woodguru

Democracy is about majorities versus minorities, 51% majorities get to tell the 49% how things are, period

Those who say it is wrong for 51% to tell the minority how things are going to be use the argument that this is a republic, not a democracy. This is the interesting hard t***h here, spin it if you can, but these people are in favor of a minority telling the majority how things are going to be done. This is not only some twisted and seriously deviated logic, it creates a system where the minority is forced to ignore rules so as to win the dynamics that allow a minority to keep controlling the majority.

South Africa had an incredibly t***sparent example of an extreme where a tiny minority of people controlled all the wealth and a huge majority of their people. Race was a divide, and the majority were treated like sub humans that had no say, because obviously as soon as they had any kind of v**e and say it was over for the minority in control.

Republicans are a minority, and the divide between the number of republicans and democrats is getting wider, and as that happens we are seeing more and more fighting and scrambling to change the rules to keep that control. The idea of fighting a civil war on the side that is a minority and butt hurt because they can't tell the majority how things are going to be is truly mind numbingly ignorant.

woodguru

And I will say that in certain things like appointing judges, it should take 2/3rds so as to arrive at centrist positions that are acceptable versus partisan and favorable. That breaks down if the minority is going to obstruct judges that are perfectly centrist.

ImLogicallyRight

Here is where we disagree.

You think that 51 have total and universal rights to shove anything they want down the throats of 49, anytime they want. What in hell gives you that right over me? You don't have that right. And exercising that right is what causes the fight that will eventually lead to war.

And keep in mind, that 51 isn't iron clad. It is mainly decided by those close to the middle and likely to switch at any time.

It is insanity to think that a group of 51 lunatics, i***ts and crazies, interested in their own self indulgence should rule over 49 intelligent deep thinking individuals interested in the pragmatic results of laws and rules and traditions.

We understand the point of representatives, picked by majorities in balanced districts, (50 +1) act in our behalf in organized assemblies. But we reject their rights to jam things down our throats. That is where a balanced conservative way of doing things keeps balance and peace between the 51 and 49.

Personally, I'm in favor of super majorities only, in passing new laws and 51 over 49 in rejecting old laws that are imposed over a minority in unfair manners. 80%, 75% at the least. Then we get laws that most people can accept and go along with instead of our insane 51 jamming some bulls**t down the throats of 49.

Keep in mind, that we could probably get 51% of OPP to have you removed for some of what we perceive as insane or h**e filled ideas and rants. That is why minority rights are to be protected from an out of control 51 fanatics. Think about this. How about 51 is enough to close our borders to any and all immigrants, take away the v**es of all people of at least 10% African decent, deport any who complain to Zimbabwe, remove the v****g rights of all gays, lesbians, tranneys and g****r confused, Need we go on.

Simply, 51 don't have the right to totally control any and everything in the lives of 49. But super majorities have the rights to judicially work out compromises to create a set of orderly, fair laws and mold a cooperative society with fairness to the minorities and protections for individual rights and freedoms whether in the minority or majority, that individuals might live their lives within their personal beliefs as long as those don't egregiously harm others rights.

ImLogicallyRight

woodguru

Flip it, what gives you the right as a minority to tell the majority what they are going to do?

You, as a minority of the country have a right to move to a state where you have majorities of your kind of people that can determine how your state wants to live. In fact I see this as where we are headed, people get fed up with california so they move to states the believe are more free. So then when your more free state that doesn't support health care and doesn't want to participate in federal programs, your people will get unhappy at what the people of other states are getting and move back to a c****e socialist state. Your kid will get sick and you will move for the sake of your kids.

As far as I'm concerned ignorant people who don't want to live in democracy can move to red states, keep them red and under performing economically.

woodguru

You are absolutely correct there, the fact that people are free to switch when the majority loses it and is out of control is exactly why v****g has to be an absolutely protected right, and no minority can rig e******ns by suppression or e******n f***d.

The majority gets their chance to run things their way and if they go too far south of what that majority wants they will quickly become a minority. The majority cannot be allowed to rig things in their favor to where they still have control when they become a minority, which is exactly what has happened. When the minority that is the GOP starts making policies that are for and include more people they will be untouchable, right now they deserve to lose control and actually already should have. McConnell if flat breaking the rule book where democracy and the law is concerned.

Trump is rapidly swinging things the other way, he is the most unfit president this country has ever had.

The Critical Critic Loc: Turtle Island

I never figured you for a segregationist. You’re obviously triggered by something you know very little about. The “minority” doesn’t rule the “majority” - you seem to be pissed off that your “majority” can’t run roughshod over those you look down your nose at.

Lack of Knowledge Is a Dangerous Thing

Constitution Day—September 17—marks the anniversary of its 1787 signing. Students will be taught about it...but not because of its importance. It is now a mandatory topic for every educational institution receiving federal aid. However, what won’t be taught is the irony of that requirement, which originated from the man then-described as the Senate’s leading Constitutional scholar, while clearly conflicting with the Constitution.

In 2004, Senator Robert Byrd (D.-WV) added this requirement to a pork-filled spending bill that was blatantly inconsistent with Americans’ general welfare. It also clearly overstepped the 10th Amendment’s restriction of the federal government to only its enumerated powers.

His “solution” aside, Byrd was correct about Americans’ inadequate Constitutional knowledge. As one National Constitution Center poll concluded, only one in six of us claimed detailed knowledge of the Constitution—despite the fact that two-thirds said it was “absolutely essential” to have.

In other words, Americans know too little about our Constitution to maintain the freedoms it was designed to protect. Instead, our ignorance leads us to sacrificing rights out of undue deference to majority rule.

America’s Constitution did not endorse majority rule. Our founders did believe in v****g to select who should be entrusted with the power of government, but the more important and prior question they addressed was: “What powers do the people delegate to the federal government to exercise on their behalf?” That is why so much of the Constitution, particularly the Bill of Rights, is dev**ed to what the government is notallowed to do, regardless of majority sentiment. As Jefferson said, our founders fought not for democracy, but for a government “tied down from mischief by the chains of the Constitution.”

In fact, our founders had a great distrust of majority rule. Alexander Hamilton asserted that “Real liberty is not found in the extremes of democracy.” James Madison said “democracies…have ever been found incompatible with personal security or the rights of property; and have in general been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths.” Thomas Jefferson warned that “an elective despotism was not the government we fought for,” and that “The majority, oppressing an individual, is guilty of a crime, abuses its strength, and by acting on the law of the strongest breaks up the foundations of society.”

That is why the Constitution contains multiple non-majority rules to protect Americans against federal abuses, such as p**********l veto power and the super-majorities required to change the Constitution. Its defense is the rationale for the Supreme Court’s power to strike down unconstitutional laws, regardless of how many congressional v**es they received.

“Individual rights are not subject to a public v**e."

Despite our founders’ antipathy toward pure majority rule, many today feel that our founders’ opposition to unlimited democracy can be squared with political determination of everything by adding the phrase, “also protecting the rights of the minority.” However, as Ayn Rand put it, “Individual rights are not subject to a public v**e; a majority has no right to v**e away the rights of a minority; the political function of rights is precisely to protect minorities from oppression by majorities (and the smallest minority on earth is the individual).” Consequently, our lack of Constitutional knowledge means that believing in protecting the rights of minorities does not actually protect them when they are outv**ed.

Since Americans don’t clearly understand their Constitutional rights against government abuse, the unwise habit of deference to political majorities results in those rights being steamrollered whenever more than 50% v**e to do so. Examples are plentiful because—despite the Constitution’s imposition of strictly limited, enumerated federal powers—there is no area it does not now reach, if not dominate. And with our protections eroding, majority v****g controls more and more of what our founders thought they had made off-limits to political determination.

Sadly, as we can’t effectively defend what we are only vaguely aware of, American inattention to the highest law of the land puts our most essential rights and liberties at risk. We may think we have inalienable rights, as the Declaration of Independence asserts. But those rights are protected by the Constitution only if we know what they are and we remember that the federal government was not granted power to take them away based on any simple majority v**e. Unless we once again take our rights as seriously as our founders and vigorously defend the Constitutional safeguards that maintain them—even against majority pressures—the system of self-government our founders left us will continue to erode. But when we don’t even recognize the irony of a federal mandate to promote understanding of the Constitution, especially when it is inconsistent with the Constitution, we are unprepared to do anything to effectively preserve its protections against government abuse.

By: Gary M. Galles

(He is a professor of economics at Pepperdine University. His recent books include Faulty Premises, Faulty Policies (2014) and Apostle of Peace (2013).

archie bunker Loc: Texas

A democracy is three p*******es, and two mothers deciding the age of consent.
You seem to be a bit upset that California can't run the country.
Well, maybe the rest of the country doesn't care to dodge human excrement, rats, and panhandlers on their daily routine. They prolly don't want their kids stuck by a dirty needle while playing in the park either.
I would also guess that the majority of Americans don't want rat infestations, midevil diseases, and to beliving in tents.

Canuckus Deploracus Loc: North of the wall

Love it

rebob14

And that is the entire point!! The USA is, by design, a federation of sovereign states. That federation has only the power DELEGATED to it BY those states. The Constitution makes this very clear.

JoyV

It isn't an either or scenario. This is the same thinking which people on the left use to say if business is doing well, employees must be doing poorly. A republic does NOT mean the minority dictates to the majority. Nor that a majority dictate to the minority. Instead a republic means EVERY citizen is sovereign as an individual, not as a group. Every state is sovereign, not simply a region in the country.

Just because people in Idaho have a say in electing our president, does NOT mean people in California do not. Each state has an equal chance. So look beyond the knee jerk either/or.

JoyV

They don't. Neither minorities nor majorities have the right to dictate to everyone. There are more than two sides. than two colors, than two directions, than two religions, or two ideologies. Do you think if some place isn't due north of you it must therefore be due south? What happened to all the other directions? If you aren't atheist you must be Christian. What happened to Jewish; Islam; or Buddhist? Most of us do not live in a world where things are either black or white. That is a child's view.

JoyV

So you can avoid being an oppressed minority by moving to a state where you are not an oppressed minority? So what about those whose income is too low to afford to move? What about those whose job is dependent on living in the state where they are oppressed? What about those who can't find ANY state where their own ideals are the majority? And why should people's only avenue to avoid oppression be by leaving the state? And why do you think everyone needs to be either an oppressor or an oppressed?

Rose42

And yet...the left pushes the L**Tetcetc very small minority’s agenda on the rest of us. Not equal rights but special considerations.

Your grand pronouncement rings hollow.

crazylibertarian Loc: Florida by way of New York & Rhode Island

This is your opinion. Mine is that you are unfit to be an American.

son of witless

Gays and T*********rs were very very very tiny minorities, but under the Obama they were able to impose their beliefs on the majority.