What is the "Will" of the California People?
---
In March 2000 "the people" of California passed the Knight Initiative, codifying bigotry into California law (though not into California's Constitution) by preventing the recogntion of same-sex marriages in California.
More than five years have passed since then.
Why is five years important?
Simple: because the term of office for the California Assembly is two years and the term of office for the California Senate is four years.
So every single legislator involved in the same-sex marriage vote Tuesday night, regardless of how they voted, was elected by "the people" after the Knight Initiative.
Clearly, "the people" changed their minds.
Therefore, the idea that this "activist legislature" acted contrary to the will of "the people" is the worst kind of nonsense.
"The people" who elected these politicians outrank "the people" who voted for the Knight Initiative, since they are the more recent iteration of "the people." Surely the will of "today's people" has priority over the will of "yesterday's people."
That is, of course, assuming you think it is intellectually honest, and politically benign, to refer to "the people" when you really mean "a majority of the people."
And that is also, of course, assuming you believe that equal rights and basic human dignities should be left to the will of "the people" in the first place.
And that is still also, of course, assuming you believe that "the people" is even a valid political concept and that there can be such a thing as "the people's rights" as opposed to individual rights.
That's the problem with unbridled majoritarianism (i.e., mob rule) — the mob can and usually does turn on itself in the end.
---
Meanwhile, what a pathetic wimp (girly-man?) Arnold Schwarzenegger is proving to be. "Leave it to the courts"? Okay, fine — but only after the legislative process has run its course. He went out of his way to get the job of California Governor, and now he wants to pick and choose which issues he'll actually bother governing? Coward.
This fool is like a little ... er, big ... Napoleon — stir up the people to overthrow the existing power structure, only to exactly replicate it yourself after you've won. Schwarzenegger threw the bums out, only to become an even worse bum himself.
Either sign the law or veto it — but do so because it's what you believe is the right thing to do. Don't just be another hack politician.
UPDATE: Arnold chose the "Conan the Barbarian" role by invoking the "will of [some random iteration of] the will of [some of] the people [of the past]" route.
As I said — just like Napoleon.
I wonder whether Schwarzenegger believes the Anschluss should have been put to a vote of Germans and not just Austrians.
Similar thoughts from FARB, purple america, Dolphin, PurpleScarf. Also, Republic of T. has a good round-up of rationalizations from the various self-loathing gay conservative bloggers.
More than five years have passed since then.
Why is five years important?
Simple: because the term of office for the California Assembly is two years and the term of office for the California Senate is four years.
So every single legislator involved in the same-sex marriage vote Tuesday night, regardless of how they voted, was elected by "the people" after the Knight Initiative.
Clearly, "the people" changed their minds.
Therefore, the idea that this "activist legislature" acted contrary to the will of "the people" is the worst kind of nonsense.
"The people" who elected these politicians outrank "the people" who voted for the Knight Initiative, since they are the more recent iteration of "the people." Surely the will of "today's people" has priority over the will of "yesterday's people."
That is, of course, assuming you think it is intellectually honest, and politically benign, to refer to "the people" when you really mean "a majority of the people."
And that is also, of course, assuming you believe that equal rights and basic human dignities should be left to the will of "the people" in the first place.
And that is still also, of course, assuming you believe that "the people" is even a valid political concept and that there can be such a thing as "the people's rights" as opposed to individual rights.
That's the problem with unbridled majoritarianism (i.e., mob rule) — the mob can and usually does turn on itself in the end.
---
Meanwhile, what a pathetic wimp (girly-man?) Arnold Schwarzenegger is proving to be. "Leave it to the courts"? Okay, fine — but only after the legislative process has run its course. He went out of his way to get the job of California Governor, and now he wants to pick and choose which issues he'll actually bother governing? Coward.
This fool is like a little ... er, big ... Napoleon — stir up the people to overthrow the existing power structure, only to exactly replicate it yourself after you've won. Schwarzenegger threw the bums out, only to become an even worse bum himself.
Either sign the law or veto it — but do so because it's what you believe is the right thing to do. Don't just be another hack politician.
UPDATE: Arnold chose the "Conan the Barbarian" role by invoking the "will of [some random iteration of] the will of [some of] the people [of the past]" route.
As I said — just like Napoleon.
I wonder whether Schwarzenegger believes the Anschluss should have been put to a vote of Germans and not just Austrians.
Similar thoughts from FARB, purple america, Dolphin, PurpleScarf. Also, Republic of T. has a good round-up of rationalizations from the various self-loathing gay conservative bloggers.
Posted by KipEsquire on
7 September 2005
To comment on this post, please visit the new blogsite.
