlaimed a "disease" again is just downright stupid. To me, that's like claiming that being over 190 cm tall is a disease, and for pretty much the same reason. Homosexuality is determined partially by genetics, and partially by the enviroment and how hormones are developing your body (something that is critical, especially during the gestation period). Same thing with height. My genes gave me a tendency to be tall, but it was the actual development, complete with how I got plenty of nutrition in my childhood years, all those factors together made it so that I ended up standing 192cm above the ground when reaching adulthood.

But I sort of digress. I'll let my main question stand: Where is the scientific evidence that homosexuality is a concious choice?

And a follow-up: Even if it was a choice, how can it actually harm anyone else to let people marry someone of their same sex? The only possible thing I've ever seen bruised in this debate are bruised egoes (some of which are the metaphorical size of Texas and Alaska put together), and that certainly doesn't count as harm in my book.

 

[Dr Adequate]

The constitution of the USA sets us up as a republic with specific ideals limiting the power of the government to oppress the people. It was also argued by the founding fathers, that a strict democracy was just another term for majority rule, where the unpopular would be oppressed by the popular. It sets up a system whereby the people elect their leaders, but those leaders are bound by the restrictions set forth in the constitution.

If you want to argue that a state constitution should supercede the protections against oppression that the federal constitution sets forth, I guess I have no real answers or ideas who does take precedent. I know who I believe SHOULD.

Yes, but what we think should or shouldn't happen doesn't make us the arbiter of what is constitutional.

The Founding Fathers were fairly clear that those governmental functions that were not reserved to the federal government were left up to the state governments. Therefore, if something is left up to the state governments, and the government of a state passes a law saying that this or that issue can be decided by a plebiscite, and if this law does not contradict either the constitution of the United States or the constitution of the state in question, then it can, in fact, be decided by a plebiscite.

We may disagree with the decision of the plebiscite, and we may disagree with the state's lawmakers who decided that it should be left up to a plebiscite in the first place, but I don't see how we can say that this is unconstitutional.

 

[pipelineaudio]

We may disagree with the decision of the plebiscite, and we may disagree with the state's lawmakers who decided that it should be left up to a plebiscite in the first place, but I don't see how we can say that this is unconstitutional.

I'd hate to think you are right but you might be. Mob rule is certainly against the spirit of the founding fathers. Maybe they should have been more specific

 

[Dr Adequate]

I'd hate to think you are right but you might be.

Well, I hate to think that I'm right ... but the Constitution is the Constitution, and the constitutions of the several states making up the Union are the constitutions of those states.

For the first time that I can remember, you and I agree on a political point. We are apparently both in favor of gay marriage. Nonetheless, the Constitution is the Constitution, and we can't just declare that plebiscites are unconstitutional merely because we don't like the results.

 

[KoihimeNakamura]

Well, I hate to think that I'm right ... but the Constitution is the Constitution, and the constitutions of the several states making up the Union are the constitutions of those states.

For the first time that I can remember, you and I agree on a political point. We are apparently both in favor of gay marriage. Nonetheless, the Constitution is the Constitution, and we can't just declare that plebiscites are unconstitutional merely because we don't like the results.

There's a bit about why this is bad in Federalist #10 (i.e an overbearing majority can dictate what will happen ignoring the rights of a minority)

 

[Dr Adequate]

There's a bit about why this is bad in Federalist #10 (i.e an overbearing majority can dictate what will happen ignoring the rights of a minority)

Which is what we have constitutions for.

Look, I'm not on the other side, I don't advocate mob rule and I am in favor of gay marriage. Nonetheless, if the constitution of the USA and the constitution of a particular state and the laws of that state allow a popular vote on an issue, then following the results of that vote is constitutional no matter what Alexander Hamilton may or may not have said about what an ideal constitution should or should not allow.

It may be a good thing or a bad thing. I think that in this particular case it's a bad thing, but that's by the by. I'm just arguing that no-one can say that what has just happened is unconstitutional merely by the reference to the fact that it's the result of a plebiscite.

(N.B: It might be unconstitutional on other grounds. But the idea that plebiscites qua plebiscites are unconstitutional is not a basis for such an argument.)

 

[KoihimeNakamura]

Oh, I'm commenting on what Ventura's probably basis for his commetns are.

(The constitutionality is seperate, of course.)

 

[Dr Adequate]

Oh, I'm commenting on what Ventura's probably basis for his commetns are.

OK, but in that case we have to leave that mode where we stroke our intellectual chins and talk about the Federalist Papers, and we're right back were we started, which was with Jesse Ventura saying:

If you put it up to a vote by the people, we'd have slavery again.

Which is manifestly untrue.

 

[Dragoonster]

I appreciate Ventura's point, which is pretty clear. Another amusing, and relevant if hyperbolic part was his desire for congressmen to wear NASCAR-like racing suits, so that their lobbying corporate "sponsors" would show up as patches on them.

 

[ponderingturtle]

Oh yeah, the unruly peasants had once again (like in every state they were actually allowed to state their opinion, no pun intended) decided not to recognize gay marriage.

Clearly they got the wrong answer. Isn't there a judge somewhere who will overrule the peasants and declare their view "unconstitutional"? There usually is.

So you have no fundamental problem with say the Nuremberg laws as long as they were supported by at least 50% of the populace.

 

[The Central Scrutinizer]

So long as she is named Rebecca.

She would be a sex slave. That's not really what we're talking about here.

 

[Beerina]

Whilst I doubt you'd have slavery I thought part of the rationale behind the system of USA government was indeed to prevent the "tyranny of the masses"?

That was beaten down long ago by re-interpreting the Constitution to be a no-holds-barred document allowing Congress to do pretty much whatever it wanted, insofar as they could pack the Supreme Court with judges to find what they wanted.

In this matter, major changes (like massive redistribution of wealth, or, presumably, the nationalization of medicine) no longer require a well-thought out and protracted, deliberate process of amending the Constitution, requiring a supermajority of people and states to authorize such major changes, as was done for income tax, but now just a brief, ephemeral, transitory 50.01% was required to entrench hard-to-remove massive changes to the government's powers.


Not for the stuff you believe in, of course, dear reader. The other guy's stuff. The stuff you believe in is Good and Holy and There In The Constitution All Along.

 

[EvilSmurf]

I do believe one of the more powerful forces in politics is inertia. I think if people were asked to vote on school desegregation in the 1960s - for example - the results would have been firmly affirming "separate but equal". I think it is also conceivable that in some of those states which would have voted against desegregation in the 1960s would have continued voting against it, probably to this present day.

I also believe that on most issues that there are a crowd of people who reinforce the status quo just because it is the status quo. These are the types of people who will be bitterly disappointed when their cause celebre was defeated in one way or another, but then a few years later when the world doesn't end will be thinking "What the [rule10] was I so worked up about this for back then?"

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

I do believe one of the more powerful forces in politics is inertia. I think if people were asked to vote on school desegregation in the 1960s - for example - the results would have been firmly affirming "separate but equal". I think it is also conceivable that in some of those states which would have voted against desegregation in the 1960s would have continued voting against it, probably to this present day.

Well said.

So it seems Ventura's comment expresses a meaningful and valid argument. People are just bothered by his "ineloquence".

Again, I ask, ineloquent compared to what?

The anti-gay marriage side is not noted for eloquence or reasoned argumentation. It ranges from rantings that homosexuality is "unnatural" and "an abomination before God" (and "God hates fags") to the position of the moderate majority who think that denying homosexuals the right to get married somehow "defends" heterosexual marriage.

Just giving this "ineloquence" business some perspective. . . .

<derail>
ETA: FWIW, while I agree with the "tyranny of the majority" argument (that is, you shouldn't let a majority vote strip individuals of rights), my own perspective is that it's really a church/state separation issue. We should require that no government ever recognize a religious ritual as having any legal/civil status. Legal marriage should ONLY happen by state documents (and we could dispense with the ceremony requirement altogether). The First Amendment guarantees you the right to perform any religious ceremony you like, but that should not receive any state recognition.

And we have models for this. Catholics, for example, don't recognize legal divorce as ending their religious sacrament of marriage. A Catholic who wants to remarry in the Church must get an anullment. If he wants to avoid bigamy charges, though, he's got to get a legal divorce as well. I'm not sure, but at one time legally naming a baby was probably part of christening or baptism ceremonies, but now the legal naming is just done with state documentation (no ceremony at all), and you're free to do any christening or baptism in a church you want as a wholly separate matter. In many European countries, the legally recognized form of marriage is wholly separate (dare I say "divorced"?) from the religious ritual.
</derail>