I can't figure out women either.
Posted on 03/15/2005 10:20:51 AM PST by tahiti
I am listening to the Rush Limbaugh show at this very moment.
I am having quite a bit of difficulty reconciling Rush Limbaugh's remarks about judges imposing their morality and/or personal preferences on the rest of the citizenry as result of their constitutional decisions.
Yes, there are decisions that have been made based on a personal preference of a judge.
Most recently the Supreme Court decision to prohibit convicted death row felons under 18 years of age from being executed.
Original meaning of Amendment VIII, "...nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted," could never be interpreted to prohibit convicted felon under the age of 18 from executed without inserting an arbitrary personal preference gleened from what the "rest of the world" does.
However, Rush Limbaugh is advocating a tyranny of the majority, in a sense, through his advocation of enacting laws passed by a poplulist legislature, which would be nothing less than a consensus of morality and/or personal preferences of a group of people versus the morality or personal preferences of single judge.
The constitutions, either federal or state, are meant to limit government power and protect the individual rights of all citizens.
For example, Mr. Limbaugh, your current legal battle with the state of Florida over your use of pain killing drugs may be analyze from a constitutional perspective of original meaning.
What individual right is more fundamental than an individual, free citizen, deciding how he or she shall treat their pain?
How and where does any government entity, constitutionally exert their power to prohibit an individual from determing how much pain killer they need to consume to satisfy the discomfort of their personal pain?
And in fact, the federal constitution, the federal Bill of Rights, not the Bill of Privileges, guarantees that right to make such a decision.
Amendment IX
"The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others (rights) retained by the people."
Again, the constitution is meant to "limit" the power of government and the tyranny of the majority from imposing the majorities morality and/or personal preferences on an individual.
Is it not the basis of liberty, the basis of acting like a free citizen, living in a free country, to make the individual decision on what and how much an individual shall consume of a chemical or food for medicinal reasons or just plain pleasure?
Is that not a right "retained by the people?"
Without some type of "judicial" review of tyrannical laws that violate the constitution(s), how do we prevent the trampling of guaranteed rights by the poplulist, personal preference, morality driven majority? (bear arms, search and seizures, speech, religion, etc., for example)
Those citizens who are of the Christian faith, what protection of your religiion will you have if and when Muslims are the majority in the U.S., if their is no judicial review to help protect your right to a Christian religion and Muslism being imposed in your life?
The proper and constitutional way for the majority to have their will enacted is to "amend" the constitution, not to pressure legislators to enact unconstitutional laws.
When laws can deny and disparage rights, the constitutional will be rendered useless and the constitution will mean only what the majority wants, stated through their legislators and enacted laws.
Enacted laws are below the covenants of constitution(s)in the hierchacy of the rule of law, if not then there is no need for a constitution.
Maybe you should have listened a little more before going through the trouble of typing all this up.
Rush has always expressed that any actions by the house and senate must be in alignment with proper constitutional authority. Which renders your entire point moot.
I can't figure out women either.
"However, Rush Limbaugh is advocating a tyranny of the majority, in a sense, through his advocation of enacting laws passed by a poplulist legislature, which would be nothing less than a consensus of morality and/or personal preferences of a group of people versus the morality or personal preferences of single judge."
So you are advocating that a Judges' 'morality and/or personal preferences' over the people of the state?
Since the judge represents the 'government', then the governments preferences have more weight than the peoples?
ROTFLMAO!
A judges only role is to interpret what the constitution says, not what the judge wants it to say.
Rush is right and you are wrong. In a republic, the majority does rule. This is not tyranny. It would be tyranny if they tried to take away the speech, press, or religious rights of a minority, thus leaving the minority unable to compete in the marketplace of ideas. But you are advocating a tyranny of the minority, where the rights and values of the majority are overruled by the whims and passions of any vocal minority. This is also what the judges are imposing. You do not stop the threat of a "tyranny of the majority" by allowing a "tyranny of the minority."
LOL! Man, FR is a tough crowd sometimes.
Stupid is as stupid writes.
What was his point? In fact what was his beef? Gay Marriage? Abortion? I say let's deploy the nuclear option and get some Originalist Justices up there.
RIGHT ON?
I smell a kitty!
Fall down ... go boom!
That's what I was thinking, what's that smell?
No, Rush is advocating the following of the Constitution.
(Now, since the Constitution can be amended by a supermajority, I guess you could say that he advocates a tyranny of the supermajority. But that's different. It's super....)
Welcome to Free Republic.
FYI....
A CLUE
Uh, when has Rush ever supported democratic government without constitutional limits?
(hint: never.)
I am not aware that the popular vote of the entirety of the country elects each of the 100 Senators, so explain how the makeup of Congress can possibly be a consequence of the tyranny of the 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.