NationStates Jolt Archive

So many peoples' rationale in their posts use "soup de jure" arguments on which to base their opinions of what the US Constitution says.

To put an end to such opinion-based reasoning (as opposed to actually reading the text of the Constitution, the minutes of the Constitutional Convention, and the huge source of primary documents written by the Founding Fathers and by the State's legislatures when drafting their state constitutions in the late 18th and early 19th centuries), I propose the establishment of online-voting so that the will of We the People can be known instantaneously by any state district court or federal court when it needs to make a decision which is affected by the Constitution.

Of course, this would require a secure network by which the judges could post their constitutional questions and through which citizens could enter their vote. Maybe we could ensure that each vote was legitimate by using an easily scannable computer chip in or bar coding on the forehead?

That would be unconstitutional. :p

The judicial branch is not supposed to be influenced by the people's opinions. If there is to be an amendment to the constitution, it should go through the process that's worked for the last two dozen.

So many peoples' rationale in their posts use "soup de jure" arguments on which to base their opinions of what the US Constitution says.

To put an end to such opinion-based reasoning (as opposed to actually reading the text of the Constitution, the minutes of the Constitutional Convention, and the huge source of primary documents written by the Founding Fathers and by the State's legislatures when drafting their state constitutions in the late 18th and early 19th centuries), I propose the establishment of online-voting so that the will of We the People can be known instantaneously by any state district court or federal court when it needs to make a decision which is affected by the Constitution.

Of course, this would require a secure network by which the judges could post their constitutional questions and through which citizens could enter their vote. Maybe we could ensure that each vote was legitimate by using an easily scannable computer chip in or bar coding on the forehead?

Haxxoring would occur and that would break everything up. Otherwise, still a weird idea. -_-

The judicial branch is not supposed to be influenced by the people's opinions. If there is to be an amendment to the constitution, it should go through the process that's worked for the last two dozen.

So,then, "political correctness" or the whim of the majority of the populace should not influence the judiciary?

Upon what standard should the judiciary base it's decisions? Perhaps what the Founding Fathers meant when they drafted the Consititution?

So,then, "political correctness" or the whim of the majority of the populace should not influence the judiciary?

Upon what standard should the judiciary base it's decisions? Perhaps what the Founding Fathers meant when they drafted the Consititution?

The Judicial Dartboard. They have one in each judge's chambers. It has solved many a dispute. *nod*

The US. Constitution is made to protect the rights of people. What we have seen here recently is an effort to abridge the rights of the citizens of the United States by the will of an aggressive majority. Gay Marriage is an excellent example. Whether you're for Gay Marriage or against (which is irrelevant), you should still understand that you're taking away the rights of a person to do what they want.

Imagine if you're non-religious, or religious in a way other than christianity, and the Christian majority suddenly decided that the United States would be a Christian state by way of voting it into being as a Constitutional amendment? Regardless of whether it will or won't happen, there is the possibility that a new amendment can be created, or an old one overwritten.

That is why there is the judicial branch, to ensure that things of that sort do not happen. Unfortunately, radicals on either end of the political spectrum often bypass such phrases "With liberty and justice for all" "pursuit of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness", etc., as well as amendments that are already put into place (freedom of religion, seperation of church and state, freedom of speech).

Yeah like that system wouldn't get hacked.