Yahoo Answers is shutting down on May 4th, 2021 (Eastern Time) and beginning April 20th, 2021 (Eastern Time) the Yahoo Answers website will be in read-only mode. There will be no changes to other Yahoo properties or services, or your Yahoo account. You can find more information about the Yahoo Answers shutdown and how to download your data on this help page.
Trending News
A very important question regarding America. All who are concerned check this out...?
The power to repeal laws was given to no branch of the government in the Constitution. Judicial power was given to the supreme courts and the other various courts. But the power to repeal laws is a right reserved to the people according to the tenth Amendment.
So why don't we just create a website where registered voters can get on and repeal laws that the government creates that we do not wish imposed upon us? We make it easier to get a law repealed than it is to get a law created. The way it stands right now, the only way to get a law repealed is if a person gets charged with a crime challenges it in court. Then it is left up to the discretion of 9 people (picked by the government, not the people) whether or not the millions of people in the US continue to be subject to this law.
As it is said, what is not illegal, must therefore be legal. If the government ever got the bright idea to make this action illegal, which would be proof that the government is not on the side of the people. We Amend the Constitution to constrict them from doing this.
Does this sound like a great idea or what?
All "solutions" to any problem have flaws. Nothing created is wholly perfect. To say that a website that is open to the public for voting is less secure than a system of closed votes counted in private is kind of absurd in itself. Measures could be taken to make it more secure though it could never be perfect. Just like the system we use now. I guess no one heard of the guy that registered his dog as a voter then? A website is no more or less secure from voter fraud than it is with the system we use for voting now. But not having any system leaves the playing field open for the side of politicians. It can't be perfect So let's not do anything? Is that really the idea that is being presented? There is no set system to get a bad law repealed. The supreme court only hears 75-150 cases per year and they get to choose what cases those are. In reality is that more perfect than an open general election vote. I mean let's use some common sense here.
@tyler as well as the above edit - You do pose some concerns for where things would need to be watched. But just because those concerns are there does not mean they cannot be reasonably overcome, or addressed in a manner to make it efficient, effective and reasonably secure. I say reasonably because the only way to make anything like that truly fully secure is to not have it at all. But then that just leaves "we the people" open to be ruled by people who decide what redress from them we get to have... Is that your idea of a perfect system?
@Chris in response to voter fraud and @Tyler in response to multiple voter identities. Compare the list of electronic signatures with the Secretary of States list to make sure the voter is valid before an electronic signature can be used. Instead of the "click a link in your email" thing that most businesses use. When a law has a sufficient amount of signatures on it, the signatures are again rechecked with the list at SOS to verify those people do exist and are actual voters. Then it is no less "secure" than the process we use now. Would that be a reasonable measure against all of the issues that you have with my proposal?
@rooney - I'm going to be honest, you headhunt questions that pertain to specific issues and then post the same link over and over again. This makes me wary of you. Especially since the first thing the video does is state that it does not condone violence against the govt. then spends a ridiculous amount of time paraphrasing quotes from pieces of paper that it says "you can do your own research so I am just going to touch on this issue." Which happened 10 times in the 15 or so minutes I watched of it. With that being said I will state this. Do I think that there are people who think that they are better than everyone else and think that they are not capable of making correct decisions for themselves and therefore need someone to "help" them make the "right" decisions? Yes, it's called narcissism, and the government is full of them. Do they meet in order to achieve certain goals (conspire) which pertain to that thought process. Yes, you wou
would have to be an idiot not to see it, since even a blind man would be able to. I however am not interested in what the problem is or who is to blame. I am interested in solutions to fix it and prevent it in the future. I am not interested in the game of he said she said conspiracy theories. Nothing comes of them and they do not help to do anything but to divide PEOPLE into abstract groups like Cons, NeoCons, Liberal, Democrat, Republican, Tinfoil hat wearers, 9-11 truthers, or whatever other abstraction that allows other people to start looking at them as something other than human beings. If you are not part of the solution, you are part of the problem. What you are doing, whether or not you realize it, is part of the problem. I hope you read this and learn something.
4 Answers
- ?Lv 59 years agoFavorite Answer
I am British but I live in Australia, I often wonder is the government supposed to represent the people's interest or the people supposed to support the Government interests, it is a bit of a paradox and a contradiction really, they always say the money is the Taxpayers, but they are the ones who waste it, to be a Politition you have to be a hipocrite and a liar, I feel You are onto something here, about not being able to repeal a law that is not serving the people's interest, the people have the right to be heard, it is their country as much as the Government in power, it is a question of the needs of the many (The People) outweighing the needs of the few or the one, the Government and the President, we should have the right in the end to to repeal a bad law, with registered concerned Voters through an Internet site, We put these people in office We have a right to a rebuttle against them. being a leader of a country is the only job in the world where you don't need any special qualifications and it is the most important job in the World. all the best with your campaign I am with You all the way.
John (from England)
- ?Lv 59 years ago
Within state elections, there are propositions that people can vote on which amend their state constitutions. This doesn't happen in federal elections. I like what you suggest. It's a good idea. But, how do we make sure there isn't voter fraud? If that makes it not work out, then just take it to the polls.
About the Supreme Court, if they find a law to be unconstitutional, then they can overturn it. Needless to say that they haven't abused that power, they have time and again. Roe v. Wade is a perfect example. All the judges need to do is say "that's unconstitutional" and there's nothing we can do about it. The Supreme Court's job is not to legislate from the bench.
- Tyler's MateLv 49 years ago
How could a ballot through a website be regulated to ensure there is not multiple voting? How could we ensure that people's identities were not being manipulated in some way? How could we be certain people were not being forced to vote against their will? And how long before someone developed a virus or program that hijacked votes and registered masses of crosses in favour of repealing anything that stood in their way.
This notion of easy access democracy may be superficially attractive but seriously flawed. In practice it would crass campaigns would be whipped up by powerful vested interests - populist or alarmist nonsense that would end in the equivalent of mob rule.
Democracy needs checks and balances, it needs open, visible debate in forums where the adovcates' arguments are thoroughly tested, and it needs those advocates to be accountable for the consequences of their actions. Voting by the people should also demand commitment - a process that requires people to make a distinct and considered physical act as opposed to clicking another icon on a screen as most of us do now a thousand times a day without thinking.
The present system is dreadfully corrupt and woefully inadequate in many ways but your proposal is too simplistic and would, I fear, make things much worse, not better.
