Constitutional Changes In Hawaii Disturb Civil Libertarians

[Bob Hubbard]

Constitutional Changes In Hawaii Disturb Civil Libertarians

Author: The Associated Press Source: Salt Lake Tribune (UT)

Title: CONSTITUTIONAL CHANGES IN HAWAII DISTURB CIVIL LIBERTARIANS

When Hawaii's Supreme Court recently issued several rulings protecting the rights of sex offenders, prosecutors were so disgusted they took their case to the voters.

The verdict came on Election Day: Hawaii's voters overwhelmingly approved a string of constitutional amendments to undo the high court rulings.

Civil libertarians are disturbed - not just by the changes in criminal law, but by the manner in which they were made.

''People will not realize what they have lost until they are falsely accused of something,'' said Kat Brady of the American Civil Liberties Union of Hawaii. Options: [Read Full Story]
Original thread: http://www.witchvox.com/wren/wn_detail.html?id=11861

 

[michaeledward]

The article is a bit short on specifics.

But, it is pretty easy to see that on some occasions, issues can be too important to put before a referrendum vote.

30 second politics makes it easy to vote away your very freedoms.

Mike

 

[ghostdog2]

I'm sorry. I thought this was a democracy. It's a little frightening to hear someone say an issue is " too important " to be voted on. Really? The more important the issue, the more important that the people be allowed to vote, I would say.
I suspect your real objection is not to the process but to the outcome. That's okay. Reasonable men can differ. And I know civil rights are at issue. That's why we have a system of checks and balances that addresses constitutional guarantees. It will work in this case, you'll see.
But not every right is absolute. Some are predicated on good behaviour and can be forfeited. Privacy rights for sexual predators may not be absolute. Or exist at all. Sorry, but I can't work up much sympathy for this sordid group of felons and I suggest that society's sympathy be better invested.
Let's vote on it.

 

[michaeledward]

So, ghostdog, are you suggesting we do away with fine institutions like the Supreme Court and the Presidency? You are aware that neither is elected by popular vote. Do you suppose Madison and Jefferson got that wrong?

My objection is that the Court systems are in place in the democracy to protect the rights of the minority, and by allowing a popular vote to overturn the decisions of the Court, minority rights are eroded.

I don't care if the minority in question in a Saudi national, of African descent, or a sex offender that has served out Court imposed sentencing, rights exist to the extent granted by the State.

Vote to take away anothers' rights, and you forfeit the argument when they vote to take away your rights.

Mike

 

[Bob Hubbard]

I think the real problem here is our elected officials are passing laws without bothering to read them completely, or understand what could happen. They seem to make the excuse that while they know there are areas that could be abused that 'it wont happen'.

This issue of passing stuff unread is going on everywhere...local, state and federal. The US Congress almost passed into law the ability of certain Congressmen to review -any- Americans tax return..documents that are incredibly private. Now, in the grip of 'gay-fear', they are passing laws that not only discriminate against homosexuals, but hetrosexuals who don't fit their narrow 'approval list'.

America was once known as the land of freedom and opportunity...it is now rapidly becoming a land of oppression and discrimination....caused by bigotry, fear and the loss of accountability of our supposed leaders.

 

[michaeledward]

Bob, while what you say is true, I don't think it bears on this case. You are talking about legislation and this issue is about ajudication and referrendum.

The courts said 'minority group x' has rights. People offended by this court ruling, placed a referrendum on the ballot asking voters to change the laws in a way that nullifies the courts ruling.

In this instance, the emotional nature of the topic ensures a 'George Tenet Like' Slam Dunk.

Why not just write a referrendum eliminating the Court system completely. This would remove all 'Activist Judges'. Put ajudication in the hands of the Law Enforcement Officers (Judge Dred).

Soon, we will give away all our freedoms in search of security; fulfilling Mr. Franklin's observation.

Mike

 

[ghostdog2]

Not to put too fine a point on it, but in deciding what rights a felon has, the courts are applying or interpreting the penal code of Hawaii. Presumably, the state legislature crafted and passed that code. The legislators are elected and so a referendum(sp?) just skips the middleman, so to speak, and lets the people "legislate" for themselves. As I commented earlier, these new laws will face judicial scrutiny, just like their predecessors did. It may be they will not pass constitutional muster. But the process is, I believe, a sound one. Unfortunately, I've dealt with too many judges to have virginal faith in the judiciary.

Tyranny of the majority can be a real concern. Sorry, just don't see it here. But your point is well taken.

 

[loki09789]

The article is a bit short on specifics.

But, it is pretty easy to see that on some occasions, issues can be too important to put before a referrendum vote.

30 second politics makes it easy to vote away your very freedoms.

Mike

And what type of governmental actions would not upset Libertarians? They are one step away from Anarchists in political views.

 

[michaeledward]

And what type of governmental actions would not upset Libertarians? They are one step away from Anarchists in political views.

I don't know what type of goverment actions Libertarians would support (or not). I also don't quite understand how this question relates to this discussion.

Curiously - Mike

 

[loki09789]

I don't know what type of goverment actions Libertarians would support (or not). I also don't quite understand how this question relates to this discussion.

Curiously - Mike

The title includes the idea that the Libertarians are disturbed by the Constitutional changes.....

 

[michaeledward]

The title includes the idea that the Libertarians are disturbed by the Constitutional changes.....

I believe Civil Libertarians are concerned with Civil Rights for all. The ACLU, for instance, claims it is a guardian of Liberty.

Libertarians are interested in the least intrusive form of government, and higher levels of personal responsibility.

I don't think these two political points of view are the same.

www.lp.org

www.aclu.org

Of course, they may very well be.

I don't think, however, Civil Libertarians are anarchists.

Mike

 

[loki09789]

I believe Civil Libertarians are concerned with Civil Rights for all. The ACLU, for instance, claims it is a guardian of Liberty.

Libertarians are interested in the least intrusive form of government, and higher levels of personal responsibility.

I don't think these two political points of view are the same.

www.lp.org

www.aclu.org

Of course, they may very well be.

I don't think, however, Civil Libertarians are anarchists.

Mike

Didn't say they were, only that on the scale of 'condoning organized government' they are one step away from the "no organized government" view of anarchists.

 

[michaeledward]

Didn't say they were, only that on the scale of 'condoning organized government' they are one step away from the "no organized government" view of anarchists.

Yes, now I can see that. As I review the ACLU web site, they have wonderful initiatives that are one step away from "no organized government". Such as:

Criminal Justice
Cyber Liberties
Death Penalty Issues
Drug Policy
Free Speech Issues
HIV / AIDS initiatives
Immigrant Rights
Lesbian and Gay Rights
National Security Issues
Police Practices
Prisons
Racial Equality

It's obvious. The ACLU wants to destroy this country and all that made it great.

Come'on Paul, who you pokin' with that stick? You won the friggin' election.

Good Grief.

 

[michaeledward]

Saw this in the news yesterday ... and thought of this thread.


http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6767205/

Ark. court overrules ban on gay foster parents
Judge says 1991 rule tried to regulate ‘public morality’

A state court judge in Arkansas Wednesday struck down a state rule that barred gay people from becoming foster parents, NBC's Pete Williams reported.

Should this issue have been put before a referrendum vote? Allowing the citizens to decide if gay people can be foster parents.

I see this article as a small ray of blue hope, in a red country.

Mike

 

[loki09789]

Yes, now I can see that. As I review the ACLU web site, they have wonderful initiatives that are one step away from "no organized government". Such as:

Criminal Justice
Cyber Liberties
Death Penalty Issues
Drug Policy
Free Speech Issues
HIV / AIDS initiatives
Immigrant Rights
Lesbian and Gay Rights
National Security Issues
Police Practices
Prisons
Racial Equality

It's obvious. The ACLU wants to destroy this country and all that made it great.

Come'on Paul, who you pokin' with that stick? You won the friggin' election.

Good Grief.

Again, there is a difference between 'liberal' and 'libertarian' that seems to be confused here.

I am not poking anyone here. I made a comment about libertarians/libertarianism in relation to anarchists (who don't necessarily mean 'evil' as much as centralization of just about everything).

I didn't win any election that I know of....Bob Hubbard was the only MT person I know of that was running for anything.