The Will of the People and People of Will

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.

Do you believe in democracy, or in the case of the governments of and in the United States, a republic?

What happens when the "wrong" people win?

A better question - Do you believe in the will of the people? By that I mean, do you support the concept it embodies?

The will of the people is the law of the land, in other words.

Before you work up an answer, lemme point this out - the Constitution actually states that societal mores must determine whether or not certain laws are permissible. “Cruel and unusual punishment” is a direct reflection of what the people say.

In one of the more famous Supreme Court decisions, SCOTUS handed down a ruling which states in part that pornography has to be defined by the standards of that community. In another decision, SCOTUS ruled that election districts must also take into account the social and economic makeup of that district, not just race and politics.

A community where I do not wish to live.

Relying on that, SCOTUS has said that a community standards are a deciding factor in making a law. The reach of that community apparently varies by the kind of law being implemented.

I re-phrase the question

If a sufficient number of people say “It should be this way” then that’s the way it ought to be?

What is a sufficient number of people? Who gets to have a say? Should there be limits on who gets to have a deciding voice? Where will you set the limits?

What amount of people is sufficient to set a policy or law? Do you need a certain number of people or just a percentage of them?

Whether you admit it or not...

What percentage? A majority? A plurality? Both exist in the United States

Does age matter? Would you allow a 3 year old to vote for president? A 17 year old?

You know people who are 30 years old and not as mature or cogent as some 16 year olds.

In the US, anyone over the age of 18 who is a US Citizen and is in possession of their civil rights (convicted felons have abrogated rights at times) gets to vote. Anyone, including a person on death row, has the right to speak. They may not have a right to make decisions or participate in decision making, but they can be heard. NB: This is not a universal policy. Some countries not do allow citizens any rights. Even life is held by a tenuous thread of those in charge and can be clipped at any time.

Artificial limits based on artificial boundaries

BTW, we're still at war here. Yes huh.

Should a decision be bound by geography? In other words, can something be a law here, but not a law there?

Within the corporate limits of a city, the residents can call for a referendum. If approved, that referendum is binding within the City but not outside the City. City residents are the ones who get to decide.

Is this fair? Unfair?

Say the City passes a referendum. The unincorporated County passes a referendum exactly the opposite (this has happened in Georgia many times). The City residents, being residents of the County too, get to vote on the County ballot. But County-only residents don’t get to vote in the City referendum.

Splain THIS ONE!

Both referenda become of the law within the political jurisdictions.

Fair? Unfair?

The County-wide decision applies to the unincorporated County, but not within the City.

So you can literally do something legal and take one step and that action become illegal.

State laws also vary, meaning you can take one step there and what you do is legal, a step back and your action becomes illegal.

Where do you draw the line?

One more monkey wrench and I’ll turn you loose. If the will of the people is the law of the land, what protects minorities from being oppressed by a majority? Will your opinion be different if you are in the majority or the minority?

She's married, has kids and asthma. I am not kidding.