The Majority

[PsyOps (Premo)]

Even if 100% of the people believed a law should be passed that subverted the constitution, should that law still be passed?

[jrt_ms1995]

Originally Posted by PsyOps

Even if 100% of the people believed a law should be passed that subverted the constitution, should that law still be passed?

Even if they do, and even if it is, it is still unconstitutional (not that that has meant squat in the past) unless the Constitution is amended. And that wouldn't necessarily make it right, just constitutional.

But one of the primary duties of our elected representatives in our republic is (was? certainly not how they act today) to protect the minority from the will of the majority, so, to directly answer your question, no, it shouldn't be passed.

[tommyjo]

Originally Posted by jrt_ms1995

Even if they do, and even if it is, it is still unconstitutional (not that that has meant squat in the past) unless the Constitution is amended. And that wouldn't necessarily make it right, just constitutional.

But one of the primary duties of our elected representatives in our republic is (was? certainly not how they act today) to protect the minority from the will of the majority, so, to directly answer your question, no, it shouldn't be passed.

Psyops...in his silly hypothetical referenced a 100% majority.

In your silly reply, you said elected representatives are there to protect the minority.

Um...there is no minority if the majority includes 100% of the population!

To take your silly reply in response to Psyops silly hypo further...if 100% agree...then the amendment would pass...if 100% agree...then by definition the majority would be "right".

I think this concept of "all" vs "none" is learned by most people before kindergarten

[Gilligan (Premo)]

Originally Posted by tommyjo

Psyops...in his silly hypothetical referenced a 100% majority.

In your silly reply, you said elected representatives are there to protect the minority.

Um...there is no minority if the majority includes 100% of the population!

To take your silly reply in response to Psyops silly hypo further...if 100% agree...then the amendment would pass...if 100% agree...then by definition the majority would be "right".

I think this concept of "all" vs "none" is learned by most people before kindergarten

Is there any day of a week ...or month...or year...that you don't wake up intending to be the nastiest person on the planet? Obviously, today was not that day. Neither was yesterday.

Just curious.

[jrt_ms1995]

Originally Posted by tommyjo

Psyops...in his silly hypothetical referenced a 100% majority.

In your silly reply, you said elected representatives are there to protect the minority.

Um...there is no minority if the majority includes 100% of the population!

To take your silly reply in response to Psyops silly hypo further...if 100% agree...then the amendment would pass...if 100% agree...then by definition the majority would be "right".

I think this concept of "all" vs "none" is learned by most people before kindergarten

So if 100% of the American people agree that the next American person to be born should be executed, that is "right"?

[SamSpade]

If it subverts the Constitution? No. And if passed, it needs to be struck down by the Supreme Court. The Constitution is our highest law, and as such can't be superseded by another law.

However - if it doesn't - no matter how stupid the law is, it represents the will of the people and therefore should be law.

[Larry Gude (Premo)]

Originally Posted by PsyOps

Even if 100% of the people believed a law should be passed that subverted the constitution, should that law still be passed?

Of course.

Right after the amendment process is completed which would be rather brief given 100% support.

The point, as you know, is the RULES. Follow the rules, follow the process, and we can do whatever we like.

[cwo_ghwebb]

Originally Posted by Gilligan

Is there any day of a week ...or month...or year...that you don't wake up intending to be the nastiest person on the planet? Obviously, today was not that day. Neither was yesterday.

Just curious.

I have no clue who this person is, and really don't care to meet them. But SILLY does describe their posts.

[BOP]

Originally Posted by tommyjo

Psyops...in his silly hypothetical referenced a 100% majority.

In your silly reply, you said elected representatives are there to protect the minority.

Um...there is no minority if the majority includes 100% of the population!

To take your silly reply in response to Psyops silly hypo further...if 100% agree...then the amendment would pass...if 100% agree...then by definition the majority would be "right".

I think this concept of "all" vs "none" is learned by most people before kindergarten

You're making less sense with every post.

[PsyOps (Premo)]

Originally Posted by tommyjo

Psyops...in his silly hypothetical referenced a 100% majority.

In your silly reply, you said elected representatives are there to protect the minority.

Um...there is no minority if the majority includes 100% of the population!

To take your silly reply in response to Psyops silly hypo further...if 100% agree...then the amendment would pass...if 100% agree...then by definition the majority would be "right".

I think this concept of "all" vs "none" is learned by most people before kindergarten

So “all men are created EQUAL” doesn’t fit into your little idealistic prism? The minority should be protected, and that at the expense of everyone else.

My silly hypothetical is just that, a hypothetical. Of course if 100% agreed an amendment would pass with no problem. My hypothetical also assumes no amendment was proposed, but rather laws are simply passed that subvert the constitution.

The point is, we seem to have a majority of people that agree that guns need to be controlled. Because the majority agree with this, devoid of a constitutional amendment to repeal the 2nd, does that mean the constitution should still be ignored? If this is a defined, born right, should we still recognize laws that subvert those rights?

If the second amendment was repealed, would that still mean owning guns is no longer a right? Abortion is not specifically mentioned in our constitution, yet we recognize the right of a woman to have an abortion. There are many rights that aren’t mentioned in the constitution that we are comfortable with respecting and allowing.

Do you – ToJo – recognize abortion (the destruction of a human life) as a RIGHT to be protected, even though it isn’t specifically mentioned in our constitution; yet deny that owning firearms – even though specifically mentioned in the constitution – is not a protected right? And that right limited to what the majority might think should be banned?