We allow certian things to be put to a popular vote because if an individual state feels that a system that allows them to do such at certain instances when deemed necessary then they are free to do so.
What the "job" of those branches, how wide ranging that job should be, how supreme those jobs should be, are not subject to some over arching federal mandate. I question you that its not "why not allow them to do their job" but rather "why limit the people of the states to decide how their government should best serve them"?Why not allow the legislative and judicial branches to do their job.
I disagree. The risk is no more higher than from letting all laws come from the legislative branch. Both situations have the potential for tyranny of the majority. Both have situations where the rights of the majority may actually be trampled upon by grouping up of the minority. Both have situations where a host of other issues can be. But both have the same limitation in that they are checked for constitutional legitimacy by the courts.We run a serious risk to the rights/liberties of this country when we allow things to be put to a popular vote.
That is one safeguard we have, and that is one reason we have a representitives. However, we also have safe guards in this country to allow states to determine how they deal with state issues on their own based on what individuals within that state feel is best for them.Isn't that why we elect our representatives and have the safeguard of voting them out if we disagree with them.
Hypothetically, if a state suddenly went to EVERYTHING being by a direct popular vote...yes, that could cause some issues. However, that is as realistic and feasable as a hypothetical as worrying whether or not one of our states would seceed to create a islamic republic. It's ridiculous to use as the basis for an argument.