Yet you want to use the progressive invention of the initiative referendum to force your will on the protected minority.
So you are a progressive conservative, one who is willing to forego his beliefs to get his goals.
So you, like many on the right and the left, are a hypocrite.
You can keep parroting the same nonsense over and over, I can't stop you, Jakey.
I suggested social issues be resolved at the state or local level through ballot initiative as opposed to being forced upon the people at the national level through judicial fiat or executive order. This has nothing to do with me getting my goals. I'm not like you, Jakey... I don't think of myself as a king or god who rules supreme over everybody and demands they adhere to my views. I am content living in a society where we collectively decide what our boundaries and limitations on society should be.
The reason we don't have a national ballot initiative is because we have a representative republican system instead. This is designed to protect the "protected minority" and it does, when it's allowed to function as designed. That does not include radical SCOTUS decisions that rewrite our definitions and create new laws. It also doesn't include radicals in Congress who exploit their power to bypass the rules, pass legislation that no one reads in the middle of the night or radical Presidents through executive order, to impose their ideological agenda.
These are measures not conducive with our form of government.
Dear
Boss we can use this initiative system within a collaboration of party members and leaders with ideas to propose.
Why don't we receive and listen to each other's petitions and ideas for reform first?
Work it out, including personal issues and venting as you and Jake are going through, get past all that.
And reach agreement on what we want to initiate.
Then when all parties have put the best ideas together, reviewed each other's and troubleshot it for all the nonsense and noise,
why wouldn't our Congress and President consider this and find a way to implement it?
It could be through states, or Congress, governor or executive orders, or referendums etc.
But the difference is people would all support it, no matter which route works to implement it in the proper channels and places.
If all the parties hash out the issues in advance, that would guarantee more effectively written focused bills minus any partisan agenda or objections.
I'm perfectly open to using just the given system of legislature to propose and pass bills, if that is good enough to get the job done. Why not?
Boss what do you think of these ideas
A. someone else proposed a process change, that before Congress votes on federal bills,
a preliminary process is used to vote on whether or not that bill is Constitutional or requires an Amendment to add it to federal govt.
So some change to federal authority as broad as the health care program would be voted on first:
does this require a Constitutional Amendment ?
to add "right to health care" similar to "right to bear arms"
or "right to marriage" similar to the "right to vote" as an Amendment
(and NOT just rely on passing it first WITH THIS CONFLICT GOING ON WHERE HALF OF CONGRESS SAID NO) and then
when it's contested have the Courts rule and create these rights. Do they need a Constitutional Amendment to begin with?
B. to propose per party or per state a third level of law besides civil and criminal, but this is locally managed and may be kept optional,
where health and safety is a lighter level of violations and abuse that are not criminalized or penalized
but subject to counseling and correction if the districts and citizens OPT INTO such a policy such as in exchange for tax breaks if they
invest in prevention and counseling that reduces costs of sending people to prisons or mental wards or public hospitals
this health and safety ordinance level can be the area
by which states address
* abortion and health care decisions and policies and separate funding if people have different beliefs of what they can fund by conscience
* marijuana and drug use addictions and treatments
* marriage laws and child welfare custody issues
so abuses or conflicts can be addressed here BEFORE they become civil or criminal violations
if you are only causing abuse to your own health that's one level, but threatening to abuse, oppress, or harm another person
is not criminal yet if there is no proof. It can be prevented if intervention and complaints/counseling is managed
BEFORE a civil or criminal violation or complaint occurs.
The problem with preventing abortion and drug abuse is there are internal issues that govt is not authorized to regulate or penalize.
So what about a health and safety level, where complaints of sex abuse or relationship abuse can be consulted on or corrected BEFORE they escalate to civil or criminal issues.
This way we don't wait for problems to be on the criminalized level for govt to intervene.
People can have a reliable system, even voluntarily funded, to get assistance in advance
where it's still free choice to address problems that are not the place of govt to manage for us.
If such a local grievance and counseling process is set up through districts, churches or nonprofits can run them voluntarily and businesses/people could qualify for tax breaks or discounts if these show the crime rates and costs are reduced in that district.
If the cities agree to adopt them, then police and school facilities could be used as centers to provide counseling and other services. I think the schools would be good places, to involve both parents and students, so everyone learns skills in conflict resolution to stop bullying, rape, relationship abuse etc BEFORE they escalate to civil or criminal violations. Teachers and police can build better relations and not have all this work dumped on them as the bad guy. All citizens can receiving training and assistance to stop abuses and seek restitution for past problems that can be invested back into rebuilding their own community programs.
