Ballot Initiatives are UnConstitutional!

Many states have found a way of circumventing their state legislatures and putting bills (laws) directly on the ballot. Florida, for example, has a statewide indoor smoking ban that totally offends me. For the record; I’m not a smoker, nor do I wish to eat my meals where others are smoking.

The problem for me is that these kinds of laws are oppressive to minorities and highlight the fundamental flaw with Democracy as a system of government. I have often ranted about this topic before but the point behind my premise is applicable across the board so I feel compelled to spell it out again.

First let me clarify my position on the specific example of the smoking ban. To take the choice of whether to allow smoking or not away from the proprietor of a privately owned business in the back woods of Plant City and give it to the majority of Floridians who reside in Miami, Jacksonville, and Orlando (people who would never set foot in said business) is simply wrong.

The way these things are supposed to work is based on our free market system, not Democratic “mob rule”. In America (at least as I remember it) we have the right to go to which ever business we choose. Likewise, we can choose to avoid any business for any reason that strikes us. If there is a large demand for places in which smoking is not allowed, that market WILL be met. The beauty of the free market is that a smaller demand for establishments where smoking is allowed would not be denied. This reality is best summed by the old adage: When a conservative wants to stop eating meat he becomes a vegetarian. When a liberal wants to stop eating meat he makes meat illegal.

Beyond the question of right and wrong, there is a Constitutional component to the legality of these ballot initiatives. The concept of bypassing representative legislation and initiating popular government is known as Democracy. Webster’s Dictionary, in fact, defines Democracy as: “government by the people; especially : rule of the majority”.

On the other hand, Webster’s defines a Republican form of government as: “a government in which supreme power resides in a body of citizens entitled to vote and is exercised by elected officers and representatives responsible to them and governing according to law”. The difference should be very clear, Democracy allows the majority to have complete control at the expense of the minority while a Republic requires elected officials to act on behalf of all people at the expense of none.

The reason that these distinct differences are important boils down to the legality of State sanctioned Democracy. Article IV, section 4 of the Constitution states: “The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government..” . Having seen all of these facts, how is it legal for the States Constitutionally guaranteed Republican government be bypassed by an act of pure Democracy?

If you think that my view of a Republic is flawed then read the words of Thomas Jefferson from his first inaugural address…

“all too will bear in mind this sacred principle, that the will of the majority is in all cases to prevail, that will to be rightful must be reasonable; that the minority possess their equal rights, which equal law must protect, and to violate would be oppression.”

“A wise and frugal government, which shall restrain men from injuring one another, shall leave them otherwise free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, AND SHALL NOT TAKE FROM THE MOUTH OF LABOR THE BREAD IT HAS EARNED.”