Isn't their a better way to protect the will of the minority.

[NYcarbineer]

There really is no need to protect the will of the minority.. There is a reason they are in the minority..

You clearly don't understand the value or the design of our form of government.

The majority, no matter how big, does not have the right to trample upon the rights of the minority.

Of course, the current majority doesn't grok this either.

What you don't get is that there is a difference between the rights of the minority and the will of the minority.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Didn't the will of the minority elect George Bush over Al Gore??

Bush won by a hair...

...a pubic hair on a Coke can, to be precise.

 

[George Costanza]

There really is no need to protect the will of the minority.. There is a reason they are in the minority..

You clearly don't understand the value or the design of our form of government.

The majority, no matter how big, does not have the right to trample upon the rights of the minority.

Of course, the current majority doesn't grok this either.

The operative word in your statement here is "rights." You are correct that, in our form of government, the minority is protected from the will of the majority - but only in matters of fundamental right. A number of years ago, a majority of the voters in California enacted a law (by way of initiative) which allowed homeowners to refuse to sell their home to a potential buyer on the basis of race. That law was (quite properly) stricken by the California Supremes because of Constitutional invalidity. Even though the will of the majority had enacted the law, it was a law that violated the fundamental right of homebuyers to buy a home free of racial discrimination. As such, it was invalidated.

On the other hand, the will of the majority wins out over the will of the minority on a daily basis, both in our general society as well as in our government. So long as a law does not infringe on the fundamental rights of the minority, it will be upheld, even though there may be segments of society that disagree with the law.

 

[ihopehefails]

There really is no need to protect the will of the minority.. There is a reason they are in the minority..

You clearly don't understand the value or the design of our form of government.

The majority, no matter how big, does not have the right to trample upon the rights of the minority.

Of course, the current majority doesn't grok this either.

The operative word in your statement here is "rights." You are correct that, in our form of government, the minority is protected from the will of the majority - but only in matters of fundamental right. A number of years ago, a majority of the voters in California enacted a law (by way of initiative) which allowed homeowners to refuse to sell their home to a potential buyer on the basis of race. That law was (quite properly) stricken by the California Supremes because of Constitutional invalidity. Even though the will of the majority had enacted the law, it was a law that violated the fundamental right of homebuyers to buy a home free of racial discrimination. As such, it was invalidated.

On the other hand, the will of the majority wins out over the will of the minority on a daily basis, both in our general society as well as in our government. So long as a law does not infringe on the fundamental rights of the minority, it will be upheld, even though there may be segments of society that disagree with the law.

The problem with you concept of a fundemental right is that it really does not exist other than a state creation. It does not come from someone's own free-will since you had to force a seller to do something against their own free will which needs no one else but themselves. To actually allow our rights to be decided by others is to allow others to control us since they decide what we are free to do not free to do. I see this as something that limits our freedom than actually expands it.

 

[George Costanza]

The problem with you concept of a fundemental right is that it really does not exist other than a state creation. It does not come from someone's own free-will since you had to force a seller to do something against their own free will which needs no one else but themselves. To actually allow our rights to be decided by others is to allow others to control us since they decide what we are free to do not free to do. I see this as something that limits our freedom than actually expands it.

What on earth are you talking about here?

"It does not come from someone's own free-will since you had to force a seller to do something against their own free will which needs no one else but themselves."

This simply makes no sense.

"To actually allow our rights to be decided by others is to allow others to control us since they decide what we are free to do not free to do."

We live in an organized society. Someone has to define certain, basic rights. Without such a definition, there would only be anarchy. Sounds to me as if that's what you are advocating here. You're not an anarchist, are you Ihope?

 

[ihopehefails]

Isn't there a better way to protect the minority from the majority in this country than what we have now?

Am I reading what I think I am reading here? A conservative, talking about protecting the minority from the will of the majority? I don't believe it. In almost six years of regular participation in political message boards on the Internet, this is, honest to God, the first time I have EVER heard a conservative talking about protecting the minority from the (oppressive) will of the majority (in matters of fundamental right). (FYI, Ihope, that's the entire phrase to use if you're going to use it.)

Let's see - the cons were in control most of the past six years. Think that could have anything to do with how come we never heard them talking about something like this?

I do.

I wonder if federalism would work better in this country where the majority, acting through their own state governments, of states would enact laws that they like and the minority can vote for laws that they like for themselves. No matter what the issue is the minority, in their own state, can protect themselves from the wishes of people in other states.

Great idea, Ihope . . . STATE'S RIGHTS! We could go back to the Fifties, when the states could (by God) do whatever they wanted to do - that is until those God damn feds came troopin' into the South and forced them good ol' boys to back off a tad on the racial intolerance.

Yes, sireee BOB!

Actually states can't do whatever they want to do. There are a whole bunch of limits placed on them that are stated in Article I Section 10 of the constitution. There are also limits placed on them about voting restrictions and it was federalism that ended some of those racist voting laws in the south. Without another government that could place restrictions on other state governments that would still exist but just as the federal government can police states over what they are restricted the states have a right to police the federal government about their powers.

The tenth amendment makes it clear that states limit the power of the federal government because any power not given to the federal is reserved for the states. This gives states almost unlimited power and that power can be used to police the federal government just as the federal government can police the state governments. Its the ultimate check and balance system that is much stronger than the constitution.

BTW, I was not talking about racial minorities.

 

[ihopehefails]

The problem with you concept of a fundemental right is that it really does not exist other than a state creation. It does not come from someone's own free-will since you had to force a seller to do something against their own free will which needs no one else but themselves. To actually allow our rights to be decided by others is to allow others to control us since they decide what we are free to do not free to do. I see this as something that limits our freedom than actually expands it.

What on earth are you talking about here?

"It does not come from someone's own free-will since you had to force a seller to do something against their own free will which needs no one else but themselves."

This simply makes no sense.

"To actually allow our rights to be decided by others is to allow others to control us since they decide what we are free to do not free to do."

We live in an organized society. Someone has to define certain, basic rights. Without such a definition, there would only be anarchy. Sounds to me as if that's what you are advocating here. You're not an anarchist, are you Ihope?

I suspect that would make no sense because it was a bad sentence. I should have said that a right does not come from an outside presence but from one's own internal presence. Freedom, by its definition, is unrestricted action which means that no one can create the things you are allowed to do because it would restrict you to those things that were given to you. Things that were not created by others you will not be allowed to do even though you might have wished you could.

And yes, we do live in an ordered society but that order is created by our free interactions with others. Its a natural order that springs up from our natural rights.

 

[George Costanza]

Isn't there a better way to protect the minority from the majority in this country than what we have now?

Am I reading what I think I am reading here? A conservative, talking about protecting the minority from the will of the majority? I don't believe it. In almost six years of regular participation in political message boards on the Internet, this is, honest to God, the first time I have EVER heard a conservative talking about protecting the minority from the (oppressive) will of the majority (in matters of fundamental right). (FYI, Ihope, that's the entire phrase to use if you're going to use it.)

Let's see - the cons were in control most of the past six years. Think that could have anything to do with how come we never heard them talking about something like this?

I do.

I wonder if federalism would work better in this country where the majority, acting through their own state governments, of states would enact laws that they like and the minority can vote for laws that they like for themselves. No matter what the issue is the minority, in their own state, can protect themselves from the wishes of people in other states.

Great idea, Ihope . . . STATE'S RIGHTS! We could go back to the Fifties, when the states could (by God) do whatever they wanted to do - that is until those God damn feds came troopin' into the South and forced them good ol' boys to back off a tad on the racial intolerance.

Yes, sireee BOB!

Actually states can't do whatever they want to do. There are a whole bunch of limits placed on them that are stated in Article I Section 10 of the constitution. There are also limits placed on them about voting restrictions and it was federalism that ended some of those racist voting laws in the south. Without another government that could place restrictions on other state governments that would still exist but just as the federal government can police states over what they are restricted the states have a right to police the federal government about their powers.

The tenth amendment makes it clear that states limit the power of the federal government because any power not given to the federal is reserved for the states. This gives states almost unlimited power and that power can be used to police the federal government just as the federal government can police the state governments. Its the ultimate check and balance system that is much stronger than the constitution.

BTW, I was not talking about racial minorities.

Very good post!

 

[ihopehefails]

Isn't there a better way to protect the minority from the majority in this country than what we have now? I know we talk constitutional government but when one side really wants something they tend to ignore the restraints of the constitution and force others to live by laws they don't want to live by. I wonder if federalism would work better in this country where the majority, acting through their own state governments, of states would enact laws that they like and the minority can vote for laws that they like for themselves. No matter what the issue is the minority, in their own state, can protect themselves from the wishes of people in other states.

What would be the point of protecting the will of the minority? There's a reason these people are in the minority. DO you NOT understand how our government works? Perhaps you should educate yourself BEFORE posting whiny, stupid threads on a political message board?

I understand that our government is suppose to protect life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness and I don't see how majority rules garantees our right to pursue happiness when that happiness could be contrary to the will of the majority. When one person's happiness is threatened in one state or by a finatical whim of the people they can enact laws in their own state that are different or leave for a state that better suits them.

In that state they are protected from what they see as governmental abuses of their freedom while preserving another person's preference to live under those same laws by remaining in that state. Its the best system for protecting individual liberty of anyone.

 

[George Costanza]

The problem with you concept of a fundemental right is that it really does not exist other than a state creation. It does not come from someone's own free-will since you had to force a seller to do something against their own free will which needs no one else but themselves. To actually allow our rights to be decided by others is to allow others to control us since they decide what we are free to do not free to do. I see this as something that limits our freedom than actually expands it.

What on earth are you talking about here?



This simply makes no sense.

"To actually allow our rights to be decided by others is to allow others to control us since they decide what we are free to do not free to do."

We live in an organized society. Someone has to define certain, basic rights. Without such a definition, there would only be anarchy. Sounds to me as if that's what you are advocating here. You're not an anarchist, are you Ihope?

I suspect that would make no sense because it was a bad sentence. I should have said that a right does not come from an outside presence but from one's own internal presence. Freedom, by its definition, is unrestricted action which means that no one can create the things you are allowed to do because it would restrict you to those things that were given to you. Things that were not created by others you will not be allowed to do even though you might have wished you could.

And yes, we do live in an ordered society but that order is created by our free interactions with others. Its a natural order that springs up from our natural rights.

Where does the concept of laws enter into this analysis of yours? As I read what you are saying here, a society with laws cannot be free and, conversely, a free society cannot have any laws. In theory, both of these statements are true. In actual practice, all organized societies have laws - that is the definition of an organized society.

Also, you want to take another shot at this one? "Things that were not created by others you will not be allowed to do even though you might have wished you could."

 

[George Costanza]

Isn't there a better way to protect the minority from the majority in this country than what we have now? I know we talk constitutional government but when one side really wants something they tend to ignore the restraints of the constitution and force others to live by laws they don't want to live by. I wonder if federalism would work better in this country where the majority, acting through their own state governments, of states would enact laws that they like and the minority can vote for laws that they like for themselves. No matter what the issue is the minority, in their own state, can protect themselves from the wishes of people in other states.

What would be the point of protecting the will of the minority? There's a reason these people are in the minority. DO you NOT understand how our government works? Perhaps you should educate yourself BEFORE posting whiny, stupid threads on a political message board?

I understand that our government is suppose to protect life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness and I don't see how majority rules garantees our right to pursue happiness when that happiness could be contrary to the will of the majority. When one person's happiness is threatened in one state or by a finatical whim of the people they can enact laws in their own state that are different or leave for a state that better suits them.

In that state they are protected from what they see as governmental abuses of their freedom while preserving another person's preference to live under those same laws by remaining in that state. Its the best system for protecting individual liberty of anyone.

Aha! I think I see where you are going with all of this now. Try this on for size: California is a Three Strikes state. Three Strikes here, and you're out - you can get life. Not every state has a Three Strikes law. I think there are only 17 or so that do. So, if a person has two strikes in California, they might want to think about moving to a non-Three Strike state to live out their remaining years, hopefully on the outside rather than the inside.

In other words, you would like an America where states could pretty much do what they wanted, free of federal interference. You don't like what goes on in Virginia? Move to Louisiana, where what you want to do is legal. That the idea?

OK - well and good. But what happens when a state goes over the line? Suppose a state voted in something that is clearly violative of the United States Constitution? Under your system, would that be OK? There are some pretty far out people with some pretty radical ideas in this great country of ours. What it they all moved to the same state and began voting in some of their fruitcake ideas?

Where do you draw the line between a totality of state's rights as opposed to federal supremecy?

 

[NYcarbineer]

How would you protect the will of the minority if the minority wants abortion outlawed and the majority wants abortion legal?

 

[Murf76]

I agree that Obama did fail, miserably, on the issue of lobbyists which he talked about during the campaign as though he could actually do something about them. He should have known that was an impossibility.

But I completely disagree that democracies don't work. I do still have faith in the system established by the Constitution which is a DEMOCRACY. I realize that conservatives like to argue that the country is a "Republic," but for the most part they are construing the word to mean everyone should be Republicans, and that's not what the single characterization means. The United States is a democratic republic, as set forth in Article I.

Yes.... The United States is a democratic Republic. Because pure democracy always fails. Our founders understood that, hence Franklin's response when asked what kind of government they'd made... "a Republic, if you can keep it."

Our Republic is designed to utilize democratic process upon a proscribed framework. Federalism was intended to stave off strong central government, to keep power diffuse and close to the people. Within the democratic structure of Federalism, individual votes are powerful. We have more control over our immediate environment. At the central level, our individual voices are diluted.

We spoke of lobbyists and special interest groups earlier... but when you think about it, this diminishing of our individual votes ALLOWS them greater advantage. At the central level, they're able to utilize resources that individuals don't possess. At the local level, our voices can easily overawe them. In this... Democrats misguidedly empower the very thing they despise.

One of the greatest of all writers about our American government, and the dangers it faced, was the French writer and historian, Alexis de Tocqueville. He toured all of America in the early 1800s, and after some years wrote the great two volume book, Democracy in America. The University of Virginia has done the great service to America of making this complete two volume works available online at Democracy in America: TOC

A good part of Volume II of Democracy in America was on the dangers of a democracy, which was along the same line as the above quoted information. He very much hoped that our Republic form of government could escape those dangers. Some excerpts from the book, in that regard, are:

It frequently happens that the members of the community promote the influence of the central power without intending to. Democratic eras are periods of experiment, innovation, and adventure. There is always a multitude of men engaged in difficult or novel undertakings, which they follow by themselves without shackling themselves to their fellows. Such persons will admit, as a general principle, that the public authority ought not to interfere in private concerns; but, by an exception to that rule, each of them craves its assistance in the particular concern on which he is engaged and seeks to draw upon the influence of the government for his own benefit, although he would restrict it on all other occasions. If a large number of men applies this particular exception to a great variety of different purposes, the sphere of the central power extends itself imperceptibly in all directions, although everyone wishes it to be circumscribed. (Volume 2, Section 4: Chapter III, That the Sentiments of Democratic Nations Accord with Their Opinions in Leading Them to Concentrate Political Power [in] America)

... These powers accumulate there with astonishing rapidity, and the state instantly attains the utmost limits of its strength, while private persons allow themselves to sink as suddenly to the lowest degree of weakness. ...

Hence the concentration of power and the subjection of individuals will increase among democratic nations, not only in the same proportion as their equality, but in the same proportion as their ignorance. ... (Volume 2, Section 4: Chapter IV, Of Certain Peculiar and Accidental Causes Which Either Lead a People to Complete the Centralization of Government or Divert Them From It)

Above this race of men stands an immense and tutelary power, which takes upon itself alone to secure their gratifications and to watch over their fate. That power is absolute, minute, regular, provident, and mild. It would be like the authority of a parent if, like that authority, its object was to prepare men for manhood; but it seeks, on the contrary, to keep them in perpetual childhood: it is well content that the people should rejoice, provided they think of nothing but rejoicing. For their happiness such a government willingly labors, but it chooses to be the sole agent and the only arbiter of that happiness; it provides for their security, foresees and supplies their necessities, facilitates their pleasures, manages their principal concerns, directs their industry, regulates the descent of property, and subdivides their inheritances: what remains, but to spare them all the care of thinking and all the trouble of living?

Thus it every day renders the exercise of the free agency of man less useful and less frequent; it circumscribes the will within a narrower range and gradually robs a man of all the uses of himself. The principle of equality has prepared men for these things; it has predisposed men to endure them and often to look on them as benefits.

After having thus successively taken each member of the community in its powerful grasp and fashioned him at will, the supreme power then extends its arm over the whole community. It covers the surface of society with a network of small complicated rules, minute and uniform, through which the most original minds and the most energetic characters cannot penetrate, to rise above the crowd. The will of man is not shattered, but softened, bent, and guided; men are seldom forced by it to act, but they are constantly restrained from acting. Such a power does not destroy, but it prevents existence; it does not tyrannize, but it compresses, enervates, extinguishes, and stupefies a people, till each nation is reduced to nothing better than a flock of timid and industrious animals, of which the government is the shepherd. (Volume 2, Section 4: Chapter VI, What Sort of Despotism Democratic Nations Have to Fear.)

(more...)

Why Our Founders Feared a Democracy

 

[xotoxi]

Isn't there a better way to protect the minority from the majority in this country than what we have now? I know we talk constitutional government but when one side really wants something they tend to ignore the restraints of the constitution and force others to live by laws they don't want to live by. I wonder if federalism would work better in this country where the majority, acting through their own state governments, of states would enact laws that they like and the minority can vote for laws that they like for themselves. No matter what the issue is the minority, in their own state, can protect themselves from the wishes of people in other states.

Wait...who is the minority that needs protectin'?

 

[George Costanza]

The concept of Federalism has changed over the years. Originally, it meant what one would expect from the term itself - an expansion of the Federal government to the detriment of the power of State governments.

In recent decades, however - thanks largely to the GOP - "New Federalism" has come upon the scene:

New Federalism, which is characterized by a gradual return of power to the states, was initiated by President Ronald Reagan (1981-1989) with his "devolution revolution" in the early 1980s and lasted until 2001. Previously, the federal government had granted money to the states categorically, limiting the states to use this funding for specific programs. Reagan's administration, however, introduced a practice of giving block grants, freeing state governments to spend the money at their own discretion. New Federalism is sometimes called "states' rights", although its proponents usually eschew the latter term because of its associations with Jim Crow and segregation. Unlike the states' rights movement of the mid-20th century which centered around the civil rights movement, the modern federalist movement is concerned far more with expansive interpretations of the Commerce Clause, as in the areas of medical marijuana (Gonzales v. Raich), partial birth abortion (Gonzales v. Carhart), gun possession (United States v. Lopez), federal police powers (United States v. Morrison, which struck down portions of the Violence Against Women Act), or agriculture (Wickard v. Filburn). President Bill Clinton (1993-2001) embraced this philosophy, and President George W. Bush (2001-2009) appeared to support it at the time of his inauguration.

I'm sure everyone contributing to this thread is aware of this but, just in case . . . (I sure as hell wasn't.)

 

[NYcarbineer]

Isn't there a better way to protect the minority from the majority in this country than what we have now? I know we talk constitutional government but when one side really wants something they tend to ignore the restraints of the constitution and force others to live by laws they don't want to live by. I wonder if federalism would work better in this country where the majority, acting through their own state governments, of states would enact laws that they like and the minority can vote for laws that they like for themselves. No matter what the issue is the minority, in their own state, can protect themselves from the wishes of people in other states.

Where and how does the Constitution 'restrain' government from passing laws that force people to live by them, although they might not want to live by them?

 

[George Costanza]

Isn't there a better way to protect the minority from the majority in this country than what we have now? I know we talk constitutional government but when one side really wants something they tend to ignore the restraints of the constitution and force others to live by laws they don't want to live by. I wonder if federalism would work better in this country where the majority, acting through their own state governments, of states would enact laws that they like and the minority can vote for laws that they like for themselves. No matter what the issue is the minority, in their own state, can protect themselves from the wishes of people in other states.

Where and how does the Constitution 'restrain' government from passing laws that force people to live by them, although they might not want to live by them?

Be careful - you're starting to sound like her.

 

[Murf76]

Where and how does the Constitution 'restrain' government from passing laws that force people to live by them, although they might not want to live by them?

Article I, Section 8 describes the 17 enumerated powers of Congress. So, if it's not in this section, Congress has no power to do it.

Article I, Section 9 describes the powers forbidden to Congress. That doesn't mean that they can do whatever they want just so long as its not specifically forbidden. They still have to limit themselves to Article I, Section 8.

 

[MaggieMae]

You clearly don't understand the value or the design of our form of government.

The majority, no matter how big, does not have the right to trample upon the rights of the minority.

Of course, the current majority doesn't grok this either.

The operative word in your statement here is "rights." You are correct that, in our form of government, the minority is protected from the will of the majority - but only in matters of fundamental right. A number of years ago, a majority of the voters in California enacted a law (by way of initiative) which allowed homeowners to refuse to sell their home to a potential buyer on the basis of race. That law was (quite properly) stricken by the California Supremes because of Constitutional invalidity. Even though the will of the majority had enacted the law, it was a law that violated the fundamental right of homebuyers to buy a home free of racial discrimination. As such, it was invalidated.

On the other hand, the will of the majority wins out over the will of the minority on a daily basis, both in our general society as well as in our government. So long as a law does not infringe on the fundamental rights of the minority, it will be upheld, even though there may be segments of society that disagree with the law.

The problem with you concept of a fundemental right is that it really does not exist other than a state creation. It does not come from someone's own free-will since you had to force a seller to do something against their own free will which needs no one else but themselves. To actually allow our rights to be decided by others is to allow others to control us since they decide what we are free to do not free to do. I see this as something that limits our freedom than actually expands it.

Your rights are decided by others, nine of them, every time the USSC makes a ruling.

 

[MaggieMae]

Isn't there a better way to protect the minority from the majority in this country than what we have now?

Am I reading what I think I am reading here? A conservative, talking about protecting the minority from the will of the majority? I don't believe it. In almost six years of regular participation in political message boards on the Internet, this is, honest to God, the first time I have EVER heard a conservative talking about protecting the minority from the (oppressive) will of the majority (in matters of fundamental right). (FYI, Ihope, that's the entire phrase to use if you're going to use it.)

Let's see - the cons were in control most of the past six years. Think that could have anything to do with how come we never heard them talking about something like this?

I do.

I wonder if federalism would work better in this country where the majority, acting through their own state governments, of states would enact laws that they like and the minority can vote for laws that they like for themselves. No matter what the issue is the minority, in their own state, can protect themselves from the wishes of people in other states.

Great idea, Ihope . . . STATE'S RIGHTS! We could go back to the Fifties, when the states could (by God) do whatever they wanted to do - that is until those God damn feds came troopin' into the South and forced them good ol' boys to back off a tad on the racial intolerance.

Yes, sireee BOB!

Actually states can't do whatever they want to do. There are a whole bunch of limits placed on them that are stated in Article I Section 10 of the constitution. There are also limits placed on them about voting restrictions and it was federalism that ended some of those racist voting laws in the south. Without another government that could place restrictions on other state governments that would still exist but just as the federal government can police states over what they are restricted the states have a right to police the federal government about their powers.

The tenth amendment makes it clear that states limit the power of the federal government because any power not given to the federal is reserved for the states. This gives states almost unlimited power and that power can be used to police the federal government just as the federal government can police the state governments. Its the ultimate check and balance system that is much stronger than the constitution.

BTW, I was not talking about racial minorities.

No, they can't. Article VI of the Constitution sets forth the Supreme Law of the Land. Although it protects states' rights in many ways, unlike the Articles of Confederation, the Consitution trumps state power.