Rejoice?

I have a different view - (4.00 / 2)

I hope all is well in Georgia, Hannah, and that your trip went well! But are you already romanticizing the Granite State?

I doubt a referendum on marriage equality would have passed. (An amendment banning it would have failed by a bigger margin, though, in my estimation.) The legislators didn't have a mandate from the public - they had their real, honorable jobs to do.

Mix four parts Basic Constitutional Principles, three parts Voter Sentiment, Two Parts politics, two parts personal choice. (Flavor to taste.)

I really think the legislators were out ahead of the public here, just a bit. Enough to claim leadership; enough to remind us that representative democracy can work.

---

by: elwood @ Fri Jun 05, 2009 at 18:33:47 PM CDT

Actually, the mandate is already in the Constitution. (0.00 / 0)

That certain aspects of the Constitutional framework haven't been totally realized doesn't negate the fact that equality is there.

The reality we face is that stopping people from doing something obnoxious (especially a second time) is much easier than making people do the right thing.  It's what we hire agents of government for--to carry out the will of the people.  But, if they don't or let someone else pay them to provide favors, all we can do is dismiss them from office.  Of course, to do that we have to know what they're actually doing or not.  Pretty speeches at election time don't provide enough information.

---

by: hannah @ Fri Jun 05, 2009 at 19:34:18 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Well, that mandate (4.00 / 1)

came from white Protestant male landowners.

(And they did a great job, then left living up to it to us.)

---

by: elwood @ Fri Jun 05, 2009 at 19:38:48 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

aherm (0.00 / 0)

they left out the women.  

---

by: susanthe @ Fri Jun 05, 2009 at 21:13:03 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Where In The Constitution? (0.00 / 0)

Links would be good.

Also if you could cite the rules and regulations you're talking about as well.  

---

by: Andrew Sylvia @ Sat Jun 06, 2009 at 04:41:39 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

I'm not a Constitutional expert. (0.00 / 0)

However, Olson and Boise being interviewed on NPR about their suit challenging Prop 8 in California were really good on the primacy of Constitutional principles over popular sentiment.

http://www.npr.org/templates/s...

---

by: hannah @ Sat Jun 06, 2009 at 13:40:19 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

I suppose you could quibble about an absolute (0.00 / 0)

prohibition (congress shall make no law....) being a mandate.  But, given the typical distinction between "may" and "shall," the latter is clearly mandatory, even when it's in the negative.
My main point is always that the Constitution is a prescription for what the agents of government may and may not or shall and shall not do.  

---

by: hannah @ Sat Jun 06, 2009 at 13:49:34 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Thanks For Clarifying n/t (0.00 / 0)

---

by: Andrew Sylvia @ Sat Jun 06, 2009 at 19:51:26 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Aren't referenda not allowed anyhow? (0.00 / 0)

I'm not a lawyer and so on, but it had been my impression that at some point the legislature tried putting something to a referendum and it was thrown out by the courts as forbidden by the NH constitution's rules on the lawmaking process. Is that correct, or is there some other story on referenda in NH?

IT for John Lynch '04 and NHDP '08 - I'm liking my track record so far!

---

by: RealNRH @ Fri Jun 05, 2009 at 23:18:21 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

The anti-equality (4.00 / 1)

Republicans have been talking of a "non-binding" referendum.

---

by: Jennifer Daler @ Sat Jun 06, 2009 at 05:59:03 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Non-binding, ah. (4.00 / 1)

And here's where they ruled binding referenda unconstitutional in NH, just to make me feel more data-backed.

IT for John Lynch '04 and NHDP '08 - I'm liking my track record so far!

---

by: RealNRH @ Sat Jun 06, 2009 at 09:59:04 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Though I disagree with key principles here - (4.00 / 1)

and though I am VERY appreciate of our legislators passing this, I share a bit of discomfort.

Our fundamental rights do not come from votes - not from this week's vote and not from the 18th century votes adopting the US and NH constitutions. The government can decide to acknowledge our rights, but it does not create them.

When serpents bargain...

---

by: elwood @ Sat Jun 06, 2009 at 18:33:56 PM CDT

I also have a different view (0.00 / 0)

It is not the role of the elected representative to follow 'the will of the people' at all times, simply because the 'will of the people' is often wrong.   I consider myself a fairly well-educated person who is more aware of the NH and US political happenings then the average 20 something.  But I still do not have the time to research every issue, attend every committee meeting, and talk to every expert about every bill that comes before a legislative body in which I am represented.  There are so many nuances and unintended consequences to each proposed law that in most cases I simply cannot and frankly will not take the time to discern whether I support it or not.  I vote for people who can do this for me.  This is how our representative democracy is set up to work.  

I also do not think that our representatives, both in Concord and in Washington, should take a poll of voters before voting!  I vote for people who, for the most part, share my political values and ideals and for people I trust to vote their conscience and stand up for those values and ideals.  I do not want a representative who will change their opinion simply because they see a poll of their constituents.  If the voters feel that their representatives are not reflecting their will, then they can vote for someone else in the next election.

Lastly, I want my elected representatives to have a vision for a future that is better and more 'free' than our present.  That sometimes means sponsoring and supporting bills that are blatantly against the general will of their constituents.  Without these visionary leaders we would not have ended slavery, enacted the New Deal, or bailed out AIG.  

In my view, our representatives should represent their constituents by acting and voting in a way is best for their constituents, not necessarily what the constituents think is best for themselves at the time.  Every constituent values education, good roads, safety and security, but no one wants to pay for these very important public goods.  It is the roll of the representatives to find that balance.

"He who loves correction, loves knowledge.  He who hates reproof is stupid." - Proverbs 12:1

---

by: jdblanch @ Sun Jun 07, 2009 at 00:06:16 AM CDT

Agree with everything except that no-one wants to pay. (0.00 / 0)

Having abandoned slavery and, more recently, the draft, we certainly don't expect anyone to labor for free.  The penchant in some southern states for extracting road labor from gangs of prisoners isn't generally edifying either.

There are some people who assume that if reputable individuals say the same thing over and over again, there must be some validity in the proposition, but it now seems that the reputation of tax cutters needs a bit of adjustment from crediting their interest in the public welfare to recognizing that their main interest lies in getting a "cut" of the alternative revenue sources (bonds and short-term notes) for themselves and their financial cronies.
The long tradition of converting public assets (natural resources and minerals) for private wealth needs to be continued monetarily, now that the resources have been largely depleted and/or assigned.
The conservative perspective that man is fundamentally anti-social and needs to be rewarded for being compliant provides the basic rationale for this process of asset transfer.  Of course, if you believe that man is naturally a social being, then this preference for the crony class just looks abusive.

---

by: hannah @ Mon Jun 08, 2009 at 08:22:30 AM CDT

[ Parent ]