home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
- Path: sparky!uunet!spool.mu.edu!agate!boulder!csn!copper!mercury.cair.du.edu!mnemosyne.cs.du.edu!aburt
- From: aburt@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu (Andrew Burt)
- Newsgroups: co.general
- Subject: Re: Stripped of Civil Rights?
- Message-ID: <1993Jan22.030920.6805@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu>
- Date: 22 Jan 93 03:09:20 GMT
- References: <1993Jan11.192535.27675@evolving.com> <1993Jan12.015256.26288@ucsu.Colorado.EDU> <C10Et7.MyJ@boulder.parcplace.com> <1993Jan18.200257.14883@ucsu.Colorado.EDU> <bhayden.727504032@teal>
- Organization: University of Denver, Dept. of Math & Comp. Sci.
- Lines: 26
-
- In <bhayden.727504032@teal> bhayden@teal.csn.org (Bruce Hayden) writes:
-
- >fcrary@ucsu.Colorado.EDU (Frank Crary) writes:
-
- >This was an amendment to the Colorado constitiution, passed by 53%
- >of the voters. My feeling is that if a court should ever defer on a law,
- >it should be when it was passed by a majority of the voters.
-
- Ummm, suppose we passed a law that said we should take all the assets
- away from people who had more than a million dollar net worth... I'm sure
- if it was cleverly proposed, a majority of voters would vote for it.
- Does that make it a law we really want? I disagree that a majority of
- voters know what's best for all citizens.
-
- >Your suggestion that governments prove that they benefit is utopian.
- >Sure, I agree that the government that governs the least governs the
- >best. But, if you force the governent to prove that a new law is
- >beneficial, we would never (or almost never) have new laws.
-
- Most are "obviously" beneficial. Those that aren't obvious get challenged.
- I see that as it should be.
- --
-
- Andrew Burt aburt@du.edu
-
- "But if he was dying he wouldn't bother to carve "Aaaaargh", he'd just say it."
-