The Consent of the People.

[Ian Plätschisch]

Jun 3, 2015 17:31:29 GMT -6 Sir C. M. Siervicül said:

Jun 3, 2015 17:00:24 GMT -6 Ian Plätschisch said:

Isn't this why we have the Court?

No. The Cort can only interpret laws. It can't override OrgLaw amendments.

Oh.  Even so, the products of a wave election are still the products of the what the majority of people want, and must be treated accordingly.

[Miestrâ Schivâ, UrN]

The RUMP are of course correct that a big temporary majority should not be able to tear up the OrgLaw and start again. But a big majority in both Houses - I think RUMP strategy fell apart when they were reduced to a small Senäts majority, because of the inactivity of their Senators - plus a vote of the people a few months later *should* be enough for even the biggest constitutional changes. If Scotland had recently voted AYE to independence, over the wishes of the old lady at Windsor I affectionately call Brenda, do you think she would have said "nuh-uh Jocks, you ain't goin' nowhere"?

[Sir C. M. Siervicül]

Jun 3, 2015 17:37:43 GMT -6 Ian Plätschisch said:

Even so, the products of a wave election are still the products of the what the majority of people want, and must be treated accordingly.

How they should be treated is the question. Written constitutions are to some extent inherently countermajoritarian, designed to balance the short-term desires of the majority against the rights of minorities and the long-term interests of the whole people:

[Miestrâ Schivâ, UrN]

I don't think the minority known as "the Woolley family" should HAVE any political rights, or no more than the Lawless or Davis families.

[Ian Plätschisch]

Jun 3, 2015 17:44:35 GMT -6 Sir C. M. Siervicül said:

Jun 3, 2015 17:37:43 GMT -6 Ian Plätschisch said:

Even so, the products of a wave election are still the products of the what the majority of people want, and must be treated accordingly.

How they should be treated is the question. Written constitutions are to some extent inherently countermajoritarian, designed to balance the short-term desires of the majority against the rights of minorities and the long-term interests of the whole people:

Perhaps, then, the threshold for an amendment to pass the plebiscite should be increased (to 2/3 or 3/4 or something), but the amendment should not have to go through 2 referendums when the result is likely to be similar both times.  In the second referendum, the amendment will have lost steam, and so may actually do worse than in the first referendum, not because opinions changed, but due to apathy.

   

[Miestrâ Schivâ, UrN]

The King and his supporters have not, so far, made the case that there should be any role for the King to refuse to enact duly ratified OrgLaw amendments.

[Sir Alexandreu Davinescu]

Jun 3, 2015 18:43:54 GMT -6 Ian Plätschisch said:

Jun 3, 2015 17:44:35 GMT -6 Sir C. M. Siervicül said:

How they should be treated is the question. Written constitutions are to some extent inherently countermajoritarian, designed to balance the short-term desires of the majority against the rights of minorities and the long-term interests of the whole people:

Perhaps, then, the threshold for an amendment to pass the plebiscite should be increased (to 2/3 or 3/4 or something), but the amendment should not have to go through 2 referendums when the result is likely to be similar both times.  In the second referendum, the amendment will have lost steam, and so may actually do worse than in the first referendum, not because opinions changed, but due to apathy.

   

Hm, this is definitely an idea. The only problem I see is that most plebiscites have probably passed by that much in every instance, making this not much of a barrier. But I might be mistaken... maybe someone can look back and see past results?