The Majority
- Thread starter PsyOps
- Start date
jrt_ms1995
Well-Known Member
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
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
Well-Known Member
So if 100% of the American people agree that the next American person to be born should be executed, that is "right"?
SamSpade
Well-Known Member
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 The Constitution is our highest law, and as such can't be superseded by another law.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.
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
Strung Out
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
No Use for Donk Twits
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
Well-Known Member
You're making less sense with every post.
PsyOps
Pixelated
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?
Last edited:
BOP
Well-Known Member
You're trying to reason with a progressive liberal. It can't be done as they have no capacity for it.
You have a better chance with the family cat.
PsyOps
Pixelated
We're not following the rules. We're allowing our government to pass laws that LIMIT rights. Certainly there are limits to rights (the old yelling 'fire' in a crowded theater). Where public safety is concerned, people should not be allowed to claim their rights when exercising those rights puts the general public at risk.
Owning guns does not do this. Owning my gun does not put anyone at risk. People that abuse guns put people at risk. We address violations to peoples' safety not from the standpoint of finding ways to limit the exercise of their rights. We address each individual as they commit crimes. A single person committing a crime does not dictate our government call for implementing laws that limits EVERYONE.
If you want to limit EVERYONE'S rights, repeal that existing right and pass a new amendment that bans that 'right'. Those are the RULES. This government is not doing that.