How About National Referendums on Moral Issues in the USA?

[joe1776]

The morality on an issue should not vary from state to state. In the US. States Rights are flawed arguments by the minority on a moral issue. The majority vote on a national referendum issue would become the law of the entire nation for say a ten-year period. This would make it difficult for minority moral positions to block moral progress.

Average citizens should want the most intelligent people in the country making most policy decisions for them, but intelligence is not a factor in making moral decisions. When a bias doesn't send our decisions off course, we intuitively feel the right thing to do.

The minority losers on a referendum issue would know that they have ten years to change the minds of the voters and that legal challenges and protests would be useless.

Example:

Until a few centuries ago, the cultural bias known as "slavery" was condoned in nations all over the world. Then, around 1700, nations began to abolish it; but it wasn't until after a bloody civil war over 150 years later that the USA abolished legal slavery.

Now, suppose the founders of our nation had written a national referendum on moral issues clause into our Constitution in 1778. Slavery would been maintained for several years but each ten-year referendum would have shown growing support for abolition. Given that obvious evidence, it's unlikely that America would have needed a century and a half and a Civil War to make this moral advance.

Moral issues that would qualify for national referendums are: abortion, assisted suicide, homosexuality, mercy killings, executions

 

[PureX]

How About National Referendums on Moral Issues in the USA?

To what end? Are we going to start proscribing morality by law?

 

[joe1776]

How About National Referendums on Moral Issues in the USA?

To what end? Are we going to start proscribing morality by law?

What do you mean by "start?" We've been doing that for more than 200 years.

 

[Friend of Mara]

Its a move more towards direct democracy when I can see as a positive. Though massive attempts to mislead the public with false information can skew a vote like that. Brexit is a great example.

 

[bobhikes]

Moral issues that would qualify for national referendums are: abortion, assisted suicide, homosexuality, mercy killings, executions

I don't agree Civil rights should be decided by the courts and law. Moral issues should be decided by the individual and not enforced by government.

 

[joe1776]

Its a move more towards direct democracy when I can see as a positive. Though massive attempts to mislead the public with false information can skew a vote like that. Brexit is a great example.

You are confusing Brexit, which is a decision made by the conscious reasoning mind, with the intuitive moral judgments which emerge from the unconscious mind. Brexit isn't a moral decision.

 

[joe1776]

I don't agree Civil rights should be decided by the courts and law. Moral issues should be decided by the individual and not enforced by government.

In a society, the acts of individual citizens affect others. Therefore, governments must establish moral policies that are acceptable and those which are not.

 

[Nakosis]

The morality on an issue should not vary from state to state. In the US. States Rights are flawed arguments by the minority on a moral issue. The majority vote on a national referendum issue would become the law of the entire nation for say a ten-year period. This would make it difficult for minority moral positions to block moral progress.

Average citizens should want the most intelligent people in the country making most policy decisions for them, but intelligence is not a factor in making moral decisions. When a bias doesn't send our decisions off course, we intuitively feel the right thing to do.

The minority losers on a referendum issue would know that they have ten years to change the minds of the voters and that legal challenges and protests would be useless.

Example:

Until a few centuries ago, the cultural bias known as "slavery" was condoned in nations all over the world. Then, around 1700, nations began to abolish it; but it wasn't until after a bloody civil war over 150 years later that the USA abolished legal slavery.

Now, suppose the founders of our nation had written a national referendum on moral issues clause into our Constitution in 1778. Slavery would been maintained for several years but each ten-year referendum would have shown growing support for abolition. Given that obvious evidence, it's unlikely that America would have needed a century and a half and a Civil War to make this moral advance.

Moral issues that would qualify for national referendums are: abortion, assisted suicide, homosexuality, mercy killings, executions

I don't like my morals decided by other people. Civil laws fine, so we can all sorta get along. Just don't want other folks deciding what is right and wrong for me.

 

[MNoBody]

In a society, the acts of individual citizens affect others. Therefore, governments must establish moral policies that are acceptable and those which are not.

right, which means there must be a victim with obvious harm caused...or else what foul?
Now consider the travesty of justice which the victimless crime "laws" [technically they are not 'laws' at all merely 'acts'] have caused, imposing misery and injustice since 1937 for one pertinent example.
so the system is obviously broken.

 

[joe1776]

I don't like my morals decided by other people. Civil laws fine, so we can all sorta get along. Just don't want other folks deciding what is right and wrong for me.

You are imagining restrictions on your behavior that are not threatened.

My suggested national referendums would merely override the laws that now govern your behavior that were made by state and federal legislatures.

 

[joe1776]

right, which means there must be a victim with obvious harm caused...or else what foul?
Now consider the travesty of justice which the victimless crime "laws" [technically they are not 'laws' at all merely 'acts'] have caused, imposing misery and injustice since 1937 for one pertinent example.
so the system is obviously broken.

Agreed. My suggested national referendums would likely solve those problems which exist mostly because of state laws passed by harshly judgemental state legislatures.

 

[MNoBody]

Agreed. My suggested national referendums would likely solve those problems which exist mostly because of state laws passed by harshly judgemental state legislatures.

an anecdote that comes to mind is the fiction of the country known allegedly as "canada", which by the rules of privy council has never been ratified by the people who were excluded from the salvage operation by third party impersonators who have seized the seats of power...same in the alleged "usa INC." situation.
fine kettle o fish ...eh

 

[Heyo]

The morality on an issue should not vary from state to state. In the US. States Rights are flawed arguments by the minority on a moral issue. The majority vote on a national referendum issue would become the law of the entire nation for say a ten-year period. This would make it difficult for minority moral positions to block moral progress.

Average citizens should want the most intelligent people in the country making most policy decisions for them, but intelligence is not a factor in making moral decisions. When a bias doesn't send our decisions off course, we intuitively feel the right thing to do.

The minority losers on a referendum issue would know that they have ten years to change the minds of the voters and that legal challenges and protests would be useless.

Example:

Until a few centuries ago, the cultural bias known as "slavery" was condoned in nations all over the world. Then, around 1700, nations began to abolish it; but it wasn't until after a bloody civil war over 150 years later that the USA abolished legal slavery.

Now, suppose the founders of our nation had written a national referendum on moral issues clause into our Constitution in 1778. Slavery would been maintained for several years but each ten-year referendum would have shown growing support for abolition. Given that obvious evidence, it's unlikely that America would have needed a century and a half and a Civil War to make this moral advance.

Moral issues that would qualify for national referendums are: abortion, assisted suicide, homosexuality, mercy killings, executions

While morality should be a factor in law making, a law can never affect morality.
And there already is a method to introduce the peoples moral understanding into the laws. It's called making Amendments to the Constitution. A method especially created for that purpose and recommended by the founders.
It has come out of favour lately but there is currently one initiative for such an Amendment: wolf-pac.com.

 

[joe1776]

While morality should be a factor in law making, a law can never affect morality.

What do you mean by "It should never affect morality?" Let's use the abortion issue as an example. How would a law on abortion not affect morality?

And there already is a method to introduce the peoples moral understanding into the laws. It's called making Amendments to the Constitution. A method especially created for that purpose and recommended by the founders.

It has come out of favour lately but there is currently one initiative for such an Amendment: wolf-pac.com.

If amendments were allowed specifically for allowing for moral arguments, which I doubt, the device has been ineffective.

 

[Heyo]

What do you mean by "It should never affect morality?" Let's use the abortion issue as an example. How would a law on abortion not affect morality?

Morality is personal, ethics is cultural and laws are functional. Laws can be unethical or immoral. Jim Crow laws certainly were.

If amendments were allowed specifically for allowing for moral arguments, which I doubt, the device has been ineffective.

Prohibition of cruel and unusual punishment (8th Amendment) is an example of an Amendment following a moral argument.

 

[joe1776]

Morality is personal, ethics is cultural and laws are functional. Laws can be unethical or immoral. Jim Crow laws certainly were.

Yes, and the laws prohibiting murder are both ethical and moral.

I still don't understand what you meant by "...a law can never affect morality."

Prohibition of cruel and unusual punishment (8th Amendment) is an example of an Amendment following a moral argument.

Yes, that's an example of an amendment relating to morality but most of the 27 amendments have nothing to do with morality so I doubt your assertion that amendments were allowed specifically to deal with moral issues.

 

[Orbit]

In a society, the acts of individual citizens affect others. Therefore, governments must establish moral policies that are acceptable and those which are not.

You are describing a theocracy. No thanks.

 

[joe1776]

You are describing a theocracy. No thanks.

Why do you jump to the conclusion that moral policies can't be legislated by secular institutions? That's obviously not true.

 

[Orbit]

Why do you jump to the conclusion that moral policies can't be legislated by secular institutions? That's obviously not true.

Secular institutions are filled with religious people.

 

[joe1776]

Secular institutions are filled with religious people.

Unless those religious people belong to the same religion and are allowed to force their unique beliefs into the mainstream, it isn't a theocracy.