True or False....?

[AVG-JOE]

Are we more, or less likely to believe that The Constitution is there to protect us if most everyone around us agrees with us?

What if things change?

If one finds themselves suddenly in the minority, are they more, or less likely to invoke the rights to their viewpoint as guaranteed by The Constitution?

 

[g5000]

"There are but two methods of providing against this evil: the one by creating a will in the community independent of the majority -- that is, of the society itself; the other, by comprehending in the society so many separate descriptions of citizens as will render an unjust combination of a majority of the whole very improbable, if not impracticable. The first method prevails in all governments possessing an hereditary or self-appointed authority. This, at best, is but a precarious security; because a power independent of the society may as well espouse the unjust views of the major, as the rightful interests of the minor party, and may possibly be turned against both parties. The second method will be exemplified in the federal republic of the United States."

 

[g5000]

"In a free government the security for civil rights must be the same as that for religious rights."

Holy fuck! Did our Founders actually say we must protect CIVIL RIGHTS!?!?!


Yes. Yes, they did.

 

[AVG-JOE]

The job of The United States Constitution is to protect minority views and lifestyles from Mob Democracy.

​

That's like saying the purpose of I 10 is to provide a concrete exit into Columbus, Texas. It's a bit more complex than that.

Granted.

True or False... ONE of the roles of The US Constitution is to protect minority views and lifestyles from Mob Democracy.

You're playing semantic games.
The 1A protects unpopular views and beliefs from government action. But that is hardly what you are saying.

No... that's EXACTLY what I'm saying. If Mob Democracy wants to ban a religion or a lifestyle, does the Constitution not overrule that ban, despite it's popularity?

 

[g5000]

"...by comprehending in the society so many separate descriptions of citizens..."

Beautiful, baby. Just...beautiful.

I mean COME ON!!! That's some ball kicking prescient shit right there.


Madison is my favorite Founder.

 

[AVG-JOE]

Limits it how?

Protecting minority views from the masses, or is it to protect the masses from minority views?

Neither one. It limits the power the federal government has over the individual, irrespective of what group the democrats have placed the individual into.

What you fail to grasp is that our Constitution is written around individual liberty, not the group privilege that you of the left seek as a substitute.

You're ass-u-me-ing that "The Federal Government" is something other than "the majority". It is the majority, and it changes regularly.

 

[AVG-JOE]

False.
Any other stupid questions?

Care to elaborate, or are childish insults going to remain the only proof of your character?

The question is so wrong headed and misinformed it's hard to know where to start.
Why is it libs only talk about "minority rights" when they lose elections. When they win it's "Elections have consequences."

Which has NOTHING to do with the role of The Constitution.

If not to protect the minorities from Mob Democracy, what?

Yes to protect the minorities as well as all Americans against government tyranny or dictator.
That is why we have all of our Amendments.
Now days we have minorities ruling over the Mob.

The people no longer rule, both parties do.

Which may be true, but it's a whole 'nother political question.

 

[norwegen]

Since the tards avoid empirical evidence which challenges their fragile belief systems at all costs, I will quote the relevant part of Federalist No. 51 for them.

SPOILER ALERT! IF YOU DON'T WANT YOUR STUPIDITY TO BE OVERRIDEN BY REALITY, SKIP THIS POST NOW!


Okay. Have the kids left the room?


Here it is:

It is of great importance in a republic not only to guard the society against the oppression of its rulers, but to guard one part of the society against the injustice of the other part. Different interests necessarily exist in different classes of citizens. If a majority be united by a common interest, the rights of the minority will be insecure. There are but two methods of providing against this evil:

The injustice of a majority renders insecure the rights of a minority.

You're off topic. The question in consideration are the views of the one part or the other.

 

[norwegen]

The job of The United States Constitution is to protect minority views and lifestyles from Mob Democracy.

​

False. Constitution didn't give a crap about minority views or actual minorities when it was written.

Amazingly enough, I agree with you. The Constitution merely protects rights, not views.

When Brian Williams said he was caught in a hail of enemy fire, his views were relentlessly and ruthlessly a subject of scorn by the great masses of us.

 

[Redfish]

The constitution guarantees EQUAL rights to all citizens. No special rights for minorities or majorities. The constitution does not provide constitutional rights to non-citizens or convicted criminals.

But we decide elections by majority vote, we enact laws by majority vote, we decide guilt or innocence by majority vote. Like it or not, the majority opinion prevails. That's what democracy is all about.

 

[Redfish]

The job of The United States Constitution is to protect minority views and lifestyles from Mob Democracy.

​

False. Constitution didn't give a crap about minority views or actual minorities when it was written.

Amazingly enough, I agree with you. The Constitution merely protects rights, not views.

When Brian Williams said he was caught in a hail of enemy fire, his views were relentlessly and ruthlessly a subject of scorn by the great masses of us.

'
Williams had the right to lie, he did not have the right to force anyone to accept his lies.

 

[Redfish]

Since the tards avoid empirical evidence which challenges their fragile belief systems at all costs, I will quote the relevant part of Federalist No. 51 for them.

SPOILER ALERT! IF YOU DON'T WANT YOUR STUPIDITY TO BE OVERRIDEN BY REALITY, SKIP THIS POST NOW!


Okay. Have the kids left the room?


Here it is:

It is of great importance in a republic not only to guard the society against the oppression of its rulers, but to guard one part of the society against the injustice of the other part. Different interests necessarily exist in different classes of citizens. If a majority be united by a common interest, the rights of the minority will be insecure. There are but two methods of providing against this evil:

The injustice of a majority renders insecure the rights of a minority.

You're off topic. The question in consideration are the views of the one part or the other.

Your first statement is simply wrong. Lets put it in the context of a trial. Does a majority guilty verdict take away the rights of those voting for acquittal? NO.

 

[Redfish]

The job of The United States Constitution is to protect minority views and lifestyles from Mob Democracy.

​

False. Constitution didn't give a crap about minority views or actual minorities when it was written.

Amazingly enough, I agree with you. The Constitution merely protects rights, not views.

When Brian Williams said he was caught in a hail of enemy fire, his views were relentlessly and ruthlessly a subject of scorn by the great masses of us.

'
Williams had the right to lie, he did not have the right to force anyone to accept his lies.

That comment also applies to Hillary Clinton and her lies about Benghazi, her e-mails, her foundation, and just about everything else.

 

[norwegen]

Since the tards avoid empirical evidence which challenges their fragile belief systems at all costs, I will quote the relevant part of Federalist No. 51 for them.

SPOILER ALERT! IF YOU DON'T WANT YOUR STUPIDITY TO BE OVERRIDEN BY REALITY, SKIP THIS POST NOW!


Okay. Have the kids left the room?


Here it is:

It is of great importance in a republic not only to guard the society against the oppression of its rulers, but to guard one part of the society against the injustice of the other part. Different interests necessarily exist in different classes of citizens. If a majority be united by a common interest, the rights of the minority will be insecure. There are but two methods of providing against this evil:

The injustice of a majority renders insecure the rights of a minority.

You're off topic. The question in consideration are the views of the one part or the other.

Your first statement is simply wrong. Lets put it in the context of a trial. Does a majority guilty verdict take away the rights of those voting for acquittal? NO.

Not a big enough context.

My right to my income is impinged when the masses petition the government to take part of it so they can have it.

 

[Redfish]

Since the tards avoid empirical evidence which challenges their fragile belief systems at all costs, I will quote the relevant part of Federalist No. 51 for them.

SPOILER ALERT! IF YOU DON'T WANT YOUR STUPIDITY TO BE OVERRIDEN BY REALITY, SKIP THIS POST NOW!


Okay. Have the kids left the room?


Here it is:

It is of great importance in a republic not only to guard the society against the oppression of its rulers, but to guard one part of the society against the injustice of the other part. Different interests necessarily exist in different classes of citizens. If a majority be united by a common interest, the rights of the minority will be insecure. There are but two methods of providing against this evil:

The injustice of a majority renders insecure the rights of a minority.

You're off topic. The question in consideration are the views of the one part or the other.

Your first statement is simply wrong. Lets put it in the context of a trial. Does a majority guilty verdict take away the rights of those voting for acquittal? NO.

Not a big enough context.

My right to my income is impinged when the masses petition the government to take part of it so they can have it.

Not if a majority in congress votes to raise your taxes. I am not supporting large intrusive government, but congress does have the power to raise taxes whether we like it or not.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

The constitution guarantees EQUAL rights to all citizens. No special rights for minorities or majorities. The constitution does not provide constitutional rights to non-citizens or convicted criminals.

Well we already lost those constitutional protections right there. Minorities are given special privileges for jobs--particularly government jobs. Hate Crime laws give special protection to potential Democrat voters (women, minorities, gays) so where is the equality?

If there were true equality, wouldn't we all be paying the same amount of federal taxes......or at the very least, the same percentage of taxes? Why do people with children get better tax breaks than those who don't have children?

There is true equality and opinion equality. We live in a country of opinion equality.

 

[Valerie]

wow, that's just brilliant.

ftr the original post i was responding to with this ^ is no longer on the forum..

someone said something about dead liberals iirc

 

[LordBrownTrout]

In essence, true – the Constitution ensures that all citizens are subject solely to the rule of law, not men; as men are incapable of ruling justly. Citizens rights are not subject to 'majority rule,' the 'will of the people' is devoid of authority to seek to violate citizens' protected liberties.

This premises fails.

 

[Uncensored2008]

True. Read Federalist No. 51, idiot.

Federalist 51 is part of the Constitution, Comrade?

The things one learns from Communists....

 

[Uncensored2008]

Are we more, or less likely to believe that The Constitution is there to protect us if most everyone around us agrees with us?

What if things change?

If one finds themselves suddenly in the minority, are they more, or less likely to invoke the rights to their viewpoint as guaranteed by The Constitution?

What one believes is irrelevant. The Constitution defines the duties and limitations of the federal government. The Constitution is a short document that anyone with a 5th grade reading level can easily understand.

The Bill of Rights, which the democrats are fighting to revoke, protect certain civil rights from predation by the government. These protections clash with the agenda of the democratic - socialist party, and are thus under attack. The founding fathers opposed democracy, as any sane person must.