Majority Rule vs Individual Rights

[SobieskiSavedEurope]

Pop-culture educated liberals might not understand it but individual rights are spelled out in the Constitution. Regardless of the changing moods and attitudes of the vocal alleged "majority" we rely on Constitutional scholars to settle disputes about the Constitutionality of laws. Would you have it any other way?

How were the Founding Fathers for Individual Rights, when only White land owning men could even vote in the first election?

The Founding Fathers created the greatest document in history up until the time when islamic morons who lived int he 6th century (still do) were beheading Christians and sodomizing (still do) young men. The point is that the Bill of Rights is the only document in human history that limits the power of the government and it still works.

Gee, how much the U.S.A government has been limited, as the U.S.A spends 48% of the World's military budget, and spends even more on Social programs than that.

What do Muslims have to do with much of anything? LOL

 

[Stormy Daniels]

It's quite telling when people base their political views on cheap science fiction.

Actually, the original Star Trek series was very political.

In fact, it was a liberal fantasyland. Emphasis on the fantasyland. Which brings us right back to my statement.

 

[Dr Grump]

How were the Founding Fathers for Individual Rights, when only White land owning men could even vote in the first election?

The Founding Fathers created the greatest document in history up until the time when islamic morons who lived int he 6th century (still do) were beheading Christians and sodomizing (still do) young men. The point is that the Bill of Rights is the only document in human history that limits the power of the government and it still works.[/QUOTE]

It's an average document at best.

 

[Anathema]

What powers? What rules?

The powers that created the Universe. I refer to it as The Divine, but call it whatever you want. The rules that humanity was instinctively endowed with at our creation and which were bright to fruition with the creation of the first human Societies. We were given the ability to ignore those instincts as a means to test our Souls and determine if we will choose Right or Wrong.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

You sound like a nihilist.

Nope. Conservative Authoritarian. Always have been and always wil be.

“Conservative Authoritarian”

Redundant.

 

[Stormy Daniels]

The rules that humanity was instinctively endowed with at our creation and which were bright to fruition with the creation of the first human Societies.

You mean "eat, fuck, shit, repeat"?

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

It's quite telling when people base their political views on cheap science fiction.

I believe the quote is based in Utilitarianism, but is original to Star Trek in that form.

That said, it is quite similar to "From each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs."

And we all know what THAT led to.

 

[Stormy Daniels]

I believe the quote is based in Utilitarianism, but is original to Star Trek in that form.

Quite right.

That said, it is quite similar to "From each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs."

Absolute horse shit.

 

[whitehall]

How were the Founding Fathers for Individual Rights, when only White land owning men could even vote in the first election?

The Founding Fathers created the greatest document in history up until the time when islamic morons who lived int he 6th century (still do) were beheading Christians and sodomizing (still do) young men. The point is that the Bill of Rights is the only document in human history that limits the power of the government and it still works.

It's an average document at best.[/QUOTE]
The freaking Bill of Rights created in the 18th century that permanently changed civilization for all times is what, "an average document" while a condom on a cucumber is a dynamic advance in human civilization? ...I rest my case

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

It's quite telling when people base their political views on cheap science fiction.

Actually, the original Star Trek series was very political.

In fact, it was a liberal fantasyland. Emphasis on the fantasyland. Which brings us right back to my statement.

I liked the episode where the guy who was white on his right side hated the guy who was black on his right side.

Stupidity is anything but inconsistent.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

If you are older than fifty you have to scratch your head when idiot posters suggest that individual rights and majority rule is not compatible. Generations of ignorant Americans were taught more about a condom on a cucumber than the greatest document in civilized history.

And this would be an example of an idiotic post, as individual rights and majority rule are often not compatible.

For the last 64 years starting with Brown v. Board of Education and Hernandez v. Texas citizens have been compelled to defend their individual rights when disadvantaged by majority rule.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Pop-culture educated liberals might not understand it but individual rights are spelled out in the Constitution. Regardless of the changing moods and attitudes of the vocal alleged "majority" we rely on Constitutional scholars to settle disputes about the Constitutionality of laws. Would you have it any other way?

How were the Founding Fathers for Individual Rights, when only White land owning men could even vote in the first election?

The Founding Fathers created the greatest document in history up until the time when islamic morons who lived int he 6th century (still do) were beheading Christians and sodomizing (still do) young men. The point is that the Bill of Rights is the only document in human history that limits the power of the government and it still works.

A Bill of Rights which contains the First Amendment, whose Establishment Clause prohibits government from codifying religious bigotry and hatred, such as the bigotry and hatred directed at Muslims exhibited in this post.

 

[Yarddog]

Whoever said, 'The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few' only said it because his needs weren't in jeopardy.

I believe it was Spock, and he said it when explaining to Kirk why he accepted certain death to save the ship and its crew.

But, Spock made his choice, it wasn't forced upon him. That's the definition of personal liberty.

We should make Spock the next SC Justice

 

[Dr Grump]

[
The freaking Bill of Rights created in the 18th century that permanently changed civilization for all times is what, "an average document" while a condom on a cucumber is a dynamic advance in human civilization? ...I rest my case

It did not. There were plenty of documents already in existence that the Bill of Rights borrowed from. Heavily. Nothing is created in a vacuum. I'd say giving women the vote was a much more important document. You could argue that without the BoR then that would not have led to women getting the vote (although I will add the NZ was the first country to give women the vote, and that had nothing to do with the US BoR), I would argue without the magna carta and subsequent documents there would be no BoR. I could go on.

 

[cnm]

Pop-culture educated liberals might not understand it but individual rights are spelled out in the Constitution. Regardless of the changing moods and attitudes of the vocal alleged "majority" we rely on Constitutional scholars to settle disputes about the Constitutionality of laws. Would you have it any other way?

Where, in deciding those disputes, the majority rules.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

Whoever said, 'The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few' only said it because his needs weren't in jeopardy.

I believe it was Spock, and he said it when explaining to Kirk why he accepted certain death to save the ship and its crew.

But, Spock made his choice, it wasn't forced upon him. That's the definition of personal liberty.

We should make Spock the next SC Justice

It's only logical.

 

[saveliberty]

A Bill of Rights which contains the First Amendment, whose Establishment Clause prohibits government from codifying religious bigotry and hatred, such as the bigotry and hatred directed at Muslims exhibited in this post.

The first amendment prohibits government from establishing a state religion and allows individuals practicing a religion the right to do so. You can't codify people's opinion of a religion, nor does the first amendment attempt to do that.

 

[Sun Devil 92]

There is no such thing as majority rule.

All you need do is look at mob dynamics.

One charasmatic person gets to the head of the class....wins over some opinion makers....and it's all over.

You don't think everybody supported Hitler do you ? But there comes a point where you go along just to survive.

 

[Sun Devil 92]

Pop-culture educated liberals might not understand it but individual rights are spelled out in the Constitution. Regardless of the changing moods and attitudes of the vocal alleged "majority" we rely on Constitutional scholars to settle disputes about the Constitutionality of laws. Would you have it any other way?

How were the Founding Fathers for Individual Rights, when only White land owning men could even vote in the first election?

The Founding Fathers created the greatest document in history up until the time when islamic morons who lived int he 6th century (still do) were beheading Christians and sodomizing (still do) young men. The point is that the Bill of Rights is the only document in human history that limits the power of the government and it still works.

A Bill of Rights which contains the First Amendment, whose Establishment Clause prohibits government from codifying religious bigotry and hatred, such as the bigotry and hatred directed at Muslims exhibited in this post.

Why don't you ask him if he can back up his claim.

I think it is a historical challenge......

Or did you just need an excuse to look like a total dick ?

 

[fncceo]

Whoever said, 'The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few' only said it because his needs weren't in jeopardy.

I believe it was Spock, and he said it when explaining to Kirk why he accepted certain death to save the ship and its crew.

But, Spock made his choice, it wasn't forced upon him. That's the definition of personal liberty.

We should make Spock the next SC Justice

Ummm ... he's Jewish.