Many here at FR think that states should have the power to 'regulate' behavior by majority vote, - by prohibitions on 'evil' objects or on repugnant acts.
Regulate - agree. Prohibition - disagree, partially.
The States should regulate some things as without those regulations many actual crimes would take place. For instance, a States "weights and measures" regulations. If there were not regulations in such instances then the purchasing of a gallon of gasoline or a pound of vegetables would be at the whim of each merchant. My gallon or pound might be less, constituting theft.
In the prohibition aspect "things" shouldn't be prohibited while "criminal acts" should be prohibited. Murder is a "repugnant act" as well as a criminal act, the same as with rape. I want things such as murder and rape prohibited by law.
However, many "repugnant acts", as they are viewed by some, aren't criminal acts yet are made so within the law. There is simply too much objectivity in stating something is a "repugnant act". One person may not see it as such and another person does. That is why our State legislators are supposed to be objective and look out for the rights of the people as a whole and not cater to "special interests".
Just MO and very limited, but something to think about.
To: philman_36; tpaine
That is why our State legislators are supposed to be objective and look out for the rights of the people
as a whole and not cater to "special interests".
Everything I have stated in this thread would fall under that umbrella. Take the issues of secession and nullification--why would you deny those fundamental rights if they served to protect the rights of the people "as a whole"? Are states republics or not?
In my first post I was simply pointing out the fact that the republic--that is the United States of America--envisioned by our forefathers is dead. It died when when Lincoln used deadly force to prevent a few states from exercising their rights as independent republics. They had willingly joined the union and believed--quite correctly--that they could willingly depart. The majority, however, believed that those states did not have the right to secede, and 620,000 men died as a result of "majority rule."
It's nice to see discussions like this, but when you paint yourself into a corner by believing that things can only be rectified through "using the courts & civil disobedience," you are left with nothing more than a dream that can never be realized. I wonder where we would be if the founders took such a passive approach.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson