• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Judge strikes down Idaho's same-sex marriage ban

TheDemSocialist said:
Show me where in the Constitution of the united states where it says state governments can or cannot have referendums? Which article exactly?
Click to expand...

article 4 section 4 of the constitution states it is a guarantee, that all states and the federal government be republican forms of government.........direct democracy is not part of a republican form of government.

the Athenians used direct democracy, the founders hated democracy, and created state and federal governments based on the roman republic ...not Athens.
 
ernst barkmann said:
article 4 section 4 of the constitution states it is a guarantee, that all states and the federal government be republican forms of government.........direct democracy is not part of a republican form of government.

the Athenians used direct democracy, the founders hated democracy, and created state and federal governments based on the roman republic ...not Athens.
Click to expand...

You can use forms of direct democracy and still be a republican form of government. The Roman Republic used some forms of direct democracy as well. They had forms of ways the citizens can directly veto laws. And also all states that use referendums do not use true forms of direct demoracy. There are steps that have to be taken. Be it a certain amount of legislators on your side, or a certain amount of citizens have to sign in favor of the referendum or a combination.
 
TheDemSocialist said:
You can use forms of direct democracy and still be a republican form of government. The Roman Republic used some forms of direct democracy as well. They had forms of ways the citizens can directly veto laws. And also all states that use referendums do not use true forms of direct demoracy. There are steps that have to be taken. Be it a certain amount of legislators on your side, or a certain amount of citizens have to sign in favor of the referendum or a combination.
Click to expand...

how?..... democracy is a democratic form of government...not republican

in republican forms of government it has only 1 single element of democracy in it, but it is outweighed by the other parts which are not democratic.
 
ernst barkmann said:
ok...that is what i am saying......no one can ever be forced to preform a ceremony, or be part of a marriage by commerce acts...though civil rights.

natural rights, civil rights, have no power to force another citizen to do things against their will...it only has the power to force government to do things.

you cannot use a right, against a right!
Click to expand...

Marriage is a fundemental right.

that means any infringement or challange of that right has to meet the standard of rational basis and strict scrutiny demanded by the due process clause and equal protection clause of the 14th amendment.
 
ernst barkmann said:
how?..... democracy is a democratic form of government...not republican
Click to expand...
Not true. You can be a republic and a democracy at the same time.

in republican forms of government it has only 1 single element of democracy in it, but it is outweighed by the other parts which are not democratic.
Click to expand...
Since referundums in our country have certain amount of checks i would argue they are not actual pure forms of direct demoracy. In a direct democracy anyone who is of voting age can go vote on any piece of legislation no matter what.

But what does this have to do with the argument at hand?
 
Unitedwestand13 said:
Marriage is a fundemental right.

that means any infringement or challange of that right has to meet the standard of rational basis and strict scrutiny demanded by the due process clause and equal protection clause of the 14th amendment.
Click to expand...

ok say it is a right.....you cannot take your right , and exercise it on me...you exercise it on government.

you have a right...well so do i...and your rights stop at my rights.

equal protect under the law.... 14th amendment.....all applies to government ..............not the public.

you don't have any rights which you can exercise on me ,to make me do things for you.......government can give you no such man made created right [civil right]privilege........since you cannot even use a natural right on me to make me do things for you.
 
ernst barkmann said:
ok say it is a right.....you cannot take your right , and exercise it on me...you exercise it on government.

you have a right...well so do i...and your rights stop at my rights.

equal protect under the law.... 14th amendment.....all applies to government ..............not the public.

you don't have any rights which you can exercise on me ,to make me do things for you.......government can give you no such man made created right [civil right]privilege........since you cannot even use a natural right on me to make me do things for you.
Click to expand...

Yes but that's not what this thread is about. This thread is about government issued marriage certificates.
 
ernst barkmann said:
ok say it is a right.....you cannot take your right , and exercise it on me...you exercise it on government.

you have a right...well so do i...and your rights stop at my rights.

equal protect under the law.... 14th amendment.....all applies to government ..............not the public.

you don't have any rights which you can exercise on me ,to make me do things for you.......government can give you no such man made created right [civil right]privilege........since you cannot even use a natural right on me to make me do things for you.
Click to expand...

i suspect you disagree with the decision of proposition 8.
 
TheDemSocialist said:
Not true. You can be a republic and a democracy at the same time.


Since referundums in our country have certain amount of checks i would argue they are not actual pure forms of direct demoracy. In a direct democracy anyone who is of voting age can go vote on any piece of legislation no matter what.

But what does this have to do with the argument at hand?
Click to expand...


how? under the founders, the house is democratically elected........the other two offices are non democratic votes..making it republican.

because people in the state were using direct democracy to vote on rights of people to barr them getting married.......you cant vote on other people rights in republican forms of government........in democracies you can.

our constitutional guarantee ...forbids such activity.
 
Unitedwestand13 said:
i suspect you disagree with the decision of proposition 8.
Click to expand...


He's not talking about Civil Marriage, he's deflecting the thread into a discussion of Public Accommodation laws when he talks about the government requiring private businesses to provide equal goods and services.


>>>>
 
ernst barkmann said:
how? under the founders, the house is democratically elected........the other two offices are non democratic votes..making it republican.

because people in the state were using direct democracy to vote on rights of people to barr them getting married.......you cant vote on other people rights in republican forms of government........in democracies you can.

our constitutional guarantee ...forbids such activity.
Click to expand...

you seem to disregard or ignore 200+ years of U.S political history.
 
WorldWatcher said:
He's not talking about Civil Marriage, he's deflecting the thread into a discussion of Public Accommodation laws when he talks about the government requiring private businesses to provide equal goods and services.


>>>>
Click to expand...
you seem to not understand i have been asked many questions from many perspectives.

when you have natural/ civil rights//privileges they cannot be used on [force]other people, by people.

the people cannot vote to take rights away, or discriminate against other people.

the people cannot use a rights they have.... to force another citizen with rights to give them something
 
Last edited:
Unitedwestand13 said:
you seem to disregard or ignore 200+ years of U.S political history.
Click to expand...

you wish to read the constitution on how it is constructed.

is the presidency, democratically elected...........no!

was the senate pre 17th..democratically elected ...no!
 
Unitedwestand13 said:
you don't have a valid reason for overturning 200 years of precedent.
Click to expand...

200 years of what?....tell me what you mean...because when america was created it was a true republic

america is not operating under constitutional law of the founders.... and no where does it given 1 citizen authority over another..
 
ernst barkmann said:
how? under the founders, the house is democratically elected........the other two offices are non democratic votes..making it republican.
Click to expand...
Except we updated the Constitution to where we elect both chambers of the legislation. And how do we elect them with the power of the vote making it democratic. True we dont elect the highest office. I think that proves that we are both a democracy and a republic. A democratic republic of such.



because people in the state were using direct democracy to vote on rights of people to barr them getting married.......you cant vote on other people rights in republican forms of government........in democracies you can.
Click to expand...
Only in direct democracies you can. But in most historical examples there are still guranteed rights that can not be taken away by vote.
 
ernst barkmann said:
200 years of what?....tell me what you mean...because when america was created it was a true republic

america is not operating under constitutional law of the founders.... and no where does it given 1 citizen authority over another..
Click to expand...

things change

the founders were not immortal, and their successors had to implement what they believed would follow the founding fathers intentions.
 
TheDemSocialist said:
Except we updated the Constitution to where we elect both chambers of the legislation. And how do we elect them with the power of the vote making it democratic. True we dont elect the highest office. I think that proves that we are both a democracy and a republic. A democratic republic of such.
Click to expand...

true but the guarantee is still there..causing a constitutional problem


TheDemSocialist said:
Only in direct democracies you can. But in most historical examples there are still guranteed rights that can not be taken away by vote.
Click to expand...

if i remember in France which is a democratic socialistic republic, a right of people was taken away, ..i don't remember if it was by the people vote, or government legislation though..i think it was a speech issue...but iam again not sure
 
At this point I'd just be pissed at the governor for stalling and costing tax payers more $$$. All the foot-stamping in the world isnt going to stop SSM nationally and anyone with any sense...liking it or not...should be able to see that.

And I was pissed that we had to spend more $$$ to take it to a vote for voter approval in my state. Our state legislature approved SSM and conservatives balked at it and got enough signatures on a petition to take it to a vote.

Total waste of my $$. Voters approved it fairly comfortably.
 
ernst barkmann said:
true but the guarantee is still there..causing a constitutional problem
Click to expand...
Not entirely since we amended the Constitution



if i remember in France which is a democratic socialistic republic, a right of people was taken away, ..i don't remember if it was by the people vote, or government legislation though..i think it was a speech issue...but iam again not sure
Click to expand...
I dont think france is a consitutinoal democratic socialist republic.
 
ernst barkmann said:
my question to you is:

are you not one one the people on this forum who believes democracy and "will of the people"

since this is a constitutional amendment which the people approved of........:2razz:
Click to expand...


I believe in the 'Equal Protection Clause' and the tyranny of the majority not infringing on the minority.
 
ernst barkmann said:
true but the guarantee is still there..causing a constitutional problem

if i remember in France which is a democratic socialistic republic, a right of people was taken away, ..i don't remember if it was by the people vote, or government legislation though..i think it was a speech issue...but iam again not sure
Click to expand...

I have shown you that yes, republics can include referendums. It doesn't matter if we didn't include them in the past. (Although they did in Rome. We were in fact the first republic to ever define republic without some direct democracy going on.) Most republics do include referendums.

The only thing republic means is a government that is run by the people. It can include many elements of democracy. The thing that makes us different than a direct democracy is that we have a Constitution that guarantees certain rights no matter the vote of the majority. It is not based on the will of the majority when that majority tries to enact laws that violate the Constitution (including state constitutions). But that in no way prevents referendums from being a part of a republic.

As the SCOTUS put in their ruling on referendums, the definition of a republic and whether it can include referendums is a political question, basically a matter of political opinion. It is obvious that republics can include referendums, since many do. And there is nothing within the Constitution itself that specifically restricts the use of referendums.

The use of referendums is limited, and is only done by the states. It cannot be used to make changes to the US Constitution without a change to the Constitution being made the way it is written in the Constitution now. So, if the majority enacts a law by majority direct vote it is treated no differently than if it were enacted by a majority vote of the representatives, which means it is still completely subject to be challenged under either the state constitutions or the US Constitution.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom