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 92879|
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 the entire document (a dangerous scheme that some have proposed).
Oh, the next thing is that why do assume, that the present press system, prints anything but what those that own it and fund it want to see printed for the most part? Wasn't it Mr. Hearst who said "The Free Press is only free for the owners of the press" (or some such).
(the internet goes around this and is probably why some are trying to destroy net nuetrality)
We have a consensus government (mostly) which recognizes and supports minority viewpoints/rights (usually) and the system was designed that way on purpose...a balancing act....and yes often effective leaders of our nation have to understand the system and rules (Constitution) in a way that the majority agree with...I suspect that the majority although sometimes erring, is often ahead of the curve as compared to those of wealth and power who are a minority. Populist ideas are rarely supported by the elite wealthy and powerful, sometimes though a "traitor to the class" steps forward and uses the populist idea to gain power and sometimes to enact good law.
My comment was part tongue in cheek yet rooted in the very real world fact that the 80% are important....they are, in the real world, the usually silent majority which when aroused are the 800lb gorilla that rips leaders to shreds. If you are in the 20% or less on a subject or idea, welltake the time to convince the 80%, educate them if possible, and make your own viewpoint the 80%....societies change very slowly because of the 80% who must be moved and who do not want to. But without understanding the 80% you will probably achieve nothing.
Oh....and be careful making any assumptions about me and my views....you know what they say about "assumptions" after all.
Good reading is "The Constitution of the United States" multiple authors (:)) combined with "Original Meaning" by Jack Rakove which explores some of the history of its creation and his views of why it was written in the way it was (very fuzzy some parts are and very clear other parts are). The pressures of that time forced compromise and cooperation in a dangerous world and the result reflected both the 80% majority and the fears of the 20% minority......the guys from Maryland were sorta butheads during the whole thing (or was it the guys from Deleware..cannot remember). New York and many states had a general plebicite and voted on the final draft (with caveats of adding the bill of rights), Virginia had the State House OK it....a little of both directions it seems. Our government is a bit of a mix of Democratic majority rule with un-Democratic (?) minority constraint...good idea to understand both sides of the thing rather than just one.
A leader who understands only his view, a <20% view IMO with the present one, is probably not going to propose things that make a lot of sense to the rest of the nation once they have time to think about it....such leaders usually try to railroad things through based on fear and "national emergency" and "trust me".
|Copyright 1996-2016 trademark and the "Fool" logo is a trademark of The Motley Fool, Inc. Contact Us|