[Hemingway's Ghost]

But we can't all just sit back and wait to see what everyone else is going to do, and then go along with that. For there to be a "will of the majority", the majority have to decide, and I believe that when they make those decisions, proportionality and cost are, and should be part of that equation.

Nor should we put too much emphasis---or even any emphasis at all---on the "will of the majority." Who gives a crap what the majority thinks? This nation was founded on the notion of natural law, and natural law doesn't come from a majority---it comes from God. As a matter of fact, our system of government is designed in such a way to thwart the tyranny of the majority.

[tacticalogic]

Nor should we put too much emphasis---or even any emphasis at all---on the "will of the majority." Who gives a crap what the majority thinks? This nation was founded on the notion of natural law, and natural law doesn't come from a majority---it comes from God. As a matter of fact, our system of government is designed in such a way to thwart the tyranny of the majority.

I believe we can put at least some emphasis on the "will of the majority" as long as that will stays within the bounds of the Constitution. Letting Congress and the USSC use "will of the majority" as an excuse to find ways to sneak across that line is a mistake. If the "majority" really wants it that bad, make them prove it. That's what amendments are for.