We currently have numerous politicians who not only seek legislation and cultural changes that directly contradict the Constitution and the American way of life, but also a multitude of people who are more than happy to vote for them.

So my question is, assuming for a moment these politicians are elected and their laws enacted, and even supported by the majority of Americans--does democratic process elevate to acceptable what is otherwise reprehensible?

Question:
Is the leftist agenda acceptable as political and social policy in America if it is voted in by the people?

Choices:
Yes
No

 

We hold these truths to be self evident, that we are endowed by our creator with certain unalienable rights - that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

A violation of Constitutional rights is unacceptable, no matter how many leftists think it is ok.

"Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote!".
- Benjamin Franklin Link

By a strictly technical definition I'd say yes.
I'd also hope for a swift and overwhelmingly thorough revolution soon afterward.

Unfortunately once the socialist disease takes root it is often supported by a large majority. This could potentially allow them to change the constitution too.

I can't believe even one person would vote yes in this poll.

One problem is the more frequent tactic of citizen initiatives on the ballot to change a state constitution. This has occurred frequently in AZ.

As more states become blue, it may become more commonplace to push a liberal agenda.

quote:

Originally posted by Balzé Halzé:
I can't believe even one person would vote yes in this poll.

Pretty sad to be sure.

quote:

Originally posted by az4783054:
One problem is the more frequent tactic of citizen initiatives on the ballot to change a state constitution. This has occurred frequently in AZ.

As more states become blue, it may become more commonplace to push a liberal agenda.

Look at California. For the most part they have initiated some pure socialist policies so yes these types of changes can occur on a localized basis I should think. As an example, marijuana has been legalized in some states but is still against federal law. According to the constitution states can't override federal law. If the federal government chooses to disregard breeches of the law then the answer would be yes, socialist policies could be initiated.

This said, I voted no because I think that enough people would force the government to stop erosion to the constitution.

Damn, I miss JALLEN!

Jim

When is communism ever acceptable?

quote:

Originally posted by Balzé Halzé:
I can't believe even one person would vote yes in this poll.

Probably from Broward County.

I dont want to see what this country looks like in 100 years.

"When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation."

If the provision is unconstitutional, then no amount of democratic approval can make it proper. For example. even if approved by overwhelming majorities, a rule that newspapers had to get approval from the government for everything they print would be unconstitutional.

There are many laws that could pass that we here wouldn't like at all, and which would be constitutional.

No, because they will cheat to win the votes needed.

We are not in a Democracy. We are a Democratically elected, Representative Republic. The only thing Democratic is how we pick our representation. Democracy is mob rule. 50.1% of the population could lord over 49.9% in a democracy.

quote:

Originally posted by jhe888:
If the provision is unconstitutional, then no amount of democratic approval can make it proper. For example. even if approved by overwhelming majorities, a rule that newspapers had to get approval from the government for everything they print would be unconstitutional.

There are many laws that could pass that we here wouldn't like at all, and which would be constitutional.

Given sufficient "popularity" the constitution can be amended. Look no further than the 18th amendment to see how the current crop of loonies could potentially dictate "hate speech" or redistribution of wealth or any number of socialist wet dreams.

By that logic, Hildabeast should be President, since she got more of the raw vote total than Trump.

Thank God that the Constitution was written by men who anticipated the consequences of Mob Rule and made allowances preventing it.

So, no, Mob Rule is not an acceptable alternative to Constitutional Rule.

quote:

Originally posted by TSE:

quote:

Originally posted by jhe888:
If the provision is unconstitutional, then no amount of democratic approval can make it proper. For example. even if approved by overwhelming majorities, a rule that newspapers had to get approval from the government for everything they print would be unconstitutional.

There are many laws that could pass that we here wouldn't like at all, and which would be constitutional.

Given sufficient "popularity" the constitution can be amended. Look no further than the 18th amendment to see how the current crop of loonies could potentially dictate "hate speech" or redistribution of wealth or any number of socialist wet dreams.

Of course. But that takes super-majorities and ratification, etc.