Posted on 05/20/2007 10:53:35 AM PDT by tpaine
Jefferson commented that the purpose of a constitution is to bind down those whom we are obliged to trust with power, doing so by the chains of the Constitution.
While the binding capacity of the Constitution comes into play in the area of structural principles such as federalism and the separation of powers, perhaps the prime example of that capacity is its role in the problematic relation between majority rule and individual rights. As fundamental law, the Constitution, supposedly above politics, is always drawn into political controversies between majority rule and individual rights precisely because of its binding function. Through this function the Constitution establishes the distinction, central to American political culture, between the sphere of matters subject to decision by majority rule, regardless of individual preferences to the contrary, and the sphere of matters subject to individual choice, regardless of majority preferences to the contrary.
The Constitution binds contemporary majorities to respect this distinction and thereby not to act in certain ways, however democratically decided, vis-à-vis individuals.
Robert Bork aptly distinguishes between these spheres in terms of what he has famously called the Madisonian dilemma:
The United States was founded as a Madisonian system, which means that it contains two opposing principles that must be continually reconciled.
The first principle is self-government, which means that in wide areas of life majorities are entitled to rule, if they wish, simply because they are majorities.
The second is that there are nonetheless some things majorities must not do to minorities, some areas of life in which the individual must be free of majority rule.
The dilemma is that neither majorities nor minorities can be trusted to define the proper spheres of democratic authority and individual liberty....
The political theory of American constitutionalism rests equally on two fundamental premises, the premises of constraint and consent.
The first premise is that the purpose of a constitution, especially a written one, is to bind future generations to the vision of its founders, that is, to constrain the American people, - individuals and institutions, citizens and government officials alike, - to follow the principles of the Constitution rather than anything else.
The second premise is that the binding of future generations to the vision of the founders is a democratically grounded and legitimated act of We the People, that is, that in some sense We the People have consented to be governed - bound - by the principles set forth in the Constitution.
I see these areas as enumerated in the Bill of Rights and the 14th Amendment.
-- Many here do not. Feel free to tell me why not.
The Bill of Rights has mostly been incorporated to the States; less the Second Amendment, liberals don’t like guns.
The 14th has been twisted since Brown. Once the 14th became a captive of sociological theory true republican government became the slave of political fashion.
Vote Constitution Party and a return to the true meaning of that document.
~Incorporation~ was dreamed up by the courts to avoid the fact that we have the right to carry arms.
The 14th has been twisted since Brown.
It's been twisted by politicians and courts since it was ratified, in an effort to deprive us all of life, liberty or property.
Once the 14th became a captive of sociological theory true republican government became the slave of political fashion.
The 14th was passed to insure true republican government. It became the political fashion to ignore it.
Vote Constitution Party and a return to the true meaning of that document.
If that party lived up to their name, I would.
it all depends on what types of judges do the interpreting of laws and constitutions. some consider the constitution such a living breathing document that we don’t really know sometimes what it means.
We have gotten abortion on demand, reverse racism in the form of affirmative action, legal explicit pornography, decriminalization of homosexuality and same sex marriage in Massachusetts so far, just to cite a few areas where our society has been fundamentally changed. None of these changes happened because of legislative actions. All happened because of courts acting as a super-legislature. All happened because of certain interpretations of laws and a certain mind set that society should be a certain way to achieve certain goals or carry a constitutional freedom to an extreme that most people would never consider.
According to the Constitution, it is OK to maime, mutilate, and kill unborn babies right up to and including their moment of birth. These barbaric acts are authorized by the Constitution for any reason and for no reason. The specific language in the Constitution which authorizes this brutality and the taking of human life, was found clearly stated, and without contradiction or doubt, by a majority of the members of the Supreme Court in 1973. Since 1973 approximately 44 million young Americans have been eradicated from our society. Their remains have been dumped in trash cans for removal to landfill locations in all fifty states.
I wonder why Madison, Franklin, Washington, and the other founders and signers to the Constitution allowed doctors, mothers , and liberals to deny life to the most vulnerable minority among us?
~~ carry a constitutional freedom to an extreme that most people would never consider.
"-- there are nonetheless some things majorities must not do to minorities, some areas of life in which the individual must be free of majority rule. --"
I see these areas as enumerated in the Bill of Rights and the 14th Amendment.
Which of our constitutional freedoms have been carried to an extreme?
You claim that abortion, reverse racism, legal explicit pornography, decriminalization of homosexuality and same sex marrige are a just few areas where our society has been fundamentally changed.
We have always had these types of behavior in America.
In fact, up until the Victorian era, most such behaviors were ignored, with very few laws written or enforced.
The writing/enforcing of such ~blue laws~ became intolerable since our prohibitional era, leading to the backlash we see now.
Prohibitions and majority rule breed minority scofflaws. - Bet on it.
I was checking out your home page and it seemed quite the mess, a little formating would go a long way .......
I disagree. Our States have the power to prosecute abortion as murder. That they do not do so is a political decision, not a constitutional one.
I was checking out your home page and it seemed quite the mess, a little formating would go a long way ......
Amusing, seeing that when I checked out your home page it seemed quite blank......
tpaine, Do you not understand sarcasm?
Well, yeah, I gots to work on that.
tpaine, Here is where I am coming from. The constitution has been grossly perverted by liberal judges to allow the mass murder of innocent babies. I have no idea where you are coming from.
Should the unborn have less rights than black people? Should the unborn have less rights than illegal aliens?
I see these areas as enumerated in the Bill of Rights and the 14th Amendment.
-- Many here do not. Feel free to tell me why not.
You might not want to use the term "enumerated" to reference our God-given natural rights. The Bill of Rights does not enumerate our rights like the Constitution "enumerates" the powers of the federal government.
The Bill of Rights is in fact, not a list of our rights, but rather a list of restrictions on the government.
Read the ninth:
The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
It protects the rights of the people. So do the rest.
The 14th amendment prohibits states from depriving persons of life without due process. This should extend to unborn persons as well.
It does. Unborn people are protected by state laws against murder. Murder should be prosecuted.
Allowing states to have legal abortion is just as immoral as allowing states to have legal slavery, exactly what the 14th amendment was meant to prohibit.
The 13th abolished slavery. The 14th reiterated that States are bound by the Constitution to protect our rights to life, liberty or property.
Should the unborn have less rights than black people? Should the unborn have less rights than illegal aliens?
Born or unborn, all people have the same inalienable rights. Illegal aliens are denied the privileges and immunities of US citizens.
I see where you are coming from and I agree.
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.