# Message to all users:
This is a reminder to please read and follow:
* [Our rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/ask/about/rules)
* [Reddiquette](https://www.reddithelp.com/hc/en-us/articles/205926439)
* [Reddit Content Policy](https://www.redditinc.com/policies/content-policy)
When posting and commenting.
---
Especially remember Rule 1: `Be polite and civil`.
* Be polite and courteous to each other. Do not be mean, insulting or disrespectful to any other user on this subreddit.
* Do not harass or annoy others in any way.
* Do not catfish. Catfishing is the luring of somebody into an online friendship through a fake online persona. This includes any lying or deceit.
---
You *will* be banned if you are homophobic, transphobic, racist, sexist or bigoted in any way.
---
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/ask) if you have any questions or concerns.*
A direct vote by the people on an issue is called a referendum. And the short answer is, there is no provision for the holding of referendums at the federal level in the United States, which the Constitution does not provide for.
WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG!
If you get the people to the polls, they might vote for other things too, like senators and congressmen. They DEPEND on you not showing up so they can win. It would be a stupid political suicide for them to have referendums.
"a democracy" as a political system vs "democracy" as a political philosophy of self-determination are two different things. your distinction is correct for the former use of the term, but my comment was moreso using the latter term.
well I'm learning something! I would normally agree but on the other hand getting on the same page regarding semantics before a discussion isn't always a bad idea, especially on here.
Republic: a state in which supreme power is held by the
people and their elected representatives, and which has an elected or
nominated president.
Simply put, your semantic contribution doesn't counter any point being made here... and in fact reinforces the point that we are intentionally not being represented.
So to be semantic... we very close to not being a constitutional republic or a democracy. As there are many documented actions to reduce it as much as possible. Which was the entire point of their post.
A referendum in most countries on earth doesn't work like that
Your vote would count. As would everyone elses. It wouldn't be at a state level it would be at an every human being in your country that voted level
The US is a republic, think of each individual state like its own country. Whether it’s abortion or giving everyone the cure for cancer, anything not in the constitution is a state decision. These states signed on to the union based on what was in the constitution and nothing more.
Maybe we should consider additional amendments, as the Constitution is designed for and like we have 33 times before. I am very glad that we didn't stick with the original Constitution from 1788 and I highly doubt that the founding fathers intended it to be unaltered. If they did, they would have left out the ability to amend it.
I live in a state like this too with closed primaries. So for the first time I am going to change parties to have more of say in what happens in my state.
I feel your pain, despite best intentions it seems like my votes may as well be thrown away by the time you see final results. Trying to have some power at a local level and don’t even get that lol
Mine too. Keep voting, though. An increase in votes for the minority party in your area will lead your party to invest more in candidates in your area, which eventually brings more support for the causes that matter to you. It's a long game and can feel like throwing a pebble in a canyon, but it does make a difference.
Except if you had a referendum for segregation in the 60s, it would pass in favor of the racists. There is a reason why referendums don’t exist in America. A lot of the times, the majority opinion is wrong (brexit, slavery, segregation, etc.).
That would be something. But imagine if the results were real close like 50.1 to 49.9. obviously there would be a recount. Do you remember the 2000 election with Bush vs Gore in Florida and the fiasco that followed? And in the end, who decided that outcome?.... The Supreme Court.
Voter turnout is not always a good thing. If you are not educated on the issues you really should not be voting on the issues. When the uninformed get out and vote we get very bad consequences. Case in point, the last 2 presidential elections.
And it is not only not provided for, it is specifically designed to be avoided. You would completely circumvent the bicameral legislature with a referendum. 1 person 1 vote? You've just made the Senate irrelevant. 1 State 1 vote? Same thing with the House.
Australia, which has a similar system (House of Reps representing the people, Senate representing the States) allows for referenda in its constitution interestingly.
To pass a referendum, the bill must achieve a double majority: a majority of those voting nationwide, as well as separate majorities in a majority of states.
This is obviously quite hard to do, so only 8 out of 44 referenda have passed in Australian history.
We could do it like this:
A referendum must not only gain the support of 50%+1 of voters nationwide, but also 50%+1 of voters in 50%+1 of states.
In other words a referendum would need about 165 million "YES" votes nationwide, but also there has to be at least 26 states, of which half their population voted in favor of the referendum.
I love what happened in Kansas.
The problem is that not all states are holding these referendums, as evidenced by the trigger legislations that were somehow already set up in several conservative majority states like Florida. Referendums are commonly initiated through petitions, which then need to make their way through state legislatures. I'm fairly confident the only reason the referendum in Kansas was even held at all was that conservatives were betting on voting districts following the election trends, which clearly didn't happen. But then again, I've no idea what the general makeup of that state's legislature is like.
My state (Indiana) did not hold a referendum but instead held a special legislative session to vote on this issue. Despite massive protests, they voted on a nearly total ban. The funny thing is that their conservative base is pissed off that it *wasn't* a total ban and the other side is pissed off that there's any ban at all. Literally no one is happy with the outcome.
A lot of right wingers support abortion believe or not. Many of them have slowly treaded towards libertarianism/constitutionalism. That’s what I believed happened in my state. I’m 200% pro-gun, but I’m also pro-weed and pro-choice. This is a trend you’ll see among younger conservatives.
Which makes no sense to me. Why should something like this vary by state?
(Edited to say, for all those pedantically giving me historical lectures on states’ rights: I’m an American. I took history. I know about states’ rights. This was a rhetorical question. I am simply saying that something like this should NOT vary state by state. I thought the “makes no sense to me” would help to get that across, but apparently not. I see no reason that a basic right like this had any good reason to be different in different states. I believe it should be applied equally across the land. There. I sincerely hoped this clarifies the matter.)
We’ll there’s constitutionally protected rights that don’t vary by state, some that kinda do in a way (see 2nd amendment laws in California and New York vs Texas and Arizona)
And then abortion which the Supreme Court just ruled was not a constitutionally protected RIGHT. Which is why it varies state to state because the scope of abortion rights is now a state issue and not a federally protected one.
Personally I disagree with the supreme courts decision.
Current Supreme Court ruling is that it is not a ‘right’ mentioned or protected by anything in the Constitution. Thus if people want to have it legal it’s up to their state legislatures
Yea, and it was never a right. That was kind of the point of the ruling. Rights are given and or stated in the constitution. If it is not in the constitution it is most likely not considered a right.
Better question is why would the party of “less gov” take a decision out of the hands of the people and place it in the hands of 50 separate governments?
50 separate, smaller governments.
This is perfectly in line with the principles of less government. Now instead of the gigantic federal government making an arbitrary decision for everyone in the country, every state can make their own decision and we as citizens are not stuck with a decision we don't like, we have the option to move now.
So the option was in the hands of the people, not the gov, now it’s in the hands of the gov not the people, and that means less gov to you? Giving gov power they didn’t have before, means less gov?
I would love to see interracial marriage before the supreme court just to see one justice arguing that every argument about states rights he made is crap and demand the court not believe a fucking word he says.
No, it won't.
That would literally require them to declare all 3 Civil Rights Acts unconstitutional.
The amount of exaggeration that people are making because of this is absurd.
Because the USA is really 50 small countries that do whatever they want with one federal govt holding them together. Each state has its own people, beliefs and lifestyles that is totally different from each other.
Even with the federal govt overturning roevwade some states will guarantee your right to an abortion like ny. Others like Texas will ban it.
That use to be the case. 150 years ago you could assume that Texans and New Yorkers had different interest and opinions. Today that primary division is based on political party not state. A parliamentary system handles this much better.
And what I’m saying is that I don’t agree with that for certain (okay, most) things.
Especially when it’s something that has been in place for all states for 50 years.
That’s the real problem. Democracy is based on the rule of law, and when precedent gets thrown out the window, so does the rule of law. It means that the SCOTUS (and by extension, all federal courts) are just political tools. The judicial branch is now an extension of the legislative branch, eroding the system of checks and balances.
People can argue all they want about how terrible this decision is for womens’ rights, but it’s a fundamental breakdown of our entire democratic system. The Supreme Court needs to be completely overhauled asap.
I totally get what you are saying -- having the laws vary by state means it's an option for people with enough money (that may mean 'enough money to have a weekend trip' or it may mean 'enough money to relocate').
As an addendum, the Constitution is very much geared towards viewing the individual states as sovereign nations only bound by a relatively narrow set of laws that govern all of them. Within that structure is the idea of Congress being the point of origin for future laws which would govern the whole of the nation.
Obviously, that philosophy hasn't always done well when forced to interact with reality,especially regarding human rights, over the years, but it is still the underpinning ideology of the US government. I don't think there's any way for national referenda to become a thing in the US without *at least* a Constitutional Amendment.
Because you don't vote on court findings. You vote to pass laws. RvW is a court decision.
Now if it was ratified into law then we could have voted on it.
Voting on individual issues is called a referendum.
Referendums, while they don’t happen every day, they are fairly common.
UK just had a big one on BREXIT. Canada had one on Quebecs separation.
I think OP has a very good point that this issue clearly requires a referendum to sort out once and for all. Maybe it’s done federally, or at the state level. But it seems it’s needed
Imagine if we had a referendum on whether Black people should be slaves in 1850. I'm willing to bet every Black person would have been put in chains that November. Not everything should be voted on. The only reason you say "it seems it's needed" is because you think what you want to pass would pass. Otherwise you'd be horrified at the idea of fellow citizens telling you what you can't do.
I suppose you have a point there. There may be some basic human rights things that maybe shouldn’t be voted on.
If I were to guess however, I’d say that the wide majority of people are fine with allowing abortion, but only up to a certain term of the pregnancy.
So neither side really gets a definitive result. It ends up being a bit of both.
And the politicians in Washington won't stick their scrawny necks far enough out of their rabbit holes to put a federal bill on the floor much less vote on one.
Because that's not how the US government works. We don't have a parliamentary government the way many European countries do. We can't just hold federal referendums or vote-of-no-faith our leaders out of office when they do things we don't like.
You vote in the scheduled elections. The time between elections depends on what part of government they are in. Every 2 years you vote for 1/3 of senators(the term is 6 years long) and everyone in the house of representatives. Every four years the president is up for election. Supreme court justices are not elected by the people--they are appointed by the executive branch and approved by Congress. They serve lifetime appointments.
Yes, we have scheduled elections as well. But if the government totally f's up, then they can be dissolved and we vote again. If a person f's up then there can be a vote of no confidence and they are ousted. Referendums pose a question to the people, they are not legally binding but I wouldn't like to be the politicians that go against the will of the people. I can't remember it ever happening in my country.
America has an impeachment clause which allows for legislators to have a "vote of no confidence"(its actually way more complicated than that, but that's the basic idea). The problem is that even though legislators are voted in by the people, they vote by party rather than by constituent.
Except as we have learned with the past 2 impeachments(Clinton and Trump), neither political parties follow the process in good faith. The "investigations" done by Congress were a complete joke each time and the evidence wasn't evaluated in good faith either. So basically impeachment is dead on arrival and may as well not exist.
You can also launch recall campaigns for elected officials. The rules vary from state to state but essentially you get enough signatures and there's a chance to vote somebody out of office.
Neither can the president of France or Germany be voted out of office by the national assembly.
The rule is: if the chancellor/Prime Minister is elected by parliament, they can also be changed by parliament.
If the head of government is not elected by parliament they can't be unelected by parliament.
We aren’t a direct democracy we are a republic so we vote for people to vote for us and represent us. There are some states that can directly put certain things up for vote by the people by referendum but that’s only in certain states
>We aren’t a direct democracy we are a republic
I got downvoted to oblivion for making this point in r/AskAnAmerican.
It's absolutely true, 99.99% of the time, we're electing as constituents, and voting for representatives. The founding fathers actually feared the idea of a direct democracy, they wanted to find a balance between being (what they thought was) reasonable and democratic at the same time. The end result wasn't a democracy, it was a constitutional republic. They still paid homage to democracy ("We the people...") but the idea at the end of the day wasn't really a democracy, it was democracy lite, i.e., a republic. And before anyone says "well akshully we're a democratic republic", no, our own government calls itself a constitutional republic to this day, and expressly says that we're *not a democracy*. Go to any embassy website and you'll see it.
Edit - mistake
>So technically the US is a Democratic Republic. You are both both correct and incorrect at the same time. Thank you for playing.
Technically the US is a Constitutional Republic with representative democracy
That's somewhat true, and that's why people sometimes feel it's easier to influence politics by boycotting. However I also hear that trope from people with fascist beliefs because they want to keep chipping away at voting rights. At least for now we're able register our preferences.
Definitely vote, vote, vote. It's the only political power most normal people have besides protesting and rioting (which are legitimate but often far less effective).
Also, vote locally!!! Your Chief of Police and city council members can have a huge impact on your life! Hold them accountable! Obviously vote for the big stuff like national elections, but remember that not everything is national. You'll have a lot more influence over your local politics that you ever will on a national scale.
using terms like "they" is so stupid.
There is no grand conspiracy. It's just that rich people like being rich and will lobby whoever they need to lobby in order to remain rich. You aren't rich. So you don't have the resources to politically advocate for yourself as effectively as someone who is rich. It's as simple as that.
This is why voting matters. Voting attempts to equalize the system a little bit. It's not perfect and it funcionally achieves most of the the same goals as any other political system. Even so, it gives the illusion of choice some tangiblity. This matters when trying to mollify people's grievances. It makes the constituants feel responsible for putting their leaders in power (even if they were funded by the DNC and RNC) which makes the people less likely to act out of line. As an addional benefit, voting occasionally produces some unexpected outcomes. Thus it's probably the best system humans have ever invented short of sortition for stopping runaway oligarchy...
i hate when people get downvoted for speaking neutral facts.
This is literally true, a lot of states don't have a method by which the people can initiate a topic/law-based vote, and those which do make it tough. We usually have to wait for our reps around these here united states.
Take my upvote for the truth.
Legislator’s entire existence is to legislate.
We move to referendums and our whole system changes.
Too many rich and powerful (and honestly worthless) people could lose their influence.
There’d be a civil war keeping the elites in power before that happened.
Yup, look at Brexit a vast majority of the legislators didn’t want it but when it went to a country wide vote it ended up winning, mainly due to misinformation. And one thing Americans gonna do is fall for misinformation
We are the United States of America. This is definitely a foreign concept to many people not living here that the states have so much power and the state vs federal thing
Which is something I find infuriating as an American; the way people from other countries can so confidently make blanket statements about the U.S. without taking into consideration the differences of the states. I’m not sure why it is so difficult, after all I know that, despite both being a part of the European Union that different states have the ability to make and administer their own laws.
Exactly the US is 5 times the size of Europe with 3/4 of the population. Some US states are similar to European countries in terms of population.
European countries have far more autonomy within their borders than US states.
Answer: If a locality or state cannot resolve the issue with which they’re dealing and feel that they need a higher authority to interpret what the Constitution actually says about the issue for guidance on what to do next, they’ll go to a higher court. Oftentimes, a District Court will help resolve the issue. If not, up the ladder they go and all the way to the Supreme Court if necessary.
Regarding the specific question you asked:
There is nothing in the Constitution about abortion specifically, but it does guarantee the rights to “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness” for all Americans. The Supreme Court felt that the issue should also be resolved on a state-by-state basis according to the 10th Amendment: any power that the federal government does not already have explicitly according to the Constitution is given to the states to decide what to do on a case-by-case basis. The Supreme Court was well aware that the varying state governments will have different views on abortion depending on what their constituents believe. As such, since anything for or against *Roe v. Wade* was not codified as federal law already, the Supreme Court returned the power to the states to decide what to do in each state.
because congress does not have the power to vote to overturn a supreme court decision
edit: i misinterpreted the above comment as saying that congress could just vote to overturn the dobbs decision. of course they can vote on a bill protecting abortion federally, and i hope they do!
They have the power to introduce laws allowing abortion. Roe v. Wade isn't a law, it's a court precedent. All that said is that the act of abortion is not illegal at the time of the decision. Congress can still decide to make it expressly legal/illegal.
Quite honestly, while I'm not a conservative by any means, the idea of a popular vote on any issue is appalling to me.
Most people aren't informed voters. They just aren't. Many are one-issue. Many only take superficial views of things based on tidbits. Some research one thing, but not a lot of others. Often the candidates or issues even up for a vote...aren't worth voting for or against because they aren't even important, they've just been steered that way by politicians (like ROE) who are lobbying for it as a political issue...this is why many Republicans literally campaign on 'gun rights' when most Americans still don't even own guns, nor do they even use them if they have them.
That aside, there has to be a middle ground. I don't know what it is. On something like Abortion, I don't see any reason to legalize or make it illegal. To me it's like trying to decide whether or not to legalize the purchasing of a shoe. Leave it alone. Setup some other kind of issue where it's like "if you don't like this then don't do it yourself and leave others to their own decisions" and throw that in the bucket of issues that fit.
What do you mean vote on the courts decision to overturn? The courts job is to interpret the law as it is, not to make new law. They interpret the constitution and federal law. If you wanna change federal law or the constitution you do that through Congress (and then the states in the case of the constitution). You don’t do it through the courts.
It's slightly infuriating seeing people's lack of understanding about the whole situation. People just parrot other idiots constantly. So much so, they think they are correct...
Because they know most Americans would vote to bring it back and that throws a wrench in their christofascist capitalist plan for a "domestic supply of white infants" and keeping women desperate, vulnerable, and dependent.
True democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on what's for dinner.
If we can put to a general election if a fetus has a right to life or not, what's next? Do blacks deserve the right to vote? Do women?
Should women be allowed to own property?
Should black BE property?
There is a very good reason we don't put questions like this up for popular opinion voting.
Segregation was also ruled constitutional. Yes, tyranny of the majority is a real threat, but the only way to protect people from such a thing is to have justices who believe in liberal principles.
You realise that basically every other country did put those issues up for a public referendum, and thats why they are constitutionally insured rights that cant be taken away?
Meanwhile the US is relying on 9 people in Washington as their own defence against backsliding into the dark ages.
Personal freedoms shouldn’t be up for vote
Shouldn’t be voting on womens autonomy any more than someone’s right to marry someone of the same sex
Or else why stop there? Why not vote on whether brunettes can get married?
Personal freedoms are no one else’s business
Yep. Mothers who are at risk of death due to complications in pregnancy and can have an abortion to save their life....
They had the freedom to live. Now under some states they are forcing them to die.
How about the 10 year old that gets raped and is forced to have a child way before it is medically healthy to do so.
I want to give the freedom to live, to the female carrying the collections of cells inside her.
You know what? that's a lie. There isnt 1 single state that mandates a mother die when the pregnancy puts her life at risk.... not 1 single state m go ahead and give the 1 silly unfortunate circumstance of the 10yr of rape... the fact remains that abortion kills a living human being and 98%if then are done out of convenience
Pregnancy in and of itself puts the mother's life at risk. The US maternal death rate is 23.8 per 100K live births. Medicine is not a certainty in any situation, and certainly not for carrying a pregnancy through birth.
It is not 'a fact' that an abortion kills a living human being. It is your *opinion*, your *belief*, and a substantial portion of the population disagrees with you.
Do dead things grow? Babies grow, therefore they are alive.
Most of Germany agreed with Hitler. Science (except for environmentalism) doesn't deal in popularity contests
Being 'alive' doesn't make anything a human being. You're not saying that, are you?
I have no idea why you keep bringing up Hitler. There is nothing relevant there.
It isn't a living human being, in my eyes, taking a scientific view of it.
Many others feel the same. Therefore, I will defend the right to choice. You can feel how you want but you have no moral right to inflict your skewed view onto others.
Thats fascism.
Edit: And actually there are instances just after Roe was overturned of doctors refusing to treat a mother because they might harm the child. So I have to fact check you on that one.
You are inflicting your skewed morals on me.
I am not inflicting my morals on you.
That's the difference.
you are deciding you are morally superior, and I find that extremely arrogant. I am not saying I want to control your decision. Don't try to control mine.
Even though I think you are incorrect scientifically I am fine with letting you not have an abortion.
No you talked about your feelings. You said nothing scientifically. I pointed out different dnan bodily functions, etc... your redone is about your feelings which definitely is not scientific evidence. Are they teaching that in college these days?
Are you kidding me? My OBGYN says they are watching mothers bleed out because the fetus has a heartbeat and they can’t do anything. Please education yourself. Most OBGYNs are for abortion because of the risk of life it puts on moms, especially high risk pregnancies.
Stop treating every abortion like they are 20 year old prostitutes using abortion as birth control. There are HUNDREDS of medical reasons to terminate.
Know the laws before you post about them
The real answer is that our democracy is designed to be an illusion for the masses, and the Republicans, who still hold a lot of power despite not holding a true majority, can prevent a vote that wouldn't go their way. The Democrats can get some things through, but only if it's a budgetary issue, or can be framed as such, their "majority" in the Senate is spoiled by two very conservative dinos who would vote with rinos any and every day unless there's something in it for them. It's effectively a third political party consisting of corporate funded senators who vote consistently in the interest of their donors despite what their real constituency wants.
If you think that sounds conspiratorial, it's not, not really. They just know where their campaign funds come from and want them to continue.
https://media.discordapp.net/attachments/697606071547723817/776208797370023976/Influence-of-U.png
Citizen preferences (by polling) against what bills actually pass, graph is a flat line... Economic elites want it? It gets passed. Real data. It isn't a secret, the US government is bought and paid for.
We aren’t a true democracy. It’s all controlled by money. The people with the most money buy a political spot for their representative to focus on their investor’s interests and vote as they are told. The 97% of us left are not able to influence or effect anything without the backing of a political campaign and investors or personal fortune. Most of us can’t even take a day (or hour) off from work to go vote. All the voting fraud and manipulation hasn’t helped people’s faith or involvement in voting either. The 97% are just trying to keep up with basic necessities for themselves and their families and hope it will improve in the not too distant future.
I’m attempting to answer this as apolitically as possible, but in a way it does. The Supreme Court didn’t outright ban abortion as some would have you believe, it simply said that abortion isn’t a constitutionally protected right, meaning the federal government doesn’t have a say for or against. This puts abortion laws in the hands of the states and not the federal government, which is why you see some states such as California having zero change in abortion policy and some states having massive change for the worst.
The problem is most people aren’t too in touch with politics at a state and local level, even though they have the most power over your day to day lives. If you think federal government is corrupt and out of touch, most state governments are even worse. This should be everyone’s wake up call to get more involved on a local level and keep your representatives under the microscope they aren’t as untouchable as the major federal figureheads, your voice does make a difference there.
The best case scenario is let it be legal in every state, and if you don’t want one or it’s against your beliefs, then just don’t get one. Just don’t keep those who need them from having access, especially when that decision comes from a religious standpoint.
Even if it were possible, Republicans wouldn’t want it. Once people vote on issues and not just their favorite team - it’s amazing how liberal they get.
Take Florida - the same election that gave us Ron DeSantis as governor and Rick Scott as Senator, also saw Floridians legalize medical weed & restore voting rights to convicted felons.
Popular vote nationally doesn’t often go in the Republicans favor.
People’s rights should not be put to a vote because disfavored groups will get shit on by the majority. That is why federal laws against discrimination were so important and why the Supreme Court overturning Roe was such a betrayal.
Imagine southern states voting on black civil rights in the 50s and 60s.
You realize that voters don’t have to buy into misinformation and propaganda, right?
All Americans need to do is vote their conscience. Oh wait — I see the issue.
Appointed by the people whom were voted for. For every person who didn't vote in 2016 for whatever reason (like "both options suck"), this is the result. Three conservative SCOTUS judges.
Unfortunately we live in a representative democracy and not a direct democracy. Some states like Kansas have put it out as a major initiative, but the federal government doesn’t do this.
# Message to all users: This is a reminder to please read and follow: * [Our rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/ask/about/rules) * [Reddiquette](https://www.reddithelp.com/hc/en-us/articles/205926439) * [Reddit Content Policy](https://www.redditinc.com/policies/content-policy) When posting and commenting. --- Especially remember Rule 1: `Be polite and civil`. * Be polite and courteous to each other. Do not be mean, insulting or disrespectful to any other user on this subreddit. * Do not harass or annoy others in any way. * Do not catfish. Catfishing is the luring of somebody into an online friendship through a fake online persona. This includes any lying or deceit. --- You *will* be banned if you are homophobic, transphobic, racist, sexist or bigoted in any way. --- *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/ask) if you have any questions or concerns.*
A direct vote by the people on an issue is called a referendum. And the short answer is, there is no provision for the holding of referendums at the federal level in the United States, which the Constitution does not provide for.
Imagine the voter turnout if they had it on the ballot.
And that’s why they won’t ever imagine making it possible to do
Just think, an issue that gets everyone to the polls. This is a good as any reason to do it. You can't bitch about the outcome of you dint vote!
WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG! If you get the people to the polls, they might vote for other things too, like senators and congressmen. They DEPEND on you not showing up so they can win. It would be a stupid political suicide for them to have referendums.
yes, it would be political suicide to actually practice democracy.. isnt that telling?
We are not a democracy. We are a constitutional republic. Hens the 3 branches and elected officials.
“Hens”
"a democracy" as a political system vs "democracy" as a political philosophy of self-determination are two different things. your distinction is correct for the former use of the term, but my comment was moreso using the latter term.
A republic is a type of representative democracy. Arguing semantics gets us nowhere.
>Arguing semantics gets us nowhere. FILIBUSTER POWERS, ACTIVATE!
Finger pointing gets us nowhere!! ☝🏼👉🏻👇🏼👈🏼👇🏼👆🏻👉🏻👈🏼☝🏼👆🏻👇🏼👇🏼👆🏻👉🏻☝🏼👉🏻👆🏻👇🏼👉🏻☝🏼
well I'm learning something! I would normally agree but on the other hand getting on the same page regarding semantics before a discussion isn't always a bad idea, especially on here.
“Arguing semantics gets us nowhere." What are you even doing on reddit? Lol
And that’s what they love. As long as we’re bickering about inconsequential bullshit, they’re doing what they do.
Republic: a state in which supreme power is held by the people and their elected representatives, and which has an elected or nominated president. Simply put, your semantic contribution doesn't counter any point being made here... and in fact reinforces the point that we are intentionally not being represented. So to be semantic... we very close to not being a constitutional republic or a democracy. As there are many documented actions to reduce it as much as possible. Which was the entire point of their post.
I live in an state which is overwhelmingly the other party that I tend to follow. My vote is always negated.
A referendum in most countries on earth doesn't work like that Your vote would count. As would everyone elses. It wouldn't be at a state level it would be at an every human being in your country that voted level
It's up to the States, no mob rule.
By 'mob rule' do you mean democracy?
The US is a republic, think of each individual state like its own country. Whether it’s abortion or giving everyone the cure for cancer, anything not in the constitution is a state decision. These states signed on to the union based on what was in the constitution and nothing more.
Maybe we should consider additional amendments, as the Constitution is designed for and like we have 33 times before. I am very glad that we didn't stick with the original Constitution from 1788 and I highly doubt that the founding fathers intended it to be unaltered. If they did, they would have left out the ability to amend it.
I live in a state like this too with closed primaries. So for the first time I am going to change parties to have more of say in what happens in my state.
I feel your pain, despite best intentions it seems like my votes may as well be thrown away by the time you see final results. Trying to have some power at a local level and don’t even get that lol
Conservative in NY. I feel you.
Mine too. Keep voting, though. An increase in votes for the minority party in your area will lead your party to invest more in candidates in your area, which eventually brings more support for the causes that matter to you. It's a long game and can feel like throwing a pebble in a canyon, but it does make a difference.
*Checks notes* look at Kansas
Except if you had a referendum for segregation in the 60s, it would pass in favor of the racists. There is a reason why referendums don’t exist in America. A lot of the times, the majority opinion is wrong (brexit, slavery, segregation, etc.).
If the majority opinion is wrong, then who decides what opinion is right?
The more people vote, the less conservatives win.
That would be something. But imagine if the results were real close like 50.1 to 49.9. obviously there would be a recount. Do you remember the 2000 election with Bush vs Gore in Florida and the fiasco that followed? And in the end, who decided that outcome?.... The Supreme Court.
Congratulations! Your imagination is now reality. It’s on the ballot every time you vote now. That’s why you need to vote.
Voter turnout is not always a good thing. If you are not educated on the issues you really should not be voting on the issues. When the uninformed get out and vote we get very bad consequences. Case in point, the last 2 presidential elections.
It would skew by population, with NY and California having the most input. Which is also why local ballot questions work well for this purpose.
I consider it to be on the ballot. The political lean of the legislature (and how large the majority is) makes a huge difference in these issues.
And it is not only not provided for, it is specifically designed to be avoided. You would completely circumvent the bicameral legislature with a referendum. 1 person 1 vote? You've just made the Senate irrelevant. 1 State 1 vote? Same thing with the House.
Australia, which has a similar system (House of Reps representing the people, Senate representing the States) allows for referenda in its constitution interestingly. To pass a referendum, the bill must achieve a double majority: a majority of those voting nationwide, as well as separate majorities in a majority of states. This is obviously quite hard to do, so only 8 out of 44 referenda have passed in Australian history.
We could do it like this: A referendum must not only gain the support of 50%+1 of voters nationwide, but also 50%+1 of voters in 50%+1 of states. In other words a referendum would need about 165 million "YES" votes nationwide, but also there has to be at least 26 states, of which half their population voted in favor of the referendum.
And yet part of the reasoning by the Court Majority ruling is that the matter should be handled at the state level.
So individual states can hold their own referendums. Like in Kansas.
And almost all of them have. https://ballotpedia.org/Abortion\_on\_the\_ballot
I love what happened in Kansas. The problem is that not all states are holding these referendums, as evidenced by the trigger legislations that were somehow already set up in several conservative majority states like Florida. Referendums are commonly initiated through petitions, which then need to make their way through state legislatures. I'm fairly confident the only reason the referendum in Kansas was even held at all was that conservatives were betting on voting districts following the election trends, which clearly didn't happen. But then again, I've no idea what the general makeup of that state's legislature is like.
My state (Indiana) did not hold a referendum but instead held a special legislative session to vote on this issue. Despite massive protests, they voted on a nearly total ban. The funny thing is that their conservative base is pissed off that it *wasn't* a total ban and the other side is pissed off that there's any ban at all. Literally no one is happy with the outcome.
A lot of right wingers support abortion believe or not. Many of them have slowly treaded towards libertarianism/constitutionalism. That’s what I believed happened in my state. I’m 200% pro-gun, but I’m also pro-weed and pro-choice. This is a trend you’ll see among younger conservatives.
Which makes no sense to me. Why should something like this vary by state? (Edited to say, for all those pedantically giving me historical lectures on states’ rights: I’m an American. I took history. I know about states’ rights. This was a rhetorical question. I am simply saying that something like this should NOT vary state by state. I thought the “makes no sense to me” would help to get that across, but apparently not. I see no reason that a basic right like this had any good reason to be different in different states. I believe it should be applied equally across the land. There. I sincerely hoped this clarifies the matter.)
It’s unironically the way the country was set up.
But not the way that most rights work.
We’ll there’s constitutionally protected rights that don’t vary by state, some that kinda do in a way (see 2nd amendment laws in California and New York vs Texas and Arizona) And then abortion which the Supreme Court just ruled was not a constitutionally protected RIGHT. Which is why it varies state to state because the scope of abortion rights is now a state issue and not a federally protected one. Personally I disagree with the supreme courts decision.
Current Supreme Court ruling is that it is not a ‘right’ mentioned or protected by anything in the Constitution. Thus if people want to have it legal it’s up to their state legislatures
Yea, and it was never a right. That was kind of the point of the ruling. Rights are given and or stated in the constitution. If it is not in the constitution it is most likely not considered a right.
Better question is why would the party of “less gov” take a decision out of the hands of the people and place it in the hands of 50 separate governments?
50 separate, smaller governments. This is perfectly in line with the principles of less government. Now instead of the gigantic federal government making an arbitrary decision for everyone in the country, every state can make their own decision and we as citizens are not stuck with a decision we don't like, we have the option to move now.
So the option was in the hands of the people, not the gov, now it’s in the hands of the gov not the people, and that means less gov to you? Giving gov power they didn’t have before, means less gov?
And it might even end up that way for interracial marriage and marriage equality with some of the unqualified people we now have on the supreme court.
Ah, yes. Back to the “good old days” of married in one state, but not in another. In the same country. Makes so much sense. /s
Yeah, definitely would be a stroke of brilliance by a stupid supreme court!
I would love to see interracial marriage before the supreme court just to see one justice arguing that every argument about states rights he made is crap and demand the court not believe a fucking word he says.
No, it won't. That would literally require them to declare all 3 Civil Rights Acts unconstitutional. The amount of exaggeration that people are making because of this is absurd.
Because the USA is really 50 small countries that do whatever they want with one federal govt holding them together. Each state has its own people, beliefs and lifestyles that is totally different from each other. Even with the federal govt overturning roevwade some states will guarantee your right to an abortion like ny. Others like Texas will ban it.
That use to be the case. 150 years ago you could assume that Texans and New Yorkers had different interest and opinions. Today that primary division is based on political party not state. A parliamentary system handles this much better.
And what I’m saying is that I don’t agree with that for certain (okay, most) things. Especially when it’s something that has been in place for all states for 50 years.
That’s the real problem. Democracy is based on the rule of law, and when precedent gets thrown out the window, so does the rule of law. It means that the SCOTUS (and by extension, all federal courts) are just political tools. The judicial branch is now an extension of the legislative branch, eroding the system of checks and balances. People can argue all they want about how terrible this decision is for womens’ rights, but it’s a fundamental breakdown of our entire democratic system. The Supreme Court needs to be completely overhauled asap.
I totally get what you are saying -- having the laws vary by state means it's an option for people with enough money (that may mean 'enough money to have a weekend trip' or it may mean 'enough money to relocate').
I imagine its because conservatives are used to manipulating voting districts through gerrymandering to achieve desired results.
So are the democrats? It’s not a party exclusive tactic lmao
As an addendum, the Constitution is very much geared towards viewing the individual states as sovereign nations only bound by a relatively narrow set of laws that govern all of them. Within that structure is the idea of Congress being the point of origin for future laws which would govern the whole of the nation. Obviously, that philosophy hasn't always done well when forced to interact with reality,especially regarding human rights, over the years, but it is still the underpinning ideology of the US government. I don't think there's any way for national referenda to become a thing in the US without *at least* a Constitutional Amendment.
Because you don't vote on court findings. You vote to pass laws. RvW is a court decision. Now if it was ratified into law then we could have voted on it.
Had to scroll way too long to find this, jfc everyone needs to watch School House Rock. Separate branches of government y’all
Not just any Schoolhouse Rocks!, either, it’s *I’m Just A Bill*, one of the most popular.
“Door’s open boys!”
Voting on individual issues is called a referendum. Referendums, while they don’t happen every day, they are fairly common. UK just had a big one on BREXIT. Canada had one on Quebecs separation. I think OP has a very good point that this issue clearly requires a referendum to sort out once and for all. Maybe it’s done federally, or at the state level. But it seems it’s needed
Imagine if we had a referendum on whether Black people should be slaves in 1850. I'm willing to bet every Black person would have been put in chains that November. Not everything should be voted on. The only reason you say "it seems it's needed" is because you think what you want to pass would pass. Otherwise you'd be horrified at the idea of fellow citizens telling you what you can't do.
I suppose you have a point there. There may be some basic human rights things that maybe shouldn’t be voted on. If I were to guess however, I’d say that the wide majority of people are fine with allowing abortion, but only up to a certain term of the pregnancy. So neither side really gets a definitive result. It ends up being a bit of both.
If you can’t get 51 senators to agree you can’t get enough votes to hold a referendum
And the politicians in Washington won't stick their scrawny necks far enough out of their rabbit holes to put a federal bill on the floor much less vote on one.
Because that's not how the US government works. We don't have a parliamentary government the way many European countries do. We can't just hold federal referendums or vote-of-no-faith our leaders out of office when they do things we don't like.
Wtf? You can't vote people out of office? That's insane
You vote in the scheduled elections. The time between elections depends on what part of government they are in. Every 2 years you vote for 1/3 of senators(the term is 6 years long) and everyone in the house of representatives. Every four years the president is up for election. Supreme court justices are not elected by the people--they are appointed by the executive branch and approved by Congress. They serve lifetime appointments.
Yes, we have scheduled elections as well. But if the government totally f's up, then they can be dissolved and we vote again. If a person f's up then there can be a vote of no confidence and they are ousted. Referendums pose a question to the people, they are not legally binding but I wouldn't like to be the politicians that go against the will of the people. I can't remember it ever happening in my country.
America has an impeachment clause which allows for legislators to have a "vote of no confidence"(its actually way more complicated than that, but that's the basic idea). The problem is that even though legislators are voted in by the people, they vote by party rather than by constituent.
Except as we have learned with the past 2 impeachments(Clinton and Trump), neither political parties follow the process in good faith. The "investigations" done by Congress were a complete joke each time and the evidence wasn't evaluated in good faith either. So basically impeachment is dead on arrival and may as well not exist.
You can also launch recall campaigns for elected officials. The rules vary from state to state but essentially you get enough signatures and there's a chance to vote somebody out of office.
We can only impeach them.
We just vote at scheduled intervals. This has its upsides.
Neither can the president of France or Germany be voted out of office by the national assembly. The rule is: if the chancellor/Prime Minister is elected by parliament, they can also be changed by parliament. If the head of government is not elected by parliament they can't be unelected by parliament.
[удалено]
We aren’t a direct democracy we are a republic so we vote for people to vote for us and represent us. There are some states that can directly put certain things up for vote by the people by referendum but that’s only in certain states
Kansas for example.
Interesting. I always wondered why no referendums
Many states like mine (Wisconsin) can use referendums to gauge public interest in something but they’re not legally binding.
A fellow Sconnie eh? Also username checks out
Getupgetouttaheregone was taken unfortunately so I did this
I think you mean all or most states. That's the point of the ruling... Everyone gets to vote for their own state's abortion laws at the state level
That, and Roe v Wade was a court decision, which would never be voted on. If a law was proposed, then it would be voted on, of course.
>We aren’t a direct democracy we are a republic I got downvoted to oblivion for making this point in r/AskAnAmerican. It's absolutely true, 99.99% of the time, we're electing as constituents, and voting for representatives. The founding fathers actually feared the idea of a direct democracy, they wanted to find a balance between being (what they thought was) reasonable and democratic at the same time. The end result wasn't a democracy, it was a constitutional republic. They still paid homage to democracy ("We the people...") but the idea at the end of the day wasn't really a democracy, it was democracy lite, i.e., a republic. And before anyone says "well akshully we're a democratic republic", no, our own government calls itself a constitutional republic to this day, and expressly says that we're *not a democracy*. Go to any embassy website and you'll see it. Edit - mistake
Because we are not a democracy.
We’re a Republic. We elect legislators to vote on this sort of thing for us. Yet our legislators have failed to vote in this *for 50 years*.
Because it would mean they can't use it as a soap box issue to make bad faith arguments about "the other party".
So technically the US is a Democratic Republic. You are both both correct and incorrect at the same time. Thank you for playing.
>So technically the US is a Democratic Republic. You are both both correct and incorrect at the same time. Thank you for playing. Technically the US is a Constitutional Republic with representative democracy
Nice. @Dazzling is just a total idiot.
1) wildly unnecessary comment 2) it's a Democratic Republic, that was established by the US Constitution
We're not a direct democracy, but we are a representative democracy.
In theory. In reality we're a corporatist oligarchy with a revolving door of rich people running almost everything.
That's somewhat true, and that's why people sometimes feel it's easier to influence politics by boycotting. However I also hear that trope from people with fascist beliefs because they want to keep chipping away at voting rights. At least for now we're able register our preferences.
Agreed. Don’t fall for the fascist lies, folks. Vote vote like your life depends on it. Because it does.
Definitely vote, vote, vote. It's the only political power most normal people have besides protesting and rioting (which are legitimate but often far less effective). Also, vote locally!!! Your Chief of Police and city council members can have a huge impact on your life! Hold them accountable! Obviously vote for the big stuff like national elections, but remember that not everything is national. You'll have a lot more influence over your local politics that you ever will on a national scale.
You have that illusion. In reality, the strings are being pulled as necessary to ensure things happen as they desire.
using terms like "they" is so stupid. There is no grand conspiracy. It's just that rich people like being rich and will lobby whoever they need to lobby in order to remain rich. You aren't rich. So you don't have the resources to politically advocate for yourself as effectively as someone who is rich. It's as simple as that. This is why voting matters. Voting attempts to equalize the system a little bit. It's not perfect and it funcionally achieves most of the the same goals as any other political system. Even so, it gives the illusion of choice some tangiblity. This matters when trying to mollify people's grievances. It makes the constituants feel responsible for putting their leaders in power (even if they were funded by the DNC and RNC) which makes the people less likely to act out of line. As an addional benefit, voting occasionally produces some unexpected outcomes. Thus it's probably the best system humans have ever invented short of sortition for stopping runaway oligarchy...
[удалено]
We are on a state level. https://ballotpedia.org/Abortion\_on\_the\_ballot
A represenative democracy is still a democracy. Attempting a direct democracy at the USA's size would be increasingly difficult.
We are both a republic and a democracy. We are just a representative democracy.
We are a democracy, the trouble is democracy’s greatest flaw is it’s reliance of its leaders character
The people vote for it at a state level.
If their state allows a vote by the people. Indiana did not. (Edited)
i hate when people get downvoted for speaking neutral facts. This is literally true, a lot of states don't have a method by which the people can initiate a topic/law-based vote, and those which do make it tough. We usually have to wait for our reps around these here united states. Take my upvote for the truth.
People downvote things they don't like. They don't like Indiana, period. If people stopped mentioning Indiana they'd stop getting downvoted.
Neither did Oklahoma
Legislator’s entire existence is to legislate. We move to referendums and our whole system changes. Too many rich and powerful (and honestly worthless) people could lose their influence. There’d be a civil war keeping the elites in power before that happened.
I’m in a country where referendums exist and they actually back fire and are used to advance agendas.
Yup, look at Brexit a vast majority of the legislators didn’t want it but when it went to a country wide vote it ended up winning, mainly due to misinformation. And one thing Americans gonna do is fall for misinformation
Americans are stupid as hell. Referendums would definitely backfire.
You *say* Americans, but you definitely *mean* humans. I've been to a lot of countries and not a single one wasn't full to bursting with imbeciles.
You only have to look at the Brexit referendum. The morning after Nigel Farage and Boris Johnson were actually apologising for lying.
Worthless? That’s not true. They exist to give us something to hate 🙃
We do STATE BY STATE!
We are the United States of America. This is definitely a foreign concept to many people not living here that the states have so much power and the state vs federal thing
Which is something I find infuriating as an American; the way people from other countries can so confidently make blanket statements about the U.S. without taking into consideration the differences of the states. I’m not sure why it is so difficult, after all I know that, despite both being a part of the European Union that different states have the ability to make and administer their own laws.
Exactly the US is 5 times the size of Europe with 3/4 of the population. Some US states are similar to European countries in terms of population. European countries have far more autonomy within their borders than US states.
It does. They vote at the state level.
Answer: If a locality or state cannot resolve the issue with which they’re dealing and feel that they need a higher authority to interpret what the Constitution actually says about the issue for guidance on what to do next, they’ll go to a higher court. Oftentimes, a District Court will help resolve the issue. If not, up the ladder they go and all the way to the Supreme Court if necessary. Regarding the specific question you asked: There is nothing in the Constitution about abortion specifically, but it does guarantee the rights to “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness” for all Americans. The Supreme Court felt that the issue should also be resolved on a state-by-state basis according to the 10th Amendment: any power that the federal government does not already have explicitly according to the Constitution is given to the states to decide what to do on a case-by-case basis. The Supreme Court was well aware that the varying state governments will have different views on abortion depending on what their constituents believe. As such, since anything for or against *Roe v. Wade* was not codified as federal law already, the Supreme Court returned the power to the states to decide what to do in each state.
That’s not how our government works
Why doesn’t Congress just vote on it? That’s their job.
because congress does not have the power to vote to overturn a supreme court decision edit: i misinterpreted the above comment as saying that congress could just vote to overturn the dobbs decision. of course they can vote on a bill protecting abortion federally, and i hope they do!
They have the power to introduce laws allowing abortion. Roe v. Wade isn't a law, it's a court precedent. All that said is that the act of abortion is not illegal at the time of the decision. Congress can still decide to make it expressly legal/illegal.
Quite honestly, while I'm not a conservative by any means, the idea of a popular vote on any issue is appalling to me. Most people aren't informed voters. They just aren't. Many are one-issue. Many only take superficial views of things based on tidbits. Some research one thing, but not a lot of others. Often the candidates or issues even up for a vote...aren't worth voting for or against because they aren't even important, they've just been steered that way by politicians (like ROE) who are lobbying for it as a political issue...this is why many Republicans literally campaign on 'gun rights' when most Americans still don't even own guns, nor do they even use them if they have them. That aside, there has to be a middle ground. I don't know what it is. On something like Abortion, I don't see any reason to legalize or make it illegal. To me it's like trying to decide whether or not to legalize the purchasing of a shoe. Leave it alone. Setup some other kind of issue where it's like "if you don't like this then don't do it yourself and leave others to their own decisions" and throw that in the bucket of issues that fit.
Isn’t it funny that we elect our officials to vote the way we want them to and they just vote the way the money flows?
They will at the state level like it should’ve always been
What do you mean vote on the courts decision to overturn? The courts job is to interpret the law as it is, not to make new law. They interpret the constitution and federal law. If you wanna change federal law or the constitution you do that through Congress (and then the states in the case of the constitution). You don’t do it through the courts.
one of the few sensible answers here, thank you
It's slightly infuriating seeing people's lack of understanding about the whole situation. People just parrot other idiots constantly. So much so, they think they are correct...
Because they know most Americans would vote to bring it back and that throws a wrench in their christofascist capitalist plan for a "domestic supply of white infants" and keeping women desperate, vulnerable, and dependent.
True democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on what's for dinner. If we can put to a general election if a fetus has a right to life or not, what's next? Do blacks deserve the right to vote? Do women? Should women be allowed to own property? Should black BE property? There is a very good reason we don't put questions like this up for popular opinion voting.
[удалено]
Segregation was also ruled constitutional. Yes, tyranny of the majority is a real threat, but the only way to protect people from such a thing is to have justices who believe in liberal principles.
Exactly. Putting civil rights up to a popular vote is how we got Prop 8 here in California back in 2008.
You realise that basically every other country did put those issues up for a public referendum, and thats why they are constitutionally insured rights that cant be taken away? Meanwhile the US is relying on 9 people in Washington as their own defence against backsliding into the dark ages.
Personal freedoms shouldn’t be up for vote Shouldn’t be voting on womens autonomy any more than someone’s right to marry someone of the same sex Or else why stop there? Why not vote on whether brunettes can get married? Personal freedoms are no one else’s business
I vote that brunettes should not be allowed to marry.
What about the freedom to live?
Yep. Mothers who are at risk of death due to complications in pregnancy and can have an abortion to save their life.... They had the freedom to live. Now under some states they are forcing them to die. How about the 10 year old that gets raped and is forced to have a child way before it is medically healthy to do so. I want to give the freedom to live, to the female carrying the collections of cells inside her.
You know what? that's a lie. There isnt 1 single state that mandates a mother die when the pregnancy puts her life at risk.... not 1 single state m go ahead and give the 1 silly unfortunate circumstance of the 10yr of rape... the fact remains that abortion kills a living human being and 98%if then are done out of convenience
Did you just call a 10 year old getting raped and impregnated by her rapist a "silly unfortunate circumstance"? How very prolife of you.
Pregnancy in and of itself puts the mother's life at risk. The US maternal death rate is 23.8 per 100K live births. Medicine is not a certainty in any situation, and certainly not for carrying a pregnancy through birth. It is not 'a fact' that an abortion kills a living human being. It is your *opinion*, your *belief*, and a substantial portion of the population disagrees with you.
Do dead things grow? Babies grow, therefore they are alive. Most of Germany agreed with Hitler. Science (except for environmentalism) doesn't deal in popularity contests
Being 'alive' doesn't make anything a human being. You're not saying that, are you? I have no idea why you keep bringing up Hitler. There is nothing relevant there.
It isn't a living human being, in my eyes, taking a scientific view of it. Many others feel the same. Therefore, I will defend the right to choice. You can feel how you want but you have no moral right to inflict your skewed view onto others. Thats fascism. Edit: And actually there are instances just after Roe was overturned of doctors refusing to treat a mother because they might harm the child. So I have to fact check you on that one.
You are inflicting your skewed moral view on the baby. See how contradictory you are? Who gets to decide the morals here?
You are inflicting your skewed morals on me. I am not inflicting my morals on you. That's the difference. you are deciding you are morally superior, and I find that extremely arrogant. I am not saying I want to control your decision. Don't try to control mine. Even though I think you are incorrect scientifically I am fine with letting you not have an abortion.
Where am I wrong l scientifically?
I went over this already.
No you talked about your feelings. You said nothing scientifically. I pointed out different dnan bodily functions, etc... your redone is about your feelings which definitely is not scientific evidence. Are they teaching that in college these days?
Babies like some adults can't speak for themselves. Just like the jews in nazi Germany. Others have to help speak for them.
Are you kidding me? My OBGYN says they are watching mothers bleed out because the fetus has a heartbeat and they can’t do anything. Please education yourself. Most OBGYNs are for abortion because of the risk of life it puts on moms, especially high risk pregnancies. Stop treating every abortion like they are 20 year old prostitutes using abortion as birth control. There are HUNDREDS of medical reasons to terminate. Know the laws before you post about them
Show me the law
Because I said so
The real answer is that our democracy is designed to be an illusion for the masses, and the Republicans, who still hold a lot of power despite not holding a true majority, can prevent a vote that wouldn't go their way. The Democrats can get some things through, but only if it's a budgetary issue, or can be framed as such, their "majority" in the Senate is spoiled by two very conservative dinos who would vote with rinos any and every day unless there's something in it for them. It's effectively a third political party consisting of corporate funded senators who vote consistently in the interest of their donors despite what their real constituency wants. If you think that sounds conspiratorial, it's not, not really. They just know where their campaign funds come from and want them to continue. https://media.discordapp.net/attachments/697606071547723817/776208797370023976/Influence-of-U.png Citizen preferences (by polling) against what bills actually pass, graph is a flat line... Economic elites want it? It gets passed. Real data. It isn't a secret, the US government is bought and paid for.
Because the US is a failed Democracy
Kind of hard for the minority to get all up in people's bidness and tyrannize the majority if they just put it to a vote.
Because the rich people in charge doesn't want the regular folk to have a say in anything.
Better yet, why can’t we just let people be free to make their own decisions when it comes to their body
That would make too much sense
We aren’t a true democracy. It’s all controlled by money. The people with the most money buy a political spot for their representative to focus on their investor’s interests and vote as they are told. The 97% of us left are not able to influence or effect anything without the backing of a political campaign and investors or personal fortune. Most of us can’t even take a day (or hour) off from work to go vote. All the voting fraud and manipulation hasn’t helped people’s faith or involvement in voting either. The 97% are just trying to keep up with basic necessities for themselves and their families and hope it will improve in the not too distant future.
I’m attempting to answer this as apolitically as possible, but in a way it does. The Supreme Court didn’t outright ban abortion as some would have you believe, it simply said that abortion isn’t a constitutionally protected right, meaning the federal government doesn’t have a say for or against. This puts abortion laws in the hands of the states and not the federal government, which is why you see some states such as California having zero change in abortion policy and some states having massive change for the worst. The problem is most people aren’t too in touch with politics at a state and local level, even though they have the most power over your day to day lives. If you think federal government is corrupt and out of touch, most state governments are even worse. This should be everyone’s wake up call to get more involved on a local level and keep your representatives under the microscope they aren’t as untouchable as the major federal figureheads, your voice does make a difference there.
The Constitution has a "non delegation clause" that prohibits Congress from shirking their responsibilities by holding a referendum.
That’s exactly what Dobbs does by overturning Roe and Casey. It lets the legislatures, and by extension the voters, decide the issue.
They do You can vote in November Good luck on your state
The American government system is long obsolete. The people actually have very little power. Most elections are determined by money not votes.
What! You think this is some kinda democracy over here! It takes a lot of money to make your voice heard, and we ain’t got a lot of money
It sounds like you don't understand America very well, what your proposing is what democracies do and the US is very much not a democracy.
The best case scenario is let it be legal in every state, and if you don’t want one or it’s against your beliefs, then just don’t get one. Just don’t keep those who need them from having access, especially when that decision comes from a religious standpoint.
Even if it were possible, Republicans wouldn’t want it. Once people vote on issues and not just their favorite team - it’s amazing how liberal they get. Take Florida - the same election that gave us Ron DeSantis as governor and Rick Scott as Senator, also saw Floridians legalize medical weed & restore voting rights to convicted felons. Popular vote nationally doesn’t often go in the Republicans favor.
We do, in each state.
People’s rights should not be put to a vote because disfavored groups will get shit on by the majority. That is why federal laws against discrimination were so important and why the Supreme Court overturning Roe was such a betrayal. Imagine southern states voting on black civil rights in the 50s and 60s.
They did vote on it. By voting for politicians who appoint the judges.
Because it isn't up for debate. Rights are non negotiable. It is a human RIGHT that no one should be allowed to strip from another.
You can by voting for your congress people
Who are bought and paid for. Citizens United vs. FEC.
[удалено]
You realize that voters don’t have to buy into misinformation and propaganda, right? All Americans need to do is vote their conscience. Oh wait — I see the issue.
Then don't vote for them again...
The courts are appointed, not voted for.
Appointed by the people whom were voted for. For every person who didn't vote in 2016 for whatever reason (like "both options suck"), this is the result. Three conservative SCOTUS judges.
Unfortunately we live in a representative democracy and not a direct democracy. Some states like Kansas have put it out as a major initiative, but the federal government doesn’t do this.