Which is better?

[Redfish]

thanks for the comments so far. a couple of you get it, but most do not.

this country was founded to get away from minority rule under kings and dictators. We formed a republic that protects the rights of everyone, including minorities, BUT elects its leaders and decides on its laws based on what the majority wants.

Today we seem to be going overboard in minority wiew protection while ignoring the views of the majority.

"Protection of" and "rule by" are two completely different things. Which one is your point?

If you believe we were founded to get away from minority rule, then according to Katz, we're based on "mob rule". Doesn't make sense to me either but he has yet to explain it.

why is this so hard for you? the constitution protects minority rights but it does not give them precedence over majority rights.

we make our laws and elect our leaders by majority vote.

currently we have allowed the liberal view to override the constitution. We are rapidly moving to a system of minority rule, exactly what the founders came here to get away from.

 

[Foxfyre]

majority rules or minority rules. there is no other option in human civilization, so which is it?

comments please.

Democracy yields to the will of the majority. But a just and honorable democracy, as the Founders intended it, acknowledges and protects unalienable rights of the individual, the minority, and the majority.

So the country they envisioned would be a Democracy--the people would choose their society themselves via majority vote--however, no majority would have the ability to impose its will on a minority in a way that did not equally affect the majority. And it would be a Democratic Republic with the people choosing leaders to administrate the process.

In other words, no minority should be able to dictate to the whole. But whatever the majority votes for, ALL the majority must share equally in the consequences. The majority must never be allowed to exempt itself from whatever it imposes on the whole. And there was an extra layer of intent within the originally intended process, that each state would be its own majority and would determine what sort of society or societies it would be and no other state would have any say about that.

Any other system is tyranny.

 

[boedicca]

The two choices are not the only ones.

We actually have a properly designed system: a rule of law in which a majority is able to decide while respecting minority rights.

It's a shame that the anti-Constitutionalists have done so much damage to it.

 

[editec]

majority rules or minority rules. there is no other option in human civilization, so which is it?

comments please.

What, in each and ever case?

Must be nice to think the world is so easily understood.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Redfish, everyone please remember, certainly does not reflect the majority opinion and only that of a very small portion of the minority.

His right to opine is protected by the Constitution, as well as is everyone else's in that they have the right to tell him to get stuffed.

 

[Redfish]

Redfish, everyone please remember, certainly does not reflect the majority opinion and only that of a very small portion of the minority.

His right to opine is protected by the Constitution, as well as is everyone else's in that they have the right to tell him to get stuffed.

LOL, as usual snake jockey attacks the poster rather than addressing the question. As to who represents the majority view, I am center right on 99% of the issues facing us today. You seem to be far left, so I think it realistic to say that I represent the majority view and you are in the far left minority.

respecting minority rights is a basic tenet of our constitution, but that does not mean that the minority can force its views on the majority as our current administration is trying to do.

 

[Redfish]

The two choices are not the only ones.

We actually have a properly designed system: a rule of law in which a majority is able to decide while respecting minority rights.

It's a shame that the anti-Constitutionalists have done so much damage to it.

protecting minority rights does not mean giving them precedence over majority rights. that is the issue.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Redfish, everyone please remember, certainly does not reflect the majority opinion and only that of a very small portion of the minority.

His right to opine is protected by the Constitution, as well as is everyone else's in that they have the right to tell him to get stuffed.

LOL, as usual snake jockey attacks the poster rather than addressing the question. As to who represents the majority view, I am center right on 99% of the issues facing us today. You seem to be far left, so I think it realistic to say that I represent the majority view and you are in the far left minority.

respecting minority rights is a basic tenet of our constitution, but that does not mean that the minority can force its views on the majority as our current administration is trying to do.

No attack there. We have the right to opine about you as you do about whatever.

The great majority seem far left to you because you are so far right and or libertarian.

Your minority right is respected, and if your right were Constitutional, yes, it could be forced on the majority.

 

[Redfish]

Redfish, everyone please remember, certainly does not reflect the majority opinion and only that of a very small portion of the minority.

His right to opine is protected by the Constitution, as well as is everyone else's in that they have the right to tell him to get stuffed.

LOL, as usual snake jockey attacks the poster rather than addressing the question. As to who represents the majority view, I am center right on 99% of the issues facing us today. You seem to be far left, so I think it realistic to say that I represent the majority view and you are in the far left minority.

respecting minority rights is a basic tenet of our constitution, but that does not mean that the minority can force its views on the majority as our current administration is trying to do.

No attack there. We have the right to opine about you as you do about whatever.

The great majority seem far left to you because you are so far right and or libertarian.

Your minority right is respected, and if your right were Constitutional, yes, it could be forced on the majority.

you mischaracterize my views. I am about individual freedom and individual responsibility. I do not want to force my views on you or have you force your views on me----or worse yet, have the government force either of our views on the other one.

 

[JakeStarkey]

LOL, as usual snake jockey attacks the poster rather than addressing the question. As to who represents the majority view, I am center right on 99% of the issues facing us today. You seem to be far left, so I think it realistic to say that I represent the majority view and you are in the far left minority.

respecting minority rights is a basic tenet of our constitution, but that does not mean that the minority can force its views on the majority as our current administration is trying to do.

No attack there. We have the right to opine about you as you do about whatever.

The great majority seem far left to you because you are so far right and or libertarian.

Your minority right is respected, and if your right were Constitutional, yes, it could be forced on the majority.

you mischaracterize my views. I am about individual freedom and individual responsibility. I do not want to force my views on you or have you force your views on me----or worse yet, have the government force either of our views on the other one.

We live in a constitutional republic of laws that accommodates majority and minority.

So you will abide, and I hope be of good cheer.

 

[hazlnut]

majority rules or minority rules. there is no other option in human civilization, so which is it?

comments please.

"There is no other option in human civilization" -- You should come visit the United States.

Majority rules, minority rights.

 

[Foxfyre]

thanks for the comments so far. a couple of you get it, but most do not.

this country was founded to get away from minority rule under kings and dictators. We formed a republic that protects the rights of everyone, including minorities, BUT elects its leaders and decides on its laws based on what the majority wants.

Today we seem to be going overboard in minority wiew protection while ignoring the views of the majority.

"Protection of" and "rule by" are two completely different things. Which one is your point?

If you believe we were founded to get away from minority rule, then according to Katz, we're based on "mob rule". Doesn't make sense to me either but he has yet to explain it.

I don't agree that majority rule is mob rule though. Not when we have a Constitution that acknowledges and protects the unalienable rights of the individual. As long as everybody's unalienable rights are recognized and protected, then the ONLY logical way to decide on policy or what sort of society we will have HAS to depend on the majority vote.

When you protect unalienable rights, the majority cannot force upon the minority any policy or concept or process that does not apply to all equally, including all those in the majority.

So if the majority votes to have a traffic light in their community, the majority is just as subject to the dictates and consequences of that light as is the minority who might have opposed it.

If the majority votes to make public buildings smoke free, nobody in the majority can smoke any more than can the minority who might have opposed the regulation.

Under the Constitution, theoretically the majority cannot vote for the minority to get a benefit that the majority does not get; nor can the majority vote for a minority to pay more in taxes or be subject to other laws that do not apply to the majority. And it is HERE that we start running into serious conflicts and divisiveness in our country because so many are unable to grasp that simple principle.

 

[Redfish]

thanks for the comments so far. a couple of you get it, but most do not.

this country was founded to get away from minority rule under kings and dictators. We formed a republic that protects the rights of everyone, including minorities, BUT elects its leaders and decides on its laws based on what the majority wants.

Today we seem to be going overboard in minority wiew protection while ignoring the views of the majority.

"Protection of" and "rule by" are two completely different things. Which one is your point?

If you believe we were founded to get away from minority rule, then according to Katz, we're based on "mob rule". Doesn't make sense to me either but he has yet to explain it.

I don't agree that majority rule is mob rule though. Not when we have a Constitution that acknowledges and protects the unalienable rights of the individual. As long as everybody's unalienable rights are recognized and protected, then the ONLY logical way to decide on policy or what sort of society we will have HAS to depend on the majority vote.

When you protect unalienable rights, the majority cannot force upon the minority any policy or concept or process that does not apply to all equally, including all those in the majority.

So if the majority votes to have a traffic light in their community, the majority is just as subject to the dictates and consequences of that light as is the minority who might have opposed it.

If the majority votes to make public buildings smoke free, nobody in the majority can smoke any more than can the minority who might have opposed the regulation.

Under the Constitution, theoretically the majority cannot vote for the minority to get a benefit that the majority does not get; nor can the majority vote for a minority to pay more in taxes or be subject to other laws that do not apply to the majority. And it is HERE that we start running into serious conflicts and divisiveness in our country because so many are unable to grasp that simple principle.

well said, you have captured the essence of the problem that the USA is in the middle of today. We have minority views that are being given rights beyond the rights of the rest of the population. affirmative is but one glaring example of the unequal treatment of our citizens.

when the minority view is given precedence, then you have anarchy.

it is a basic tenet of this nation to protect minority rights, but it is also basic that no one is entitled to more rights than anyone else.

 

[JakeStarkey]

The government that protects minority rights creates the environment of continuing civilization.

 

[Redfish]

majority rules or minority rules. there is no other option in human civilization, so which is it?

comments please.

"There is no other option in human civilization" -- You should come visit the United States.

Majority rules, minority rights.

OK,, one more time for the thick headed------------a majority voted to set up minority rights.

 

[Redfish]

The government that protects minority rights creates the environment of continuing civilization.

Yes, see my previous post. It amazes me that this is so hard for you to grasp

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

majority rules or minority rules. there is no other option in human civilization, so which is it?

comments please.

Neither.

Our Constitutional Republic is the most desirable form of government, where citizens are subject to the rule of law, not men – as men are incapable of ruling justly.

Our rights are inalienable, they can be neither taken nor bestowed by any government, constitution, or man.

Consequently, one’s rights are not subject to majority rule, the majority does not determine whether one will have his rights or not, and one does not forfeit his rights as a consequence of his jurisdiction of residence.

The people are required, through either elected representatives or referenda, to enact measures that conform to Constitutional case law, and failing to do so, such measures offensive to the Constitution, are to be invalidated by the courts.

 

[Wry Catcher]

majority rules or minority rules. there is no other option in human civilization, so which is it?

comments please.

The rule of law.

[btw, you've forgotten the supermajority rule and the ability of one Senator to hold up the entire chamber. How does one comport those issues?

 

[whitehall]

The majority is always right because .....duh....The Constitution says so.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

thanks for the comments so far. a couple of you get it, but most do not.

this country was founded to get away from minority rule under kings and dictators. We formed a republic that protects the rights of everyone, including minorities, BUT elects its leaders and decides on its laws based on what the majority wants.

Today we seem to be going overboard in minority wiew protection while ignoring the views of the majority.

"Protection of" and "rule by" are two completely different things. Which one is your point?

If you believe we were founded to get away from minority rule, then according to Katz, we're based on "mob rule". Doesn't make sense to me either but he has yet to explain it.

I don't agree that majority rule is mob rule though. Not when we have a Constitution that acknowledges and protects the unalienable rights of the individual. As long as everybody's unalienable rights are recognized and protected, then the ONLY logical way to decide on policy or what sort of society we will have HAS to depend on the majority vote.

When you protect unalienable rights, the majority cannot force upon the minority any policy or concept or process that does not apply to all equally, including all those in the majority.

So if the majority votes to have a traffic light in their community, the majority is just as subject to the dictates and consequences of that light as is the minority who might have opposed it.

If the majority votes to make public buildings smoke free, nobody in the majority can smoke any more than can the minority who might have opposed the regulation.

Under the Constitution, theoretically the majority cannot vote for the minority to get a benefit that the majority does not get; nor can the majority vote for a minority to pay more in taxes or be subject to other laws that do not apply to the majority. And it is HERE that we start running into serious conflicts and divisiveness in our country because so many are unable to grasp that simple principle.

Likely because the bolded makes no sense.