Referenda Round-Up: Pot, Personhood, Patients and Paranoia

The Founding Fathers, contrary to the Tea Corporate Front Organization's beliefs, believed that democracy was one step removed from mob rule. Based on the array of ballot initiatives in various states yesterday, democracy is indeed mob rule. Moreover, the mob is not an angry, riotous, rebellious threat to stable society but rather an amalgamation of people who appear to live in a universe quite unlike this one and who have mistakenly found their way into the political process.

In California, Proposition 19 would have legalized possession of marijuana and allowed the state to regulate and tax it. Never mind that this would clash with federal law and at least one international treaty (which the constitution recognizes as superior to local law) or that a few weeks ago, Governor Schwarzenegger signed a bill into law making possession the same as not putting a quarter in a parking meter in the eyes of the law. Forget that it's legal under prescription in the state. The pro-pot crowd decided to put this on the ballot at a mid-term election when the whole world knew the voters would be older and more-prohibition minded. The effort went up in smoke.

Over in Colorado, the religious fundamentalists in and around Colorado Springs and on the Western Slope put a constitutional amendment on the ballot stating that the term "person" as used in the state's fundamental law "shall apply to every human being from the beginning of the biological development of that human being." Stated more eloquently, life begins at conception. In 2008, Colorado voters defeated a similar referendum question, Amendment 48, by a 73.5%-26.5% margin. This year's version, Amendment 62, was aborted on a 70% to 30% margin. What made them think they could change the minds of so many in just 2 years?

In Arizona, voters passed Proposition 106, amending the Arizona Constitution to undo any rules or regulations requiring state residents to participate in a health-care system, and it guarantees the right of residents to buy private insurance. This sets up a trip to the US Supreme Court because it is contrary to the US healthcare reform passed earlier this year. The proponents claim the 10th Amendment to the US Constitution prohibits the federal government from making people buy insurance, but the commerce clause will probably prevail. In America, commerce almost always prevails.

For sheer stupidity, some people in Oklahoma placed on the ballot State Question 755, requiring courts to rely solely on federal and state legal codes in their rulings. The paranoid proponents don't want court decisions that rely upon international law nor the Islamic Sharia code. The US Constitution in Article VI states in part, "This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding." So, the international law part of the Question is unconstitutional. As for Sharia law, Oklahoma is home to about 15,000 Muslims out of a population of 3.7 million -- a whopping 0.4%. No one has ever tried to apply Sharia law in an Oklahoma court. The Question passed by almost 70% to 30%, and the theocracy in Oklahoma remains "safely" fundamentalist Christian.

George Clemenceau rightly said, "War is too important to be left to the generals," and likewise, democracy is too important to be left to the voters. It remains the least bad form of government, but just because the electorate can initiate legislation does not mean it should. Better to propose nothing and be thought a fool than to propose something and remove all doubt.

© Copyright 2010 by The Kensington Review, Jeff Myhre, PhD, Editor. No part of this publication may be reproduced without written consent. Produced using Ubuntu Linux.

Kensington Review Home