All my life I have heard that this is a country in which majority rules. Is this true, or is it something assumed without evidence?
|
All my life I have heard that this is a country in which majority rules. Is this true, or is it something assumed without evidence?
If the majority is the government then YES the majority rules
Also the rights organizations with the biggest mouths also have the majority rules.
But I do not see majority rule for the most part.
The average 'little' person doesn't seem to have much say on much even if they are a majority.
When we were a Republic, the majority didn't matter as each person had equal say and were considered equal and lived his or here life the way they chose. Suddenly though, we were all at once a democracy, where 51 percent were the majority so the other 49 percent had to shut up and do it their way. Now, we should do as we are told or be arrested and held without due process as a terrorist. The majority is the government... really big government. If you don't like that, Cheney will just say, "So?"
Well if and when barely 50 percent of the entire people even vote??
And normally the person getting elected gets barely over 1/2 of the people who vote, so basically our elected officials are in power only because of about 1/4 or less of the population.
Hello Gal:Quote:
Originally Posted by Galveston1
You'd have to be a little more specific than that, but in the terms I think you mean, no - it's not true. There's plenty of evidence for THAT in the Bill of Rights.
To wit: each one of us has certain inalienable rights under the Constitution. That's each one of us, as in a minority of one. Even if the majority wanted to, they can't take away those rights.
excon
Not quite clear where the qestion is going . We have a representative republic. We elect representatives to make decisions . Do you mean majority rules like in a pure democracy ? If yes then the answer is no and thank God for that.
Overall no, and I also thank God for that. We are a Republic of states, each with its own laws, governments and unique populations. If Bill Nelson gets his way though the electoral college would be scrapped in favor of a popular vote. Since it would require a constitutional amendment I doubt that's going to happen, nor should it happen. It serves a valid purpose in guaranteeing smaller states a voice in the election. It forces candidates to to court voters all over the country as opposed to concentrating on dense population areas. Why campaign in Wyoming, Vermont, North Dakota if you don't need their votes?
It was also intended to serve as a buffer between the population and the selection of the president in insuring that only a qualified candidate would be elected president. The founding fathers felt a smaller group selected by the citizens, that met only one time, would be more likely to make the right choice and avoid manipulation. I think it works and it would be dangerous to switch to a direct popular election for president.
What's funny is this is basically what's being played out in the Democratic primaries and I've been getting mixed signals. Part of what's driving this push to switch to a popular vote is anger and resentment over the 2000 election. Many a Democrat is still angry over Gore winning the popular vote (officially by 0.51 percent) and Bush winning the presidency. And yet, the two sides of the Democratic campaign are arguing over the possibility of Obama winning the popular vote but Clinton winning the nomination thanks to superdelegates. To the Obama camp that would be an outrage and to the Clinton camp that's how the system is supposed to work. And yet, Clinton won the popular vote in Texas while it appears Obama will get more delegates thanks to the caucuses... and I don't hear anyone out of the Obama camp saying Clinton should get more delegates because she won the popular vote. :D
They should move on . Even without a Supreme Court decision smacking down the unconstitutional interference by the Fla. Supreme Court ,Bush would've won the Presidency when the House of Representatives was called on to decide.Quote:
Part of what's driving this push to switch to a popular vote is anger and resentment over the 2000 election. Many a Democrat is still angry over Gore winning the popular vote (officially by 0.51 percent) and Bush winning the presidency
Tom, I don't think some will EVER get over it unless Bush is impeached. It's been suggested that the Bear Stearns buyout is another reason for impeachment, New Hampshire is scheduled to vote on an impeachment resolution with Huffpo cheering them on, Boulder, Co has been pondering their own resolution, Conyers is hinting at impeaching him after the election with the After Downing Street folks pushing him, and apparently even Nader is in the mix in calling for impeachment. I don't see these poor BDS victims getting over it any time soon.Quote:
Originally Posted by tomder55
Conyers is going to introduce them after the November election ? Lol lol lol
If President Bush does not have covert action ongoing to take out some of these IED factories in Iran I am going to demand impeachment.Quote:
Conyers told the crowd there is one scenario that could trigger immediate impeachment proceedings against the president: "If Bush goes into Iran he should be impeached,"
Why didn't he file a contempt of Congress charge instead ? Because he is all bluster. He is giving crumbs for the fringe to keep them satsified because he is not afraid of the Republicans making an issue ;but instead, he is afraid of the whole left doing a Cindy Sheehad on the Democrat party.Quote:
Just last week, his Judiciary Committee took the rare step of filing a civil lawsuit against former White House aides Joshua Bolten and Harriet Miers for failing to obey a committee subpoena. Conyers wants to force the two to testify about the firings of nine federal prosecutors in 2006.
Yep. Maybe. Perhaps. He's still struggling with it. "Do I want to jeopardize the election by taking up this issue?" Conyers asked. "The problem is, this could become the issue of the 2008 election. This brilliant, talented Senator (Obama), who has more delegates and more votes than anybody else, could get derailed...We can win this election and go get these guys afterwards. But we just don't want to jeopardize November 4th."Quote:
Originally Posted by tomder55
Does that tell you anything? They won Congress back in 2006 with their Trojan horse "New Direction for America" campaign, or as Harry Reid said "We intend to tackle the issues that matter most," and immediately jumped into a barrage of investigations. The true priority as I've said all along was gaining power, after which they can again "tackle the issues that matter most" like impeaching Bush. Yep, forget about all that hope for the future nonsense, they're going to jump right in and tackle the past!
Its an open question to stimulate thinking. One example. A majority of voters in any given state vote for some measure, passing it by a healthy margin, but then an activist judge who has no concern for either the will of the people, the Constitutiion, or just plain reason says "you can't do that because I say so". The voters have no mechanism to impeach him, and it would be sin to assissinate him/her. One person rules in that particular case. You can surely think of more examples.
I read that article and think Bill Nelson makes some valid points. I brought this up before on a thread. The idea of regional primaries seems to make more sense to me than the current system. But then again I find the present system over complicated where I'm sure many of you who live through it don't. I still like our Westminster system the best though! :)Quote:
Originally Posted by speechlesstx
Hello again, Gal:Quote:
Originally Posted by Galveston1
I thought you were going there. I don't need more examples. I can use yours. Of course, judges don't rule "because I say so". They rule according to law.
Now, the measure that you said was passed by a majority of the people apparently violated someone in the minority's rights. You call him an activist judge because you don't like his ruling. If you did like his ruling, he'd be just fine - especially if it was YOUR rights that were being trampled upon.
excon
Originally Posted by Galveston1
.. passing it by a healthy margin, but then an activist judge who has no concern for either the will of the people, the Constitutiion, or just plain reason says "you can't do that because I say so"... You can surely think of more examples.
I agree and that is exactly the problem:
What majority ruled for these?
Abortion?
Gun bans?
Eminent domain (you get petty cash if a box store decides they want to be there)? KELO V. NEW LONDON
Smoking bans in private establishments?
No smoking in your apartment?
No drilling for oil in the USA because of environmentalists?
--------
Ones THEY are working on now:
Fat people not allowed to eat in fast food or restaurants
No home schooling in California
Need a permit to grill in your own back yard
Buying vitamins and herbs with doctors prescription only
Good points Sapph . And there are many others . Judges have ruled by fiat a number of times. Just go back to Plessy v Ferguson ;a blatant violation of the 14th amendment that SCOTUS ruled against those minority rights that Excon says they are protecting . Instead they validated Jim Crow laws and set back any gains from reconstruction. Kelo is another modern day example of minority rights being trampled on by SCOTUS.
Hello again, Gal:
As I mentioned above, you folks tend to call judges "activist" when they don't agree with you. I don't know why. It's kind of one way, in my view. I mean, if judges never went against the left, I could see it... But they do, and you don't call THEM activist judges. Why not?
Here's an example. The people of Washington, DC, through "a majority of voters .....vote for some measure, passing it by a healthy margin", decided that they didn't want guns in their city.
A federal judge, however, overturned that law by deciding that individuals in Washington, DC were entitled to possess handguns because the Second Amendment to the Constitution says they can.
Why isn't THAT judge activist??
excon
Well, was the law constitutional or not?Quote:
Originally Posted by excon
Hello again, Steve:Quote:
Originally Posted by speechlesstx
That's not the question. But it does make my point. Assuming YOU think the ruling was Constitutional, the judge wasn't "activist" at all. He was just doing his job.
However, being a better person than you, I don't call a judge who rules against my position, "activist". I believe he was just doing his job, too. Certainly, I think he was MISGUIDED in his decision, but it's his JOB to make those decisions.
excon, the better person
He does make some valid points, such as absentee ballots on demand, a paper trail and early voting (although I was unaware some places did not allow for early voting). I'm not keen on interregional primaries but we can do better in scheduling them, and I absolutely do not want the electoral college abolished. I think we should abolish this caucus nonsense, it certainly doesn't lend itself to the "one person, one vote" goal he seeks.Quote:
Originally Posted by Skell
What the..?Quote:
Originally Posted by excon
Insult aside, my question was valid and unanswered. Now please tell me, when was the last time I called a judge "activist" and whether the ruling in question was constitutional.
Hello again, Steve:Quote:
Originally Posted by speechlesstx
You didn't notice my tongue firmly planted in my cheek.
The key isn't the decisions we agree with or don't. The key is what we call judges who rule against our positions.
A better example would be a decision that said you can't have a Christmas play at your kid’s school. Would you call that "activism"? I'll bet you would.
Another example would be the Supreme Court deciding that "harsh treatment" was Constitutional. I don't agree with that. I think it's clearly unconstitutional, but I still wouldn't call it "activism".
excon, no better after all
LOL, I know your tongue is usually planted in cheek. If I had believed you were really insulting me I would have gone a little more ballistic than that :)Quote:
Originally Posted by excon
My point was only that I don't think you've seen me calling judges activists very often. I think it's activism when they when they interject themselves in questions that weren't asked, rely on international law instead of our constitution and just plain make stuff up.
P.S. I never disagreed on you being a better person :)
You know, the Constitution was written in the English language, and pretty basic English at that. It is ridiculous to what extremes some judges will go to to twist plain words into something else. Of course, if the populace won't bother to check anything out, then anything goes. This business of separation of Church and State has been blown totally out of proportion. Go back and read that part for yourself, noting where the restrictions are placed. Again, it shouldn't take an english major to understand that part about the right to bear arms. In those days, every able bodied man was considered a part of the militia. The majority of Americans understand these things, and when some judge says something contrary to this plain language, they just naturally suspect that he/she has some hidden agenda. Or maybe not hidden.
Hello again, Gal:
That's the difference between us. I think the rulings Scalia, Thomas, Roberts and Alito make are clearly against the very plain language you speak of. However, I just think they're misguided. I don't think they're unpatriotic or communists, which is the kind of things I think you're afraid of..
excon
Did you disagree with their smackdown of Bush last week?Quote:
Originally Posted by excon
Quote:
In rejecting Bush's order Tuesday, the high court, led by its conservatives, took the opportunity to make a strong statement on the limits of presidential power.
Hello again, Steve:Quote:
Originally Posted by speechlesstx
Even a bad shot is going to hit the target once in a while.
excon
Hey ex,
Since Roberts and Alito haven't taken that many shots yet I reckon that bumps up their shooting percentage. ;)
Hey, Ex, which side of the issue are you on? There are 2 judicial philosiphies. One is sometimes referred to as "original intent" where the judge tries to base his decision on what the Constitution meant at the time it was written. The other is that the Constitution is a "living document" where the judge may decide according to his own ideas, or those of some foreign court. I suspect you are well aware of all this, so which side do you come down on? I much prefer judges to hold to "original intent".
Hello again, Gal:Quote:
Originally Posted by Galveston1
Neither.
I don't have the inclination to figure out what the founders thinking was. Nor, do I have the inclination to figure out how their thinking (if I knew what it was) should change with time.
Nope. I'm not that smart.
All I do is read it. In fact, the Bill of Rights is written so simply that even I, a convicted felon, can tell what they're saying. I don't need anyone to tell me what "Congress shall make no law" means. I don't even know how that phrase could grow with time. You mean, after some time, the words congress shall make no law will mean something different than they did when they were written??
I'm sorry. I don't buy it.
So, when the Constitution says that you shall be free from unwarranted searches in your house, I know what that means. When the Constitution says that you shall be afforded due process of law, I know what that means. When the Constitution says that you have the right to bear arms, I know what that means. Etc, and so on.
I know those things because I can read and understand English. And, I'm going to know those things even though some judge may tell me they mean something else.
You talk all this stuff about original intent and you sound real good. But, in the final analysis, you think George Bush has the right to spy on American citizens, and you think he has the right to deny habeas corpus to individuals he doesn't like.
Well, Galveston, you apparently believe some of Bush's "activist" judges, cause it doesn't say that in the Constitution I read.
excon
Hello again, Gal:Quote:
Originally Posted by Galveston1
Neither.
I don't have the inclination to figure out what the founders thinking was. Nor, do I have the inclination to figure out how their thinking (if I knew what it was) should change with time.
Nope. I'm not that smart.
All I do is read it. In fact, the Bill of Rights is written so simply that even I can tell what they're saying. I don't need anyone to tell me what "Congress shall make no law" means. I don't even know how that phrase could grow with time. You mean, after some time, the words congress shall make no law will mean something different than they did when they were written??
I'm sorry. I don't buy it.
So, when the Constitution says that you shall be free from unwarranted searches in your house, I know what that means. When the Constitution says that you shall be afforded due process of law, I know what that means. When the Constitution says that you have the right to bear arms, I know what that means. Etc, and so on.
I know those things because I can read English. And, I'm going to know those things even though some judge may tell me they mean something else.
I know you talk about all this stuff about original intent and you sound real good. But, in the final analysis, you think George Bush has the right to spy American citizens, and you think we have the right to deny habeas corpus to individuals we don't like.
Well, Galveston, you apparently believe some of Bush's "activist" judges, cause it don't say that in the Constitution I read.
excon
Ex, do I understand that you want to extend constitutional rights to foreign terrorists, men fighting without any identifying insigna of some country? Why? Or do I misunderstand you? Do you believe that we should not scrutinize conversations originating in foreign countries to suspected aliens here? The result of extending all the rights of law to foreigners who have promised to kill us will surely lead to musroom clouds here, or something equally as devastiting.
Hello again, Galveston:
It's isn't me who wants to do anything. It's OUR Constitution. I went back and read it again. You should do the same. Read especially the Bill of Rights...
Now, I don't know what "activist" judge you like, but evidently he inserted some words that I cannot find in the Bill of Rights. Apparently, that "activist" judge, says that Constitutional rights shall only apply to American citizens...
I looked for those words... I couldn't find 'em. Now, I suppose, if you want a Constitution that "grows" with the times, you could INSERT those words to give it a modern day feeling... You COULD do that... But, it would CHANGE the Constitution to mean something other than what it originally meant.
Nope, all the Amendments that protect YOUR rights, begin with phrases like "No person" shall be (the 5th Amendment)... Congress shall make no law abridging the right of "the people" peaceably to assemble... (the 1st)... (Amendment 2)... the right of "the people" to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed... In all criminal prosecutions, "the accused" shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public... (the 6th Amendment)... Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted... (the 8th - it doesn't say it means everybody, but I think that's what they meant. You don't?).
Can I stop now? Frankly, I don't see any words that would indicate these rights don't extend to everyman... You may see them. Certainly, your "activist" judges see them. But they escape me.
excon
The bill of rights of the United States Constitution does only apply to Americans . You will find it in the Preamble "we the people of the United States " .
Hello again, tom:
The most beautiful words ever written were those of Thomas Jefferson in the Decleration of Independence.
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."
Now, if YOU believe that he meant only Americans, then you truly don't understand what we're about.
excon
The declaration is not the Constitution. It is a compact between us the people of the United States. The Declaration ,as beutifully written as it was , was mostly a listing of grieviences against the crown A judge that would cite the declaration as a reason for making a Constitutional decision is indeed "activist" .It has as much pertainance as the laws of other nations that some judges cite .
Sorry ex, tom is right. You can't move the goal post from being constitutional to giving weight of law to the Declaration of Independence. If so, then I guess we're going to have give more weight to the references to God and the Creator. Right? The constitution is clear as to who it applies to:
If my count is correct, our constitution mentions the "United States" 85 times. It ain't talking about anybody else.Quote:
We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
Hello again,
This is deep stuff... I'm a Jeffersonian. Always have been.
Last night, I saw episode #5 of John Adams. The two were discussing whether America should involve itself in the revolution going on in France. Adams kept referring to it as France's revolution, as though it was different from our own.
Jefferson retorted, Aren't they one in the same?
If you believe the words in the Bill of Rights apply only to us, you're an Adams man. Me? It makes no sense to believe that only WE are entitled to those "inalienable" rights. Otherwise, they're not really "inalienable", are they?
excon, Jeffersonian
Adams was a great American. . Jefferson and Thomas Paine among others also were but were wrong on the universality of the French Revolution. It was mob rule ;confiscation of property and led to the Napoleon Dictatorship . It more resembled the later Russian Revolution than the American. Paine penned the 'Declaration of the Rights of Man... " which the French Revolution adopted . It like the Declaration of Independence has a universal message . But no one in the US feels it is binding or relevant regarding our laws.
George Washington in his wisdom ;when push came to shove and he had to make a decision that was best for the country ;rejected the notion of Jefferson that the two revolutions were continuous and of kinship with each other . You will note however that when Haiti revolted in 1791 Jefferson was not as quick to apply the universal standard to their struggle.
Jefferson served as the American Minister to France from 1785 through 1789. There are many things to like and not like about Jefferson. I consider it one of the greatest strokes of luck and/or providence that Jefferson was away in France at the time of the draft and adoption of the Constitution. I do not believe it would've passed with him at the convention .
Well, I think Ex will agree with the statement that I am a simple man. I simply think that US laws apply to US citizens, and those aliens here legally and no other, and that foreign laws apply to those in the foreign country, not to us here. For a libertarian, Ex has some really global ideas. Although I can agree with his take on the Constitution, it is his paramaters of application that I disagree with.
| All times are GMT -7. The time now is 02:35 AM. |