Posted on 03/28/2002 10:00:21 PM PST by antidemocommie
Nope. You were closer with majoritarian as long as the majority agrees with him.
The Bill of Rights, as well as certain portions of the Constitution were written *specifically* to prevent the Majority from bringing tyranny. However, it was understood that over time, the majority would eventually get its way. The Founding Fathers, knowing this, admitted they were taking a risk by *trusting* the People be able to handle wisely the power the Constitution made manifest (as the People have always had it.)
I leave it to the reader to decide how well we've managed the power made manifest by the Constitution.
Tuor
He is actually _Jim's evil twin.
Regards
J.R.
That's his point, idjit. The Constitution says you can, the Supreme Court says you cannot. That's his question: Is this a nation of laws or of men? And if not laws, what is to be done? Thanks for explicitly coming down on the side of a government of men, not of laws.
I'm sure you would want the SCOTUS to declare his asking the question unconstitutional.
Sure. And, if 9-11 hadn't happened, you would say, "After OKC . . .". And you would be correct; however, if you were truly honest, you would say, "After Waco . . .".
J.R.
BS
ONe does have a right to commit insurrection against a lawful government, if that government does not meet the desires of the insurrectionist, however, I recommend to that person that he try to incorporate a few million of his closest friends. The solitary insurrectionist is doomed to failure.
On the flip side, since you cowardly chose "lawful" govt, (not the topic of this thread), when one is confronted by unlawful government, one has a moral DUTY to throw off such government, and to disobey unlawful statutes.
Laws which protect society or the "collective", such as yelling "Fire" in a crowded theatre, are inconsistent with the American system. Rather, one who yells "Fire" should subsequently be punished for any damage or injury caused by him, rather than society attempting to outlaw said activity before the fact.
That approach is inconsistent with indivdual liberty.
It is clear that you value the needs of society above the needs of the individual. As such, you are both a statist and a socialist.
Your cultural Jihad leads to a society of slaves at the mercy of Federal power.
And getting the majority to agree with him -- why, that's just a simple matter of applying prison sentences and death penalties to enough of the Non-Jihadists to reduce the sample size down to a comfortably Jihadist majority. ;-)
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.