The Cork in Rush's Bat

In other words, tyranny is fine as long as it is conducted in accordance to YOUR political ideology.

You stated the above after quoting my:

"That is fine so long as every item in this statistic was conservative."

You left off the operative term. My statement was: "That is fine so long as every item in this statistic was conservative and Constitutional."

How could something which is Constitutional be tyrannical?

How could something which is un-Constitutional be normal or acceptable?

You asked for more examples:

I am sure you are familar with the phrase "tyranny of the majority". Polls show that a majority of citizens support this socialized medicine idea of the "prescription drug benefit".

The democrats want it. The republicans want it but they disagree on the details so they are in the process of compromising.

Socialized medicine is un-Constitutional therefore compromise is not normal or acceptable.

Regards

J.R.

"How could something which is Constitutional be tyrannical?"

When the existing interpretation of the Constitution subjects a segment of the population to tyranny.

At the time of the drafting and implementation of the Constitution there were slaves in the United States, women did not posses the rights and priviledges of all American citizens as guaranteed by the Constitution, people of color could be discriminated against in housing, employement, and even the seating arrangement in a bus or restaurant BY LAW, there was child labor.

These things existed because there was nothing in the Constitution that made them illegal, thus, things like Jim Crow laws were in fact constitutional.

The people who fought a revolution, forged a nation, and drafted the Constitution never intended their Constitution to stand unchallenged and unchanged for all times, they themselves created the ability, within the document itself, for future generations to change that Constitution.

Imagine that the people who believed in freedom above all other things, would have set in place a system wherein their opinions would rule the future generations of Americans for all time to come.

People with different opinions than ours have exactly the same right that we have to demand change, even to the Constitution, and that is tyhe one thing written in stone by the Founders.

So, when you make a statement qualifying the interpretation of the Constitution as being on one end of the political spectrum, then it becomes unconstitutional because it seeks to impose your interpretation on those who do not agree with it.

I gotta say this for Pudge, he does make for exciting baseball. The fact that one-in-five pitches makes it to the backstop, combined with his powerful arm, makes for some very interesting plays.

The amazing thing is that the Yankees, who should be very familiar with his abilities, seem to be caught flat-footed by his arm. They are going to have to review some film. That play where he threw over Aaron Boone to get Posada at second for a strike 'em out, throw 'em out double play was sheer poetry. I still don't know how he did that!

You are correct that when the Constitution was written, slaves were considered to be property and not citizens.

Imagine that the people who believed in freedom above all other things, would have set in place a system wherein their opinions would rule the future generations of Americans for all time to come.

It is easy to imagine such a system because it is based on the concept of unalienable rights and that to secure these rights governments are instituted among men.

un-al-ien-a-ble: adj.
Not to be separated, given away, or taken away; inalienable:

It seems in your view that if prevailing public opinion was to repeal the Constitution by ammendment and instead elect a permanent supreme ruler that would both be within the vision of the founders and would not represent tyranny.

I don't think so.

Regards

J.R.

"It seems in your view that if prevailing public opinion was to repeal the Constitution by ammendment and instead elect a permanent supreme ruler that would both be within the vision of the founders and would not represent tyranny."

Imagine that!

The Founders setting in place a system whereas the will of the people could overthrow the current government, and establish a new one in its place?

Preposterous!

That would be downright revolutionary!

Congratulations.

You have sucessfully diverted the discussion:

1) from the reaction of the (now silent) drug warriors to Limbaugh's problem.

2) from the impossibility of defining as principled conservatism support for a party that continually serves up socialistic programs.

3) to the assertion that the repeal of the Constitution represents the pinnacle of liberty.

Seems that in your book God given rights are alienable after all.

I give up.

Regards

J.R.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.