American government and institutions

American Government & Institutions

Should voters continue to have the political authority to change state constitutions when popular or unpopular issues are shaping public opinion? What is the proper role of the people in a Constitutional government? Did the Founders intend for citizens to make changes in the Constitution when times change and issues alter public opinion on various topics? This paper discusses those issues in light of the constitutional bans that have been enacted in up to 30 states vis-a-vis same sec marriage.

The Arguments

A classic example of voters showing their political muscle is the fact that some 30 states in the United States have passed initiatives that ban on same-sex marriage. Led by members of the Christian conservative movement and others representing conservative causes (and against gay rights), these states now have amended their legal political statues to reflect current attitudes and policy beliefs. It should be noted that the Founders clearly wanted the states to have authority to enact laws that are suited to their specific cultural, social, and geographical experiences -- as long as those state laws did not intrude on federal law -- but they made it very difficult for any state or political movement to change the U.S. Constitution. Two-thirds of the states' legislatures would have to approve any amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

As to the issue of popular sovereignty, professor Daniel Levin (Boise State University) explains that there are very few aspects of the U.S. Constitution actually represented in the American culture. Hence, there is an ongoing difficulty in actually "embodying popular sovereignty." Yes, the U.S. Constitution is a symbol of the "formal political relationships between individual citizens and the state based on…popular sovereignty," Levin writes. But because Americans have never conceived of the state as "fully autonomous from society, the Constitution is a weak symbol, lost in the mist that surrounds the American state." Popular sovereignty is difficult to understand and "virtually impossible to depict," Levin asserts.

Meanwhile, if popular sovereignty means the ability to pass propositions and alter state constitutions, it is certainly in play in America. To wit, California was one of the 30 states to pass a ban on gay marriage based on a popular vote. However, in February, 2012, the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals found that Proposition 8, the ballot measure that passed in 2008, was in violation of the U.S. Constitution. The court ruled, "Proposition 8 served no purpose, and had no effect, other than to lessen the statutes and human dignity of gays and lesbians in California" (Dolan, 2012). Hence, the will of the people can become law through popular initiatives, but on the other hand, the argument can be made that if citizens object to the constitutional amendments enacted in any given state -- for any political or social issue -- they have the power of the judiciary to address grievances and sue to reverse the decision.

But should citizens have the power to make public policy through initiatives and state constitutional amendments? Is direct democracy the answer for citizens that feel their elected officials are out of touch? This paper believes that passing propositions and altering state constitutions is indeed a way to bring the voter "…in closer touch with great affairs" and allow the voter to "display increased political efficacy" (Smith, et al., 2004, p. 74). A recent poll published in the New York Times shows "…84% [of Americans] disapprove of Congress" and "89% of Americans say they distrust government to do the right thing" (Zeleny, et al., 2011).