People should have the final say in interpretation of important clauses on constitutional state, democracy and rights

[myata]

Democracy is not the mob rule: laws, checks and balances, rules and institutes have to exist and be functional. But it's not a pharaoh system either, run by a caste of priests responsible to nobody.

No one should own the final right to read the Constitution and decide what it means other than the people.

On the matters of importance, which can be identified by the SC or alternatively, so that a manifestation of the people's will could never be prevented, via a signature process. A public discussion within a mandated term follows, then the matter is decided by the public vote. Note, this relates to interpretation and overrules all earlier decisions based on the earlier ones but not counted as a formal amendment, that has the process of its own. The adopted interpretation stands until superseded by a related amendment or another interpretation.

This could be a more general way to return democratic politics to adult, reasonable and responsible dialogue of the citizens from the partisan circus today. And what could be wrong with that?

[gatomontes99]

We have checks and balances in our government. That is one of the big staples of our republic. If we made the SCOTUS a direct democracy we would be I'm danger of mob rule. Remember, mob rule has given us racism and slavery.

The SCOTUS, in many ways, is the referee. Their job is to make sure we don't use the government to take away the rights of others. If we are our own referees, what new authority will we willingly vote for?

[CdnFox]

On 9/1/2024 at 5:20 AM, myata said:

Democracy is not the mob rule: 

Democracy is literally mob rule. Democracy and it's pure form is maternity of the majority. Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on what's for supper.

We therefore have a constitutional representational party-based democracy. Which means the people get to elect the  local representative. the representatives work within a party structure and form gov't. 

That's how it works. 

We also have a Judiciary who's job it is to interpret the law and the constitution. 

The people are not qualified to do either with consistency or accuracy. Hell you can't even manage to talk in coherent sentences. what the hell are you going to say about the legal interpretation of the constitution. 

The constitutional interpretation should remain constant and unchanging.  That is the only way it works.  If there's a truly grey issue it should be changed by the approved methods to provide clarity. 

Thanks for playing commie.