Constitutionality of State/Local Gun Laws.

[The Real Hawkeye]

I suggest reading the Federalist Papers.

The Federalist Papers refer to the Constitution of 1789. What we have today is almost the exact reverse of the system established by the 1789 Constitution, so referring someone to the Federalist Papers as an explanation for why the status quo is good will not do. If anything, the Federalist Papers should convince us that the status quo is very bad indeed. That being the case, a Federal system of referendum is not a bad idea at all. It beats the current system by a long shot. Its limits can be the same as the limits we have today.

Referendum, by the way, only means that before a bill becomes law, the people must vote in its favor by a simple majority. Just one more step after the president signs it. It would be a much needed check on an out of control Federal Government, which makes very good sense when you consider that many of the checks that the Founders placed on it have been removed by amendment. We would, of course, need an amendment to accomplish this new check on Federal Power.

 

[El Tejon]

What if a majority votes to deny certain members of a society constitutional rights? Democracy is something the Founders feared very much. It is no panacea, a check maybe, but not the solution.

TRH, if we are suggesting changes, then I propose adding to Congress Robert Heinlien's "House of Repeal" in "The Moon is a Harsh Mistress." A three chamber house! Just let them try to get anything done!

 

[The Real Hawkeye]

What if a majority votes to deny certain members of a society constitutional rights? Democracy is something the Founders feared very much. It is no panacea, a check maybe, but not the solution.

Well, ET, that can happen today too. It would be handled in exactly the same way. It's Constitutionality could be challenged in court, and it could also go up to the Supreme Court, which may or may not grant cert. What's the problem that you are anticipating? The House still proposes. The Senate would then vote on it. The President would then sign it, or veto it. If vetoed, the two Houses of Congress could then override it. If signed, or the veto is overridden, then it goes to popular referendum for final passage. We could have referendum votes twice a year, and every registered voter who is interested in participating could show up to their voting place and vote for it or against it. If more than 50% vote for it, it becomes the law of the land, subject to Constitutional challenge like any other law.

 

[publius]

I was suggesting the Federalist Papers as a reference on why a democracy is a bad idea, as well as on the structure of our government (or at least the intended structure).

A referendum tacked onto the existing system at the end is not what I understood to be the suggestion. I still don't care much for the idea. Congress passes few laws that I like, and almost all of those are laws with zero "Joe Sixpack Appeal" factor.