Mike Lorrey wrote:
> --- Joe Dumas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>As Michael Badnarik is fond of pointing out (and as the Democratic and
>>Republican politicians do their best to ignore), the Constitution
>>establishes a republic, not a democracy. (In a democracy, 51% of the
>>voters can vote away your rights; in a republic, your rights are
>>secured even if 99% of the voters disagree with you.)
>
> This isn't quite accurate. Your rights are only secure if more than
> 1/3 of the state legislatures say they are, when considering a
> constitutional amendment passed by 2/3 of the congress.
Well, you're not exactly accurate, either. While two-thirds of both
houses of Congress, or two-thirds of the state legislatures, can propose
an amendment, it takes three-fourths of the state legislatures (or
three-fourths of state conventions) to ratify an amendment. So if an
amendment purporting to strip individual rights were to be proposed, it
would only take one-fourth plus one of the states to defeat it.
That said, I would concede (and I think even Michael B. would say) that
the Constitution is imperfect and establishes an imperfect republic. In
a perfect republic, even (n-1) people, where the population is n, could
not modify the law of the land to deprive even one person of his or her
rights. Our Constitution doesn't achieve that goal, but it comes closer
than just about any other document ever created by man. Unfortunately,
it has been perverted quite a bit by all three branches of government
(plus the huge bureaucracy of federal agencies never envisioned by the
Founders) since its ratification 200+ years ago.
I agree with your comments about the desirability of requiring a
supermajority (2/3 or even 3/4 or more) to make significant changes in
federal or state government (like constitutional amendments, and even
tax increases or new taxes imposed by state or local governments). I
think the participation of third parties could best be improved by going
to alternative voting systems (Condorcet, etc. instead of majority or
plurality winner-take-all) and/or by abandoning single district
elections in favor of proportional representation (i.e. if Libertarians
get 5% of the vote, they get 5% of the seats in Congress). Of course,
this is why the Ds and Rs will fight these innovations if they are ever
proposed as constitutional amendments (or, more likely, why they will
never be proposed in the first place).
--
"So this is how Liberty dies ... to thunderous applause."
-- Senator Padme Amidala, Star Wars Episode III
Yahoo! Groups Links
<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/badnarik2008/
<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
