Legislation: Constitutional Plebiscite Amendment, 1789 (Passed)

[Galaxie]

Mr. Speaker,

I urge my fellow delegates to look around them. When we crafted this new system of government, did we craft it around a system of plebiscite -- of a democracy contingent on the debate, discussion, and deliberation of the entire populace over each bill, each law?

We didn't, delegates.

Our government was built off of the tenants of elected representation for a reason -- to vest power in a select few who are chosen by the people, a select few with the ability to engage in prolonged and thoughtful debate over each item, each amendment proposed.

It is my great fear that by going against the fundamental tenants of our democracy, the creation of this chamber, the Senate, the Presidency, that we will subject these United States to no more than mob rule, where a demagogue can sway a vulnerable populace against a reasonable amendment -- or towards a dangerous one.

Let us not open our nation up to these needless risks. Let me remind you, delegates, that the power is vested where it is for a reason.

I yield.

[Galaxie]

Mr. Speaker,

Before myself have spoken two men who forget that the basis of our government is not derived directly from the people. From their rhetoric, it seems the previous speakers would even prefer this Chamber here today be abolished in favor of sending all decisions to the public!

The question of national plebiscite is as dangerous as it is ambitious. To the previous Radical speaker, of which currently only three of your Faction serve -- would you trust a bill of yours at the hands of the people of these United States, when they clearly vote in droves against your party? Our government, and yes, our democracy is built off of the principal of elected representation. That is us, gentleman -- no humor there.

So why then, does the "democracy-hating Hamiltonian" oppose this amendment, surely designed to liberate the people?

One such reason is a fear of demagoguery -- that the people will be misled by dangerous men with dangerous intents. That is surely what our Congress here today is designed to mitigate. While we in the Congress have a studied knowledge of the bills we pass, can we ensure the people will have the same? Gentlemen, I have seen the propaganda of the many factions here today -- surely campaigns regarding these constitutional amendments will turn into political bloodbaths in which lie and deceit will be used to win over the ill-informed common person, not fact and logic.

For those who before wished to see our government -- our President, our Courts -- more non-partisan, and yet support this Amendment -- you are wishing a partisan and protracted battle upon the hill of each Amendment this government passes. That makes this Congress less effective, and makes our Democracy less sound.

Gentlemen, we all care about the preservation of this democracy. My disagreement here is not to destroy that democracy, but to hopefully defend it. Let not the passions of the heart control this debate, but the toils of the mind.

I yield.

[Galaxie]

Mr. Speaker,

Before me has spoken a man of hypocrisy. He who claims to not be high and mighty and yet still claims moral superiority in the most boisterous and haughty way possible.

Though the delegate that spoke before me may have forgotten the tenants of representative rule that our democracy so follows -- or perhaps just neglected to speak of them for the sake of his moral crusade -- he failed to bring a substantial response to the arguments I have made in this chamber previously.

This is what the supporters of this bill look like -- and perhaps that's why they fail to see my critique of it. They follow blindly and vote blindly, with the glare of a supposed patriotic superiority preventing a thorough and critical look at the legislation before us.

Perhaps then it is not such a bad idea for our nation to have plebiscites. If our Congress is steered by blind emotion and disdain, perhaps the common people, less haughty in their ways, would be better.

I yield.