Mob rule happens in Congress. But its not mob rule, its maj rule.
So that's why the Senate has a 60 vote minimum for most legislation? That looks like more than a majority to me, but then again I am not stupid like you.
Dear
Penelope and
Admiral Rockwell Tory
Even 60% majority doesn't address the issue of a majority party legislating "political BELIEFS" that violate
equal Constitutional rights and protections of people of OTHER BELIEFS who suffer discrimination by CREED
when parties act like political religions abusing majority to dominate and "establish beliefs through govt."
That's still an unconstitutional flaw in the system overdue to be addressed and corrected.
It makes more sense to treat political beliefs (and whole groups or "mobs" of people pushing them
like a "political religion") the same as we would OTHER types of Religious Organizations and Beliefs
and keep these SEPARATE from Govt.
However, because of
(1) the nature of these TYPE of beliefs as inherently involving govt or the role of govt
(such as belief in health care as a right through govt that cannot be separated from one's beliefs about govt)
(2) the precedent and traditions already established in our history where parties HAVE been used to establish beliefs by majority rule (and even judicial rule in the case of ACA which is still contested on the basis of conflicting beliefs about govt and Constitutional limits, process, and separation of authority)
(3) no agreement or solution yet offered (or even envisioned) as to how to FIX or replace the given system with a correction, where people do not even believe it is possible to resolve this --
That's why the principle and process of "separating political beliefs/religions/creeds" from Govt is complex and prohibitive, because of these beliefs being already EMBEDDED in party process, existing laws, and govt processes. Its HARDER to remove them BECAUSE they have long been embedded and established in our traditional processes and laws.
HOWEVER, failing to address this is still as problematic as if we were to allow
Christian beliefs to continue being embedded in govt laws and process "just because they already exist" or any other religious organization's beliefs and practices for that matter.
If it was a REGULAR religious organization, then even if these traditions were already embedded in govt, we would understand the argument to REMOVE them based on PRINCIPLE (regardless how long such beliefs have been embedded).
And that is why the movements to REMOVE Crosses, Prayers, and even Marriage restricted to "one man and one
woman only" HAVE BEEN argued and successfully CHANGED.
So if we are going to allow THOSE longstanding traditions to be changed because they discriminate against other beliefs,
you'd think we could use the same basis to argue for political beliefs to be REMOVED from govt laws and processes
because they discriminate against people of other beliefs and creeds.
I think it's just a matter of time before the democratic process EVOLVES to recognize
all beliefs this way, and agree they should not be imposed by Govt, either by majority
rule or judicial rule, where BELIEFS are involved that Discriminate against others by CREED.
Just a matter of time, before we start treating all beliefs CONSISTENTLY
instead of favoring some because we "agree with them" while allowing
other beliefs to be discriminated against "because we disagree."