CDZ Wow! SD Legislature goes too far! So much for draining the swamp in SD

Discussion in 'Clean Debate Zone' started by Xelor, Feb 2, 2017.

  1. Xelor
    Offline

    Xelor Gold Member

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2017
    Messages:
    6,860
    Thanks Received:
    983
    Trophy Points:
    210
    Location:
    D.C.
    Ratings:
    +3,508

    The "catch" notwithstanding, that's still very different from the legislature overturning a law the voters enacted via referendum.
     
  2. oldsoul
    Offline

    oldsoul Gold Member

    Joined:
    Oct 12, 2015
    Messages:
    2,129
    Thanks Received:
    330
    Trophy Points:
    140
    Location:
    East side of Spoon Lake
    Ratings:
    +1,088
    That may be, yet the message is the same, "we know what is best for you, regardless of what you may think." Kind of like what a parent tells a child, isn't it?
     
  3. Xelor
    Offline

    Xelor Gold Member

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2017
    Messages:
    6,860
    Thanks Received:
    983
    Trophy Points:
    210
    Location:
    D.C.
    Ratings:
    +3,508
    What? The voters telling the legislature that they don't agree with a law is not like a parent telling their children they know what's best. It's the conceptual opposite of that.

    While the parent-child analogy is seems fitting for the discussion we're having, it's not substantively so because all the parties involved in the voting process are adults. Now if you'd like to use that analogy, you'd need to demonstrate that a majority or large plurality of non-elected voters who voted to reverse legislative actions are indeed sophomoric in their actual analysis of, and will and ability to analyze, the matters put to their vote and the impacts of their votes regarding those matters.

    I wouldn't say that, but the fact is that once the voters have spoken by voting on a matter, their decision has to be honored. That's why Trump is in the White House; he won the majority of the electoral votes.
     
  4. oldsoul
    Offline

    oldsoul Gold Member

    Joined:
    Oct 12, 2015
    Messages:
    2,129
    Thanks Received:
    330
    Trophy Points:
    140
    Location:
    East side of Spoon Lake
    Ratings:
    +1,088
    You are arguing with a phantom. That is not at all what I was saying. It's the Legislators treating, and looking at, the voters as if they were their children. Am I being more clear this time?
     
  5. oldsoul
    Offline

    oldsoul Gold Member

    Joined:
    Oct 12, 2015
    Messages:
    2,129
    Thanks Received:
    330
    Trophy Points:
    140
    Location:
    East side of Spoon Lake
    Ratings:
    +1,088
    Are you saying that to use an analogy, one must prove (to your satisfaction?) that the two situations are similar enough? What kind of crap is that? Analogies are meant to SIMPLIFY things that are not simple, what you are suggesting does quite the opposite.
     
  6. Xelor
    Offline

    Xelor Gold Member

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2017
    Messages:
    6,860
    Thanks Received:
    983
    Trophy Points:
    210
    Location:
    D.C.
    Ratings:
    +3,508
    Well, not really because the example you presented is one whereby the people are reversed legislative action. (Did you mistakenly present the example differently than did the content at your link? I haven't read the linked content; only your summary of it.)
     
  7. FA_Q2
    Offline

    FA_Q2 Gold Member

    Joined:
    Dec 12, 2009
    Messages:
    15,807
    Thanks Received:
    2,319
    Trophy Points:
    290
    Location:
    Washington State
    Ratings:
    +5,356
    No, that is not the example he used. The example was a case of the legislator making the reversal impossible. The pubic has the power to overturn a law they do not like UNLESS the legislator attaches an appropriation to it. In those cases the public is not empowered to overturn the law.

    In that case the legislator is telling the public tough shit.
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 1
  8. Xelor
    Offline

    Xelor Gold Member

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2017
    Messages:
    6,860
    Thanks Received:
    983
    Trophy Points:
    210
    Location:
    D.C.
    Ratings:
    +3,508
    If the analogy has material differences that are relevant to the line of discussion for which the analogy aims to illustrate a point, yes. The nature of the governors-to-governed relationship, as well as the faculties of the parties in that relationship, are not at all similar to those found in the parent-child relationship. The only similarity is that one party in each relationship is deemed, in the main, to have authority to make decisions on behalf of the other.

    It's reasonable to think that, on a given life decision/political matter, a parent knows better than their child; moreover, because of the child's minority, the parent has literal and formal decisionmaking authority over the child such that the parent's decision stands no matter what the child thinks of it. The same set of facts simply don't exist between governors and the governed who voted for a given measure about which they were specifically asked to vote. Are you suggesting that the nature of representative government should, in the case of ballot referendum decisions, nonetheless function in form and function as does the parent-child relationship?
     
  9. Xelor
    Offline

    Xelor Gold Member

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2017
    Messages:
    6,860
    Thanks Received:
    983
    Trophy Points:
    210
    Location:
    D.C.
    Ratings:
    +3,508
    So you are saying the focus of his point was on the "catch" and not nature of how the reversal be effected? Perhaps you are right. If you are right, I don't know why he mentioned that as the focus of the thread is on the fact that the governor and legislature overturned the voters' actually and literally expressed will. The Michigan law he identified is a preemptive move, a blocking move. It's not a full-on "f*ck you; what you voted for doesn't matter" move.

    I agree that the legislative tactic Michigan used to limit the types of laws voters can overturn has a hindering effect on voters' ability to express themselves via their ballots. That said, that very piece of legislation they passed can be overturned by referendum as it doesn't itself require an appropriation.
     
  10. oldsoul
    Offline

    oldsoul Gold Member

    Joined:
    Oct 12, 2015
    Messages:
    2,129
    Thanks Received:
    330
    Trophy Points:
    140
    Location:
    East side of Spoon Lake
    Ratings:
    +1,088
    I think you are looking far too deep into this analogy. Let me explain what I was getting at with the analogy.
    The voters in SD decided (via a referendum) to do something about the perceived corruption (whether it is real or not is irrelevant) in their state. The state (by means of the Governor) said "tough, you don't know what your talking about." In this situation the Governor treated the people of his state as if they were children. Not in the sense that he actually has absolute power over them, but that he acted as though he did. The relationship is different, and yet the action taken by the authority figure is the same as is the underlying message.
    Now wouldn't it have been so much easier to use the analogy, and take it for what it is, instead of over analyzing and looking too deep? It seems to me as if you are trying to find fault in what I say, instead of actually engaging in a debate of the topic.
     

Share This Page