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

[JakeStarkey]

Where and how does the Constitution 'restrain' government from OGlaws 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.

SCOTUS disagrees and that's all that matters.

 

[jillian]

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.

first they need to find a way to protect the will of the majority...

then at least we wouldn't have ended up with a president who lost the popular vote in 2000

just sayin'

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Where and how does the Constitution 'restrain' government from OGlaws 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.

SCOTUS disagrees and that's all that matters.

Plessy, Dred Scott, Korematsu, Hamdhi, Kelo, keep riding that horse, Fake Starkey

 

[CrusaderFrank]

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.

first they need to find a way to protect the will of the majority...

then at least we wouldn't have ended up with a president who lost the popular vote in 2000

just sayin'

 

[ihopehefails]

What on earth are you talking about here?



This simply makes no sense.



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."

OK. There are an infinite amount of things that you want to do and all of which are a part of your freedom. The things you want to do were created by yourself and not by others but if you allow others to create a list of things you are allowed to do then there is going to be a separation between what you want to do and the things others allow you to do. This only limits your freedom and I can't see how any liberal can be for that concept.

Sometimes I write how I talk and that is bad habit...I blame the internet

 

[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.

first they need to find a way to protect the will of the majority...

then at least we wouldn't have ended up with a president who lost the popular vote in 2000

just sayin'

The will of the majority is protected because their wishes about what they want to do in their own states is preserved. It is protected from the minority who only has power in their own states.

 

[ihopehefails]

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.



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.

It says all laws in pursuence of the constitution is the supreme law of the land which is a big difference between any law passed by the federal government.

 

[ihopehefails]

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?

No it would not because states are limited in what they can do under the constitution and those limitations are very few to begin with.

What if fruitcakes decided to create their own state and vote for some far out laws? They done that and it is called California and no one is suggesting that we interfere with the fruitcake laws in that state.

 

[ihopehefails]

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.

That is a choice you make for yourself but I believe in God-given rights. You may believe in Uncle Sam given rights if you choose but those who wish to believe your rights come from someone else are allowed to believe that for themselves.

 

[ihopehefails]

Where and how does the Constitution 'restrain' government from OGlaws 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.

SCOTUS disagrees and that's all that matters.

SCOTUS only has the power to make descisions that will get enforced by law. It does not have the power to decide what element of my humanity exist such as my rights and freedom. They just don't have that power.

 

[Charles Stucker]

The only way to protect the rights of the minorities, which in the USA is rapidly coming to mean the middle class, is to give little power to the majority with which they can enslave the minorities. Unfortunately the power to tax is the power to destroy so as long as income tax, capital gains tax Socialist Security tax, Medifraud tax, etc plague the people of the United States, there will be liberty only for the wealthiest and the slackers (who are given a ride on the backs of the middle class)