ha, you cant provide links....some of mine are from public sources like the federalist...others have the date and correspondent supplied on the picture. Mercy Otis Warren's is from her history of the revolution.
Prove they're are in the source cited by your pictures. You can't provided a single link backing any of your quotes. Again, I'll be happy to show you my links when you show me yours. With evidence. I'm all about homework....once you've done your own. But I'm not providing a single link to any source to a person who won't back their own claims first.
And of course, you're still ignoring every example of the tyranny of the majority in our history, along with every example of it in the world's history.
From slavery to Socrates, you either ignore them entirely or pretend they never existed. But its not like we have to ignore history just because you do.
Adams described the injustice and inhumanity of the majority heaped upon the minority as being on all pages of history. And he's right.
As Jefferson said, the majority sometimes errs, buts its errors are honest solitary and short lived. source provided.
You picture isn't a source. Show me a link to the text. I'll gladly show you mine once you do. And you like Jefferson, huh?
All, too, will bear in mind this sacred principle, that though the will of the majority is in all cases to prevail, that will to be rightful must be reasonable; that the minority possess their equal rights, which equal law must protect, and to violate would be oppression.
Thomas Jefferson
Want some more?
Rightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our will within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others. I do not add 'within the limits of the law' because law is often but the tyrant's will, and always so when it violates the rights of the individual.
Thomas Jefferson.
Law is always the tyrants will when it violates the rights of the individual. About as clear a contradiction of your claims as is possible.
You're literally advocating oppression per the standards of Jefferson. Literally ignoring the inhumanity and injustice the majority heaps upon the minority per Adams.. Where the majority can do....anything. Strip any right, take property, even take life with a simple 50% plus 1 vote. And even more laughably, insisting that the majority can't be tyrannical. \
And then there's the 14th amendment which forbids the state to violate the rights of US citizens. Which you summarily ignore as well. Again, just because you ignore everything inconvenient to your argument doesn't mean we're similarly obligated.
The source is right in the picture you dolt....founders online is a web source......
Then just post the link to the text and I'll do the same. But for some reason.....you keep giving me excuses why you can't.
I'm down with homework. As long as you do it first.
Henry speaks to your "historic examples" .....slavery was a system which generally was the minority over the majority.
Whites weren't the minority. They were the majority. And given that in almost all cases only whites could vote.....their vote was the 'vote of the majority'.
And yet the vote of the majority was profoundly inhumane, injust and tyrannical. Explicitly contradicting your absurd and demonstrably false assertion that the majority can't be tyrannical.
Of course they can be.
As was anti-semetic laws, the Chinese exclusion act, anti gay legislation, anti Irish laws, Jim Crow laws, poll taxes, segregation, etc.
All explicit contradictions of your nonsense thesis. And all ignored by you. But just because you ignore any contradiction of your beliefs doens't mean we're similarly obligated to pretend none of it happened. Which is why you fail.
Yes, Jefferson did have an out in unjust systems....rebellion... a little now and then was essential...but as my gallery pic of him shows,he thought the will of the majority was the only sure guardian of the rights of man..........
Jefferson obliterates your claims:
Rightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our will within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others. I do not add 'within the limits of the law' because law is often but the tyrant's will, and always so when it violates the rights of the individual.
Thomas Jefferson.
Any law that violates the rights of the individual is always the 'tyrant's will'.
You ignored that too. No rational person ever would. Keep running.
Im not going to look it up for you...........the point on that is that it was always there...while your sources are not.
You pick out one
supposed quote from Jefferson and I have shown many. here are some more
Jefferson on Politics Government Majority Rule talking mostly about the duty to follow the will of the majority.
lex majoris parti That without it rule by force becomes the option.
another I believe is 'lex majoris parti is the first principle of Republicanism but generally the last learned'
Whites were a minority in some southern states....white slaveholders were always a minority ...if a vote had been taken nationwide at the time of founding slavery would most likely have been outlawed, certainly if the vote granted slaves even the 3/5ths vote they were counted as for representation........it was the powerful MINORITY that perpetuated slavery.
and please quit comparing yourself to enslaved blacks.....no ones buying it.....especially not the blacks.
The US was this vaunted republic at the nations founding....with your precious court system.....what did it do for enslaved blacks??
yes there has been oppression of minorities by majorities in history ...preventing gay couples from getting the exact same piece of paper as married couples doesnt come near examples most think of.
The 14th amendment was coerced, some think at least partially written, underhandedly, as a benefit to the powerful railroad corporations of the day. Since its passage the Supreme Court has used it to advance the interests of the powerful by granting corporate person-hood through it. If the court rules in your favor using the 14th it will further ingrain this poorly written and perhaps corrupt amendment into "jurisprudence".
The poorly thought out, (and not supported by gay leadership in California) prop 8 suit has the possibility of severely damaging our founding principle of republican/democratic rule. you are so wrapped up in this one issue that you fail to see the damage this suit could bring in other areas of the law.
now, I have said all this to you before..........you have come up with two
maybe legitimate quotes.....but otherwise you always say the same thing..................so I think this will be the last time I bother responding to you.
And it has all been said to you before that you're wrong.
The following facts are settled and beyond dispute:
The United States is a Constitutional Republic, not a democracy, whose citizens are subject solely to the rule of law; one's civil rights are not subject to 'majority rule,' one does not forfeit his rights merely as a consequence of his state of residence, and the states have no authority whatsoever to determine who will or will not have his civil rights. (
West Virginia Board of Education v. Barnette)
Federal laws, the Federal Constitution, its case law, and the rulings Federal courts are supreme – binding on all the states and local jurisdictions. (
Cooper v. Aaron)
Gay Americans constitute a class of persons entitled to 14th Amendment protections (
Romer v. Evans.)
Gay Americans are entitled to the protected liberty of choice, their right to privacy and self determination immune from attack by the states, where whether homosexuality manifest as a consequence of birth or choice is legally and Constitutionally irrelevant. (
Lawrence v. Texas)
As a result of these facts beyond dispute, to seek to discriminate based on sexual orientation is likewise repugnant to the Constitution, as it is to seek to discriminate based on race, religion, or national origin.
The only appropriate, relevant response on your part, therefore, is to either cite where the Supreme Court ruled to overturn
Barnette, Cooper,
Romer, and
Lawrence, or acknowledge that you are wrong as a fact of Constitutional law, law you may not like or agree with for personal, subjective reasons, but the settled and accepted law of the land nonetheless.
