[sr4402]

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.

I have never seen a better description of our Republican form of Government than your enacting laws passed by a populist legislature, which would be nothing less than a consensus of morality and/or personal preferences of a group of people. For that is exactly what our votes do, they allow "We the People" to speak our piece.

Perhaps you are interest in another form of government. How about a dictatorship where one person has all the say and the people have none. You know, a leader like Idi Amin, or Kim Jong Il? What is the difference between them and a judge now that judges can use international law instead of our constitution?

Or are you desiring some form of Socialism or Communism?

What is your pleasure?

[tahiti]

"Or are you desiring some form of Socialism or Communism?"

"What is your pleasure?"

My "pleasure" is liberty.

Amendment IX

"The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights, SHALL NOT be construed to DENY OR DISPARAGE others (rights) RETAINED BY THE PEOPLE."

I am an "original meaning" constitutionalist. The words used in the Constitution have meaning; absolute meaning.

Words and phrases such has "shall not...deny...disparage" are unambiguous.