From: cdm@pmafire.inel.gov (Dale Cook)
Date: Thu, 27 Aug 92 21:48:21 GMT
Organization: WINCO
Subject: Re: Slavery and the Civil War (was Re: Quayle on abortion)
Summary: 
Followup-To: 
Organization: WINCO
Keywords: 

In article <nate.512@psygate.psych.indiana.edu> nate@psygate.psych.indiana.edu (Nathan Engle) writes:
>cdm@pmafire.inel.gov (Dale Cook) writes:
>>nate@psygate.psych.indiana.edu (Nathan Engle) writes:
>>>cdm@pmafire.inel.gov (Dale Cook) writes:
>>>>Are you serious?  Do you *really* think a vote could have prevented the
>>>>Civil War?  If thousands of people were willing to die over the issue,
>>>>what on earth makes you think they'd have listened to a vote?
>>>
>>>    I personally don't think a vote over slavery would have prevented 
>>>the American civil war because freedom for slaves wasn't the reason that 
>>>the war started in the first place. The actual outbreak of hostilities 
>>>was caused by the secession of the southern states. 
>
>>Thank you, Nathan, for supplying the concrete example I lacked.
>
>    You're welcome, but I'm not sure what point you're trying to make. 
>Are you saying that we need to have a civil war in order to solve our 
>current problem the way we apparently did in 1860?
>

No.  All I'm claiming is that putting divisive issues up for a vote will
not solve anything.  And by setting the precedent of majority rule, you
undercut the basic philosophy of the constitution.

>    If not (and I hope not), then what else do you think would do the 
>trick? I would hesitate to throw the decision to the scientific community 
>because they haven't displayed much more unanimity on the subject of 
>abortion than the general population. The whole idea of an objective 
>scientific ruling may be an oxymoron.

I'm reasonably confident that nothing will make the issue go away, no
matter how it gets decided.  I also submit that *whatever* happens, a
decision will have been made.  Does it not make sense to use the best
information we have as a basis for that decision, rather than religious
dogma?
>
>>What we had then was a VOTE by the southern states to secede.  Did it
>>work?
>
>    That's close analogy, but not an exact one. I would say this analogy 
>shows us what to expect if all the pro-lifers or all the pro-choicers 
>got together and voted among themselves to split off and do what they 
>want. That really *is* guaranteed not to solve anything.
>
OK, so it wasn't the example I thought it was.  I give on that point.

>    However, it seems to me that what Steve is describing is something 
>different - get all the pro-life and pro-choice people together and have 
>them *all* participate in the vote. And, as occurs elsewhere in our system, 
>the voting parties would have to agree to be bound by the results of the 
>vote. The big question in my mind is how you get people to agree that the 
>results of the vote would be binding- maybe if we incessantly bombard 
>people with usenet articles they'll give in...

The only thing that comes close to what you seem to advocate in our
system is a referendum.  And of course, such a vote would have to 
withstand constitutional scrutiny, because, as you suggest, neither
side will abide by the outcome if they lose, IMO.  They'll take it
to court, as they should be allowed to do.  That is the *key* idea
that our system of government is built upon: that the majority cannot
and must not be allowed to dictate simply because they are the majority.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
...Dale Cook    "Quayle doesn't inhale (which explains a LOT)."
                   ---William Hsu
The opinions are mine only (i.e., they are NOT my employer's)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Xref: sparky alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:4934 alt.rush-limbaugh:4118