The Motley Fool Discussion Boards
Retirement Discussions / Retire Early Liberal Edition
|Subject: Re: OT: Gore do as I say, not as I do||Date: 2/28/2007 4:34 PM|
|Author: MDGluon||Number: 3001 of 82700|
And the other 20%? we ship them back to XXXX? or burn them at the stake?
Didn't say anything about that did I....didn't even say that the leader has to agree with the 80% did I...the leaders had better understand what the 80% interpertations is though and be able to articulate it or all you have is another form of tyranny (tyranny of the minority)....please don't try to stuff words into my mouth that I did not and never would say by the way...just silly to do.
You are looking for a fight and strawmen that just don't exist.
The Constitution is a framework (a fairly good one)...a quideline with enough flexability to allow both for majority rule and minority protections....and has within it the ability to change and alter, while hopefully protecting all of our rights both majority and minority.
We have to watch for and protect against the tyranny of the masses and the tyranny of the minority which can both occur at any time.
Right now we seem to have an executive (a minority) that interprets the Constitution in ways that almost none of the nation would agree with (I hope) and in ways that reduce our rights (something we should never readily agree to). In fact I would say that this administration and all too many of its supporters have no idea what the intent or purpose of the document was, is, or can be. There are general views and viewpoints of our rights that almost all of us can agree with...they are enumerated in the Constitution and partially protected by the legal courts...a candidate that cannot understand this or wishes to ignore it without good cause is one we all should be careful of and may be required to fight (legally).
We live in a country where the rights of individual citizens are enumrated, and not taken away by 'public vote' on the 'issue of the moment'. Where specific rights to having freedom of the press (not just freedom to print what 80% agree with), with having freedom of religion (not just what is the dominant 'sect' of the moment, and freedom of association.
You are only partially right...first I do not propose such or even said such a thing as you imply...I said "can interpret the Constitution in a way that at least 80% of us can agree with (or live with)."....and guess what, if 80% felt that the constitution needed to be changed so that the press could only print what the 80% like, then they could attempt to change the Constitution to say just that. Hasn't happened has it....thus we still have at least 50% plus hopefully a Supreme Court that would disagree with such a bad idea....all part of our Constitutional process which even allows us to vote away our rights if we foolishly deicde to.
Now I would point out that we have a safety valve there for the oppression of the majority unless we decide to ignore the courts and precedent and do something really odd.....like have a constitutional convention and re-write th