What I think, among other things, the initiative on the death penalty, which was withdrawn before being truly launched (text I have written elsewhere):
I do think that there are limits in the popular vote. The text of the intitative provided inter alia that the death penalty would also apply to pending proceedings , therefore crimes committed under a legal order does not provide (yet) the death penalty. Nulla poena sine lege : a violation of this principle I would actually rather difficult to digest. The text of the initiative:
The Constitution is amended as follows:
Art. 10, par. 1 and 3
Every human being has a right to life. Anyone who commits murder or assassination in a contest with a sexual act on a child, sexual coercion or rape loses the right to life and is punishable by death. The death penalty is banned in all other cases.
3 Torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment are forbidden. The death penalty is reserved.
Art. 123a para. 4 (new)
4 A person who commits a murder or assassination in a contest with a sexual act on a child, sexual coercion or rape is run independently of any expertise or scientific knowledge. Confederation carries the death penalty. The capital execution took place within three months after the entry into force of conviction. The court sets the terms and the date of execution.
II
The transitional provisions of the Constitution are amended as follows:
Art. 197, ch. 82 (new)
8. Transitional provision on Art. 10, par. 1 and 3, and 123a, para. 4 (Death penalty)
ss. 10, par. 1 and 3, and 123a, para. 4, concerning the death penalty come into force upon the people and the cantons have accepted. They are applicable to offenses committed before their entry into force whose trial has not yet entered into force on that date; provisions contrary to international treaties do not apply.
That being said, I do not know how to solve this dilemma once and for all. Either it is the people who slice or a committee of "experts" (judges, politicians, civil servants 
). We have to obviously, the Swiss system is constantly in danger of imbalance (between the pole "democracy" and that "the rule of law"). As a liberal I believe that certain rights are not negotiable, they are there before the state and independent of it. The individual is the sole master. If a majority wants to abolish property rights, I have a moral right to take (my) weapons. However, some questions may be submitted probably older to all citizens (and therefore the community), to the extent that they are all affected (And my basic rights are not implicated). Expert commissions, they, supposedly "better" represent the community and think about his place, then have no reason to be.
). We have to obviously, the Swiss system is constantly in danger of imbalance (between the pole "democracy" and that "the rule of law"). As a liberal I believe that certain rights are not negotiable, they are there before the state and independent of it. The individual is the sole master. If a majority wants to abolish property rights, I have a moral right to take (my) weapons. However, some questions may be submitted probably older to all citizens (and therefore the community), to the extent that they are all affected (And my basic rights are not implicated). Expert commissions, they, supposedly "better" represent the community and think about his place, then have no reason to be. But again, this is essentially a discussion of natural law.
