bripat9643
Diamond Member
- Apr 1, 2011
- 170,170
- 47,328
- 2,180
You still haven't defined "the rule of law." I thought it was so easy for you.
Gasoline is great for running your car. However, it's not so good for drinking. Just because a majority vote may be the only means we have of making some decisions, it doesn't follow that we should put everything to a majority vote, but that is currently the premise our government operates under. Goose steppers like Nazi Pelosi have stated in public that there is no sphere of society that isn't subject to legislation by Congress.
That isn't "the rule of law." It's tyranny.
Which word in "rule by law" is confusing you?
To pass legislation a proposal has to be accepted by a majority of the House and another majority in the Senate, then signed by the President, all of whom are elected by a majority of citizens.
What if that whole process goes haywire?
Could happen, I suppose.
What would reduce the odds?
Certainly not rule by minority. Certainly not rule without law. Certainly not a benevolent dictatorship or monarch.
What?
So majority rule is the rule of law? How about a lynch mob? Was Jim Crow "the rule of law?" slavery? How about when a majority in Athens forced Socrates to drink Hemlock?
You still haven't defined "the rule of law." All you've done is discuss the mechanics of mob rule. I suppose we are supposed to assume that is the equivalent.
Last edited: