A Response to Scott Adams
The Dilbert Blog
Dear Mr. Adams:
While I certainly agree that on the issue of "Blah, blah, blah" we can defer to public opinion, I have to contend that the constitutionality of most issues is paramount, over and above public opinion.
If the issue is mainly nomenclature then we have no need for the 667 rule. 'Right' and 'Wrong' are simply defined by the individual, who may refer to the opinion of friends, family, religious leaders or public opinion polls to form their own stance. The law is not concerned with 'right' and 'wrong', but only with what is just. And what is just is defined in the context of the Constitution.
The Constitution exists as the rule of law. All laws must emanate from it, or they are not truly law. The reason we do not have a simple majority rules, or as you may be recommending (I can't really tell), a super-majority rules, is that the Founding Fathers were concerned not only for the Will of the Majority, but also for the Rights of the Minority. Even with a 667 there would be rougly 33 percent of the public who would stand on the other side of the issue. Those 33 percent have rights, and the Constitution protects them. It's a delicate balancing act, but in the American vision of a just society the Will of the Majority should never take precedence over the guaranteed Rights that we all share.
More to the point, good luck finding an issue where 66.7% of the public actually affirmatively agree on something. The country is largely split 50/50 on most issues, and their specific feelings change depending on where wording emphaisis is placed. For example, more Americans support 'defining marriage as between a man and a woman' than support 'making same-sex marriage illegal.' The end result is the same, but most induhviduals just answer based on conditioning than on any real thought. The constitution is there to help protect us all from the finicky will of the people, and force us to examine an issue before deciding on it. By the way, my polling research is neither exhaustive nor conclusive, but you can check the numbers yourself on any of the many polling site on the internet. Pew Trusts, Harris Polls and Gallup Polls are among the most respected and trustworthy.
Not to mention most polls seem to seek a sample size of around 1000, which may be statistically significant, but is far from the total number of 'adult citizens who could vote.' Plus polls only tend to poll likely voters, not all possible voters. So, we could redisgn the polls I suppose, but what about the margin of error, usually +/- 3 percent. Would we really need the 697 rule to make sure we are within the margin of error?
I also realize that you are mainly a cartoonist, but you are also very smart and philosophical (e.g. God's Debris). If I read this 667 rule in a Dilbert comic, I would have merely laughed, shook my head and not bothered to repsond. But on the blog, it's hard to tell where you are just being funny, or if you are being funny and attempting to provoke stupidly long responses, or if you're just annoyed becuase some guy ruined a party you were at by not letting up on the political talk.
If I have misinterpreted, or simply taken you too seriously I apologize. I certainly see the possibility looming in front of me. But, if nothing else perhaps someone else will read this response to you and think about something. Anything.
Sincerely,
Tripp
Dear Mr. Adams:
While I certainly agree that on the issue of "Blah, blah, blah" we can defer to public opinion, I have to contend that the constitutionality of most issues is paramount, over and above public opinion.
If the issue is mainly nomenclature then we have no need for the 667 rule. 'Right' and 'Wrong' are simply defined by the individual, who may refer to the opinion of friends, family, religious leaders or public opinion polls to form their own stance. The law is not concerned with 'right' and 'wrong', but only with what is just. And what is just is defined in the context of the Constitution.
The Constitution exists as the rule of law. All laws must emanate from it, or they are not truly law. The reason we do not have a simple majority rules, or as you may be recommending (I can't really tell), a super-majority rules, is that the Founding Fathers were concerned not only for the Will of the Majority, but also for the Rights of the Minority. Even with a 667 there would be rougly 33 percent of the public who would stand on the other side of the issue. Those 33 percent have rights, and the Constitution protects them. It's a delicate balancing act, but in the American vision of a just society the Will of the Majority should never take precedence over the guaranteed Rights that we all share.
More to the point, good luck finding an issue where 66.7% of the public actually affirmatively agree on something. The country is largely split 50/50 on most issues, and their specific feelings change depending on where wording emphaisis is placed. For example, more Americans support 'defining marriage as between a man and a woman' than support 'making same-sex marriage illegal.' The end result is the same, but most induhviduals just answer based on conditioning than on any real thought. The constitution is there to help protect us all from the finicky will of the people, and force us to examine an issue before deciding on it. By the way, my polling research is neither exhaustive nor conclusive, but you can check the numbers yourself on any of the many polling site on the internet. Pew Trusts, Harris Polls and Gallup Polls are among the most respected and trustworthy.
Not to mention most polls seem to seek a sample size of around 1000, which may be statistically significant, but is far from the total number of 'adult citizens who could vote.' Plus polls only tend to poll likely voters, not all possible voters. So, we could redisgn the polls I suppose, but what about the margin of error, usually +/- 3 percent. Would we really need the 697 rule to make sure we are within the margin of error?
I also realize that you are mainly a cartoonist, but you are also very smart and philosophical (e.g. God's Debris). If I read this 667 rule in a Dilbert comic, I would have merely laughed, shook my head and not bothered to repsond. But on the blog, it's hard to tell where you are just being funny, or if you are being funny and attempting to provoke stupidly long responses, or if you're just annoyed becuase some guy ruined a party you were at by not letting up on the political talk.
If I have misinterpreted, or simply taken you too seriously I apologize. I certainly see the possibility looming in front of me. But, if nothing else perhaps someone else will read this response to you and think about something. Anything.
Sincerely,
Tripp
<< Home