[Galveston1]

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?

[N0help4u]

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.

[magprob]

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?"

[Fr_Chuck]

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.

[excon]

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?

Hello Gal:

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

[tomder55]

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.

[speechlesstx]

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

[tomder55]

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

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.

[speechlesstx]

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.

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.

[tomder55]

Conyers is going to introduce them after the November election ? Lol lol lol

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,"

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.

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.

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.

[speechlesstx]

Conyers is going to introduce them after the November election ? lol lol lol

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."

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!

[Galveston1]

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.

[Skell]

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?

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! :)

[excon]

..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.

Hello again, Gal:

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

[N0help4u]

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

[tomder55]

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.

[excon]

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

[speechlesstx]

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??????????????

Well, was the law constitutional or not?

[excon]

Well, was the law constitutional or not?

Hello again, Steve:

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

[speechlesstx]

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 im sure many of you who live through it dont. I still like our Westminster system the best though! :)

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.