Many of the anti's express opposition due, in part, to what they believe the "Founding Fathers" would have wanted... or said... or "favored."

In a thread below, db wrote:

The Declaration of Independence and the Constitution agree that government power is derived from the people, and the D of I is very clear about the right to rebel if that power if abused. Remember that the D of I was written in 1776 to justify the Revolution, and the Constitution was written in 1789 to set up a government. Much of the Constitution was written by the same people, with the objective of making a future revolution unnecessary, with separation of powers and checks and balances. Among those provisions if the representative form of government. Proportional popular representation in the House, equal state representation in the Senate, and an electoral college for the selection of the President. It couldn't be more clear that direct democracy was not favored. That has worked for over 200 years, and should not be changed. 695 would begin to change that at the state level, with inadequate justification.

I was quite taken by dbs post. I was stunned at the effect of 695 how, if his post is to be taken literally, adoption of this initiative will mean the end of Proportional popular representation in the House, equal state representation in the Senate, and an electoral college for the selection of the President. It wont, of course, and even though weve strongly disagreed in the past... I had come to respect his opinion... until I read this.

I have often said that dbs perspective on direct democracy would be accurate, except for the one glaring hole in the antis argument:

In their wildest nightmares, the Founding Fathers could not have imagined the monstrosity that government is today. Exclusive of the other parts of government now in effect that the Founding Fathers did not favor (Vote for women, end to slavery, popular vote for members of the Senate, income taxes, votes for anything by non-land owners) the fact is that I believe that they would be more then happy to lead the Revolution if they could see the abuses our government(s) have heaped upon their vision, and their dream.

Am I advocating the abolition of those freedoms I listed above? Of course not. (I was, of course, referring to other assaults on our freedoms) I am, however, pointing out the obvious fact that since the Founding Fathers could not have anticipated being taxed at between 40 to 50% of their incomes, I have NO doubt that they would not only approve of 695 they would, in fact, actively support it. You will note that there is nothing in our states Constitution that limits our (the peoples) actions to what the Founding Fathers would favor. For, if that argument were to reign supreme since the founding of our Nation women and minorities wouldnt have to worry about voting November 2, because they wouldnt be allowed to do so.

I would remind the reader of Article One, Section One of the Washington State Constitution:

ARTICLE I, DECLARATION OF RIGHTS SECTION 1 POLITICAL POWER. All political power is inherent in the people, and governments derive their just powers from the consent of the governed, and are established to protect and maintain individual rights.

By opposing this initiative, how is it that the government(s), which derive their just powers from the CONSENT of the governed, are protecting or maintaining our individual rights?

I would further remind the reader of Article 2, Section 2 of this states Constitution:

ARTICLE II, LEGISLATIVE DEPARTMENT SECTION 1 LEGISLATIVE POWERS, WHERE VESTED. The legislative authority of the state of Washington shall be vested in the legislature, consisting of a senate and house of representatives, which shall be called the legislature of the state of Washington, but the people reserve to themselves the power to propose bills, laws, and to enact or reject the same at the polls, independent of the legislature, and also reserve power, at their own option, to approve or reject at the polls any act, item, section, or part of any bill, act, or law passed by the legislature.

(a) Initiative: The first power reserved by the people is the initiative.

The key phrase here is but the people reserve to themselves the power to propose bills, laws, and to enact or reject the same at the polls, INDEPENDENT OF THE LEGISLATURE, and also reserve power, at their own option, to approve or reject at the polls any act, item, section, or part of any bill, act, or law passed by the legislature.

I would point out to db that THIS system has worked for over 100 years, and should not be ignored.

We The People. WE are the power. We are EXERCISING a *RIGHT*... our FIRST power. And, I cannot help but believe that the Founding Fathers will in fact rest easier knowing that We, The People have exerted that control that is the hallmark of either Republican OR Democratic Government, and which is expressed in our state's Constitution.

Westin

"Don't tell me how bad it's going to be without car-tab revenues; explain how you defend the current tax. If a tax is unfair at its core, a free people have the right to repeal it."

Vesely

-- Westin (86se4sp@my-deja.com), October 31, 1999

Answers

You have quoted the very first section of our state contitution, which defined the legitimate reason that our state was established: "to protect and maintain individual rights."

Should it take $45,207,543,000 per biennium to accomplish this legitimate purpose of the state?

-- Art Rathjen (liberty@coastaccess.com), October 31, 1999.

Thanks for the civics lesson, Westin!

I appreciate you posting the truth that is not taught in our public "schools" anymore. Hell, Nevada had to pass a **STATE LAW** madating that the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence be taught.

Face the facts: Our government has FAR exceeded its constitutional mandate. Both the US Constitution and our state constitution were written to tell government what it **CANNOT** do. Unfortunately, liberals have, largely through the unelected courts, perverted it into the labyrinthine beast that it is today. Both constitutions specifically state that the main purpose of government is to protect individual rights. But individual right are effectively a thing of the past. Group rights are all the rage - different rules for members of various "protected classes."

And far from a pure capitalist system, our economy and tax system are quasi-socialist ones. The express purpose of our tax system now is not raising money for the government for essential services. Rather, its sole and express purpose is to redistribute wealth as the power- that-be see fit. Case in point: Name one large corporation that does not derive a large portion of its income from government contracts or does not receive some kind of government subsidy.

The silence is deafening.

Another example of how far our government has exceeded its constitutional mandate? Remember Clinton's "Health Security" act? The appropriate response to that proposal should have been "interesting idea. We'd have to amend the Constitution first." But no, the Clintonistas were hell-bent on passing it and decimating our economy, just like Canada's system has decimated theirs. And they were doing so completely unhindered by the fact that such a scheme is clearly unconstitutional.

How does all of this relate to 695? Well, 695 will serve as the first baby step towards returning our government to its constitutional mandate by limiting the money that government can spend. And there is more than enough fat that can be cut to maintain essential services. If, as the antis claim, the sky falls and there are no more police, fire, hospitals, road building, flu shots, welfare checks, the politicians who cut them are up for re-election two months later.

The Founding Fathers were against direct democracy as it pertained to a NATIONAL government. They took the position that the states are basically free to do whatever they want. Based on this point only, the "Founding Fathers" argument against 695 falls flat on its face.

Finally, I find it ironic that liberals will in one breath repudiate the constitution as being the product of "dead, white European male land owners." In the next breath, they'll clothe themselves in the very same constitution for the purposes of furthering their harebrained schemes. Hypocrisy!

"HE has erected a Multitude of new Offices, and sent hither Swarms of Officers to harrass our People, and eat out their Substance." -- Declaration of Independence, 1776.

-- Joe Hylkema (josephhy@wsu.edu), October 31, 1999.

Westin:

Why not quote my entire post? It was about a change to direct democracy without adequate justification, not that the people don't have the right to do it. In my opinion, which is clearly different from yours, the people have sufficient tools to monitor and control government without 695; and I believe 695 will cause other kinds of problems that we may not even be aware of at this point. As the moving party, proponents have the burden of proof that the new system is better than the old. Again, in my opinion, they have not met that requirement.

As for the nature of government in 1789 as compaired to now; it reinforces my position that the Constitution was written in a way that was intended to make another revolution unnecessary. The national government changed by evolution, not revolution, with the consent of the governed. In 1800, the federal budget was almost entirely funded by the import taxes. As a nation we now favor a more free trade environment and funding by a progressive income tax. Proposals for a value added tax or flat income tax have been suggested as alternatives, that could be adopted without resort to revolution.

The founding fathers were concerned about direct democracy because it can be a volatile way to make decisions. In my opinion, 695 is a good example of that. It has many problems, but it is likely to be approved in spite of those problems for an immediate financial benefit. I did not cite the founding fathers because I want to live in the United States of 1800. I cited the fact that the orderly evolution of government has worked for over 200 years, and any proposed changes should be made with care. I don't believe 695 was written with care, or much concern about the long term effects.

-- dbvz (dbvz@wa.freei.net), October 31, 1999.

So true, our socialist comrades defend the parts they like and come up with so much non-sense to reject the parts they don't like. Like, article one(free speech) is great, but don't even try article 2(right to firearms)! How would they like a five day waiting period before they were allowed to speak. Okay, okay, I'm off the subject.

-- Paula (eagleross@pioneernet.net), October 31, 1999.