Correct. But, again, to put this all into context, the Constitution was amended, not even 100 years ago, to ban the sale of alcohol. It didn't happen overnight, but it did happen.
Of course given the current judiciary, the Constitution is not immediately malleable to the will of the people but it pretty immediately malleable in the hands of judges.
I think it was designed this way for a reason. The Founders understood that rights are important and that majorities can be just as dangerous as tyrants when it comes to rights.
Of course. But they were also men of moderation and I don't think they envisioned or would have expected the 1st Amendment to protect bestiality pornography, the 2nd Amendment to protect private ownership of nuclear weapons, the 4th Amendment to guarantee a right to abortion, and so on. The paradox of liberty is that if you don't use it responsibly, it becomes enough of a liability that people will give it up or take it away. The purpose of liberty is to leave nice people alone and let them lead good lives, not to let the freaks run wild and make life a living Hell for nice people. And those who abuse their liberty to do awful things are just as big of a threat to your liberty as any tyrant because they will make people veiw liberty as a liability rather than a gift.
Of course, it should be mentioned that the Constitution does not grant rights, it merely recognizes and protects them. The people could amend the Constitution to require death for professing Christian beliefs...that does not mean there is no right to religious expression.
True, but that leaves us back to the question others have asked. Who gets to decide what our rights really are? And there are really only two answers to that. Some sort of body that is unanswerable to The People get to decide or The People do. There is no magical force or army of perfect robots that will protect your rights. People have to do it. Either they are answerable to voters or they aren't, and neither way is a perfect guarantee of your rights.
Certainly, and given sufficient numbers and fervency an anti-porn amendment could be passed as well. Of course, I think it would cause problems similar to those we experienced in the Prohibition era.
Of course given the current judiciary, the Constitution is not immediately malleable to the will of the people but it pretty immediately malleable in the hands of judges.
In many cases that is true. I think we are in agreement on what the Constition allows the people to do. I have to admit, it's nice to see someone properly pointing to AMENDMENTS for a change instead of using their standard interstate commerce/general welfare justification for Federal meddling.
...The purpose of liberty is to leave nice people alone and let them lead good lives, not to let the freaks run wild and make life a living Hell for nice people.
We probably agree here as well, generally speaking. But where you think the line should be drawn? That is, at what point do we say "These people are no longer nice and what they are doing is not good...now they are running wild"?
Who gets to decide what our rights really are? And there are really only two answers to that. Some sort of body that is unanswerable to The People get to decide or The People do. There is no magical force or army of perfect robots that will protect your rights. People have to do it. Either they are answerable to voters or they aren't, and neither way is a perfect guarantee of your rights.
Very well stated. I think the Founders developed a pretty good method for addressing this dilemma. A court with a large degree of independence, though still ultimately accountable to the people (Presidential appointment, for example) is a good (but not perfect) way.