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

[Cynic]

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.

That could form the basic premise for a future sci-fi plot. I love it.

 

[Ladewig]

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,

Interesting point. If the tax protesters won their case and had income tax declared unconstitutional, would an income tax amendment pass today?

 

[Cynic]

All of this plays into the whole "legislating from the bench" thing people who would like to control other people whine about. Part of having a Constitution is enforcing it, and if the Consitutution says that descrimination isn't allowed, then it isn't allowed and laws or the lack thereof allow for discrimination, then it's up to a judge to put a stop to it. It's silly that we have amenedments to the Constitution that specifically state that women are both people and citizens, or that blacks are people, etc. It says LOADs about how much authority the "majority" should have in these matters. Ventura is right, as he quite often is when you get past his particular style.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

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.

Really? Can you substantiate that claim?

Here in Missouri, the majority voted down gay marriage and it stuck. I understand the vote in Iowa was reversed by the courts, but that's hardly "usually".

My understanding is at this point, the states are left to decide this matter however their own constitutions dictate. (Now if you think it makes sense to let a measure that conflicts with the state constitution because it passed a majority vote, you'll probably lose that argument.)

 

[Cynic]

Really? Can you substantiate that claim?

Here in Missouri, the majority voted down gay marriage and it stuck. I understand the vote in Iowa was reversed by the courts, but that's hardly "usually".

My understanding is at this point, the states are left to decide this matter however their own constitutions dictate. (Now if you think it makes sense to let a measure that conflicts with the state constitution because it passed a majority vote, you'll probably lose that argument.)

Eventually these kinds of matters end up in the Supreme Court and the States, like children who shouldn't have had to have been told, get their fingers smacked with a ruler and constitutions rendered moot. "Not as long as you're living under my roof" they're told, as they should be. State's rights are a fine idea, right up until they prove that they can't handle the responsibility of having them. Then they're rightly taken away.

 

[Scootch]

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.

I think he stole that from Michael Moore, but whoever came up with the idea it is a good one.

 

[Brainster]

Considering the mass of nonsense that comes out of Ventura's mouth, if I were to find him agreeing with me on any substantial point I would have to re-examine the matter carefully, and if I retained my original viewpoint I would ask Ventura to put a sock in his mouth.

 

[quadraginta]

Considering the mass of nonsense that comes out of Ventura's mouth, if I were to find him agreeing with me on any substantial point I would have to re-examine the matter carefully, and if I retained my original viewpoint I would ask Ventura to put a sock in his mouth.

I was going to take issue with this comment until I realized that I felt the same way about someone who would make a comment like this.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

Eventually these kinds of matters end up in the Supreme Court and the States, like children who shouldn't have had to have been told, get their fingers smacked with a ruler and constitutions rendered moot. "Not as long as you're living under my roof" they're told, as they should be. State's rights are a fine idea, right up until they prove that they can't handle the responsibility of having them. Then they're rightly taken away.

I see what you mean. If you take Skeptic's comment to be the more general statement--something like, whenever the states vote by simple majority to take away people's U.S. Constitutional rights, the matter eventually gets resolved by the U.S. Supreme Court, I would agree (as long as "eventually" can be a really long time).

I took his comment to mean that whenever a state has voted to remove homosexuals' right to get married the decision is "usually" reversed by a judge (in a state court). To date, I don't think that's so.

I don't think the Supreme Court will ever make marriage a federal issue per se (that is, I don't think people will ever have to apply to the Federal Government for a marriage license), but they can assert a case based on equal protection, or (my preference) a First Amendment church/state separation case, or get at it from the interstate law regarding "full faith and credit" (the issue of recognizing marriages licensed by other states).

 

[KoihimeNakamura]

Beerina: "elastic clause" and "neccessary and proper" . However, I generally only refer to the federalist papers/constitution for things like civil rights (where I feel there's less wiggle room for interpretation.) ('course, this does raise *interesting* questions about the intentions re: Slavery, but uh, oversimplification: go go go go!)