Madison never tied "tyranny" to "majority".....and you know it...... it is an idiotic phrase
I think he might have used the phrase "overbearing majority"...hardly a tyranny...and the only "cure" hes seems to have come up with.....(this was all in his weaselly Federalist days)...was separate legislative bodies. .....not elitists in courts..........
And Im pretty sure just a few years after saying that, Madison sided with Jefferson against the court packing of the Federalist Adams.
Now is there any doubt about what Madison's opinion on gay marriage would have been?
It doesn't matter what the FF thought about SSM anymore than what they thought about blacks, non landowners or women voting. They wrote a document that allows for them.
If you are going to rely on the courts it does matter what the FF thought to a certain extent, and what the populace at the time thought. Slavery was abolished with an amendment that represents the will of the people. Women can vote due to an amendment also.
We can see now where youÂ’re confused.
YouÂ’re incorrectly perceiving that Supreme Court rulings such as
Windsor somehow ‘change’ the Constitution, or ‘change’ the original intent of the Framers, the same way an amendment makes a change to the Constitution.
Again, this is incorrect.
When the
Windsor Court stuck down DOMA, for example, it did so in accordance with the original intent of the framers, and in accordance with the Constitution and its case law.
ItÂ’s time once again to remind conservatives of the FramersÂ’ original intent, as Justice Kennedy correctly observed in
Lawrence:
Had those who drew and ratified the Due Process Clauses of the Fifth Amendment or the Fourteenth Amendment known the components of liberty in its manifold possibilities, they might have been more specific. They did not presume to have this insight. They knew times can blind us to certain truths and later generations can see that laws once thought necessary and proper in fact serve only to oppress. As the Constitution endures, persons in every generation can invoke its principles in their own search for greater freedom.
The Framers did not presume to possess a finite understanding of what constitutes individual liberty, and it was not their intent to codify such an understanding in the Constitution.
Their intent was to codify the fundamental principles underpinning individual liberty, allowing for a comprehensive understanding of that liberty in all its “manifold possibilities.”
Consequently, that slavery was ended or women allowed the vote as a result of Constitutional Amendments has no bearing whatsoever concerning the right of same-sex couples to access marriage law. As to deny same-sex couples access to marriage law violates the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment and the Liberty Clause of the 5th Amendment, and since such a prohibition violates the fundamental principles of liberty codified by the Framers in the Constitution, so too does it violate the FramersÂ’ original intent as to the very nature of the expression of that individual liberty.
