>With no reference to prior laws?
>I doubt that. That may
>be the official definition, but
>in real life referendums are
>about changing, adding or repealing
>laws. Plus all "democratic" countries
>(I believe) have bodies which
>examine the legality of all
>new laws (whether made by
>referendum or by the legislative
>body). And BTW, how often
>are there referendums? Not often,
>apart from Switzerland. It's not
>really a common law-making device.

Yeah but if the representatives and the citizens vote to override the present laws, it generally can be done. And once again, in both legislature and referendums, they can be done with only a majority of the vote.

As for referendums, I dunno about Europe, but they do it here alot at the state and local levels, given they are separate governments from the feds, who oversee them all. I'm sure if you will look around, you might find some that do use referendums also, just not at the national level. You see the problem is that people in the States believe that every issue should be decided democratically among the people. Not only is that unrealistic, but dangerous. Such laws that aren't established in comparison to previous law will cause conflict between the minority and the majority.

>>A constitutional republic is a form
>>of government in which representatives
>>are elected democratically, but the
>>laws that are made by
>>the representatives cannot go above
>>the chief law document of
>>the land (the Constitution).
>>All laws must be written
>>in accordance to that document,
>>or they are null and
>>void. A republic puts
>>the law above people.
>>

>Sure, but that Constitution can be
>modified. In France, we are
>at the 5th Republic, which
>means that were are using
>the 5th Constitution. The 4
>others collapsed for various reasons
>(often war, Napoleon...).

5th? The hell have you guys been doing? We're still on our first. *L*

It's REALLY hard to add an Amendment to the Constitution here. If I'm not mistaken, it has to be approved by 75% of Congress, signed by the President (Slick Willie), and then approved by 75% of the state governments. If I'm not mistaking, the last amendment approved was the Compensation of Representatives Act in 1992. Before that, 21 yrs had passed since the last one, which gave 18 yr olds the right to vote. There have only been 27 amendments passed in this country's 224 yr history. Other than that, all laws made must adhere to the Constitution.

>>You see, the problem with democracy
>>is that the majority wins,
>>and do not take the
>>minority's views into consideration, which
>>can lead to oppression.
>
>It's funny how "power to the
>people" leads to oppression.

That's not power to the people. That's power to the majority.

>Wouldn't that rather be a referendum
>about eliminating the freedom of
>religious practice?
>You believe that being a democracy
>means that all previous laws
>have no power?
>In your example, let's assume that
>the State granted freedom of
>religious practice. A referendum to
>make the State Christian would
>be deemed illegal and void.

When I said christian state, I meant christian nation. it's a term of speech here...

Of course the referendum would eliminate the freedom of religious practice, but wouldn't it be nice to know what religion they would want practiced?

>However a referendum to remove
>the freedom of religious practice
>would be possible. Although that
>would go against the bill
>of Human Rights (and in
>Europe would be nullified by
>the EU).

Remind me never to live in Europe. I don't like the idea of one large governmental body that can override national soverignities. But once again, I'm sure the EU isn't a democratic government. How are representatives chosen anyways? Appointed?

>I was talking about the sheep/wolf
>part. The other part isn't
>particularly entertaining.

I know I know, i was hoping you'd get the message through that and the other stuff I was saying, so I'll break it down for ya.

* Democracy:  Three wolves and a sheep
vote on the dinner menu.

In a democracy, simply put, majority rules. Hence, there are more wolves than sheep, so, the wolves make the rules.

* Democratically Elected Republic: Three
wolves and 2 sheep vote on which sheep's
for dinner.

In a Democratic Republic, the majority party controls the government, in which they make the rules and such. They have a law document, but they can vote what they want to out. I think this is the representative of French government.

* Constitutional Republic: The eating of
mutton is forbidden by law, and the
sheep are armed.

Simple. The Constitution overrides all. No ifs ands or buts. In our Constitution, the right to own guns is protected (although it is a hot issue over here at this time). Therefore, the sheep have access to guns and can use them in self defense.

>As you can see, I didn't
>understand what you were talking
>about, please explain. However, it
>seems to fly in the
>face of your "the rich
>will get sick of paying
>for assistance to the poor"
>theory.

Alright. Bush is proposing a tax cut that essentially is set up that for every $10 dollars that the higher income earners get, a dime will go to the middle income earners and a penny to the lower income earners. Gore is complaining about this, saying it isn't fair. However what Gore isn't telling people is that's how the tax bracket here is set up, in which for every $10 dollars the rich pays, the middle class pays a dime and the poor a penny. Hence, they should get back as much as they paid. Understand now?

As for the rich/poor theory, the whole point is that every year the tax rolls put more financial responsibility on the rich, and less on the poor. The poor virtually do not pay hardly any taxes, while most people that make over $80, pending on how many are in the household, pay up to 40% of their annual income on taxes. Sooner or later, somethings gotta give, whether it's from cutting taxes or giving out tax credits. Not to mention it will hurt morality and motivation. What's the use of making alot of money if the government is going to take it just to give it to someone else? The average American, if they had to pay taxes first before they could get their full income, would be working for the government until sometime in mid May.

>>The Libertarian Party, the only party
>>that wants to actually shrink
>>the size of the federal
>>government, believes the Constitution nor
>>the Founding Fathers did not
>>want government to be in
>>control of peoples' lives.
>>The essence of government is
>>the lack of power the
>>government has and the power
>>the people actually have.
>>Therefore, alot of these government
>>programs gotta go, and restore
>>faith in the private sector.

>I don't want the government to
>be overly powerful (an assumption
>you made in our previous,
>more heated debates ).

But see, that's the problem. When you allow the majority to control the government, as in democracy, that is making the government overtly powerful. Why? Because the majority is going to use the government to impose their will.

>However, neither do I want
>the private sector (or rather,
>individual companies) to be controlling
>my life (you however, seem
>to want this).

I don't allow businesses to control my life. Alot of people seem to forget that you control who you do business with, not the other way around. Now if there are one or two businesses in that market, that's different, but competition spurs businesses to give the people the best products. Sure I believe in government interaction with businesses, but only to the point where they eliminate fraud and cutthroat competition. That's it, that's all.

I want
>to control my own life.

Well then less government power is better, along with the power to make individual decisions about your life. You shouldn't be advocating majority (mob) decisions on issues concerning the state of the nation. That should be decided by the laws of that nation based on the Constitution (although I must say, you guys must not be too good at making constitutions).

>I think a step in
>that direction would be democracy
>executed at many levels, voting
>much more frequently and much
>more easily (i.e. not making
>it so people have to
>go out of there way
>on a special day to
>vote).

See that's what was meant by the Tyler quote. That means the government would be controlled by a majority of the people, including the government treasury. To do so will stifle the economy, because lets face it, not everyone is a professional economist or knows what is actually going in in the economy. It's the same with government and national issues also.

>>As for Britain and France, I
>>dunno much about their governments.
>> I do know that
>>a "constitutional monarchy" is
>>mainly a fraud, since Elizabeth
>>nor any of the royal
>>family has any political power
>>and are mainly figureheads.
>
>That's what constitutional monarchy means.

Yeah but big deal. When you add the word monarchy it makes it sound as if they have equal or even some power, which they dont. Hence the term is moot.

>Yeah, I'm always outraged by that
>shit (I went to university
>in the UK for 3
>years), and by the trouble
>they're having in getting rid
>of it, and the mess
>they're making of doing that.

Yeah well what do you expect, they're Brits....

>>Yes....I am a PROUD Black Libertarian
>>Conservative.

>Has the "Libertarian" been added recently,
>Or was I a victim
>of selective reading?

You read right. I added it.
I had to. Too many people had the idea that I was a black Republican Party member. Hell no. I think Libertarian explains me a little better, both politically and in ideals also.
______________________________________________________________________________________
"A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves money from the public treasury. From that moment on the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most money from the public treasury, with the result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy followed by a dictatorship." - Alexander Tyler

"In general the art of government consists in taking as much money as possible from one class of citizens to give to the other." -Voltaire

"The assumption that spending more of the taxpayer's money will make things better has survived all kinds of evidence that it has made things worse. The black family- which survived slavery, discrimination, poverty, wars and depressions- began to come apart as the federal government moved in with its well-financed programs to "help." - Thomas Sowell

"Life is insensitive, and the truth can be highly offensive. To hide from either is to hide from the reality of life. Take pride in the fact that I am an equal opportunity offender. You today, someone else tomorrow. You have no constitutional right not to be offended." - Neal Boortz

Some of you still think America's a
democracy. Lemme break it down for
ya...

* Democracy:  Three wolves and a sheep
vote on the dinner menu.
* Democratically Elected Republic: Three
wolves and 2 sheep vote on which sheep's
for dinner. 
* Constitutional Republic: The eating of
mutton is forbidden by law, and the
sheep are armed.

The United States is a CONSTITUTIONAL
REPUBLIC. Not a democracy.

Yes....I am a PROUD Black Libertarian Conservative.

_________________________
http://expertise.blogdrive.com
http://twitter.com/KMBReferee
http://www.ask.fm/KMBReferee