On Fri, 03 Jul 2009 16:33:01 -0500, John Galt <kady101 at (no spam) gmail.com
wrote:
Tyranny of the majority is then possible. If 50+1 were to decide that
all left-handers were to be killed off simply because the majority found
them annoying, would that be right?

To avoid this, the Framers recognized the primacy of the Constitution
OVER the democracy. The vote on a matter can be 99-1, but if the vote is
to violate a Constitutional principle, the Constitution wins.

Constitutional law always takes precedence over the popular vote.
Otherwise, you have chaos.

The Supreme Court is the arbiter of what is constitutional, and the
Supreme Court itself is a political institution. Given the lifetime
tenure of the justices, it just takes a little longer for the Court to
reflect the popular will.

And, of course, the Framers set out a procedure by which the
Constitution could be amended. Granted that it takes a supermajority.

Voters are not completely stupid or unreasonable. Therefore, something
like your scenario of killing left-handers is extremely far-fetched.

AGG wrote:

"John Galt" <kady101 at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote in message
news:YiH3m.333914$Tp1.321979 at (no spam) en-nntp-01.dc1.easynews.com...
Alexander Arnakis wrote:
On Fri, 03 Jul 2009 22:11:02 -0500, John Galt <kady101 at (no spam) gmail.com
wrote:

So you can envision a day when we won't have freedom of speech, or
religion, or assembly?

No. There's a general consensus about these things.

Today. But what you're suggesting is that if the popular opinion
changes, free speech or freedom of the press could acceptably be
restricted in ways that today we would reject without concern to the
Constitution.

I have to reject this view categorically. Without a Constitution that
his adhered to, you have nothing more than mob rule. You just get to
elect the your dictators every four years. Big deal.


***We certainly have an imperialist in office now!!

Yea, we do. The Honduran thing is quite telling.

If you believe that the Constitution is the nonnegotiable law of the land,
as the Framers did, then a popular revolt or a military takeover can be
both moral and legal.

OTOH, if you believe that the Constitution contains guidelines which do
and should move according to popular opinion (sans amendment), then any
democratically elected leader can argue that they have the right to do
whatever they believe to be best for the nation, regardless of the law, on
the basis of that belief.

Clearly, before this President is done, there is going to be at least one
instance of a major initiative of his that will be struck down by the
SCOTUS. He is on a collision course with the Constitution; FDR was in
power for 2 1/2 years before the SCOTUS struck down the first of his
initiatives; these things take time, but they do happen.

But, more broadly, of course an Imperial President will make the argument
that his election gives him a broad mandate to set aside law and do what
he things is best.

argument all the time, when they say "we won" in the context of the need
for bipartisanship. The last thing he wants to think about (like Nixon) is
the reality that he too must obey the Constitution, and he will push the
limits of it until he is either reined in by the SCOTUS, states begin to
move towards secession, or their is blood in the streets.

As another note, I am told that the wait period to take delivery of
military-use rifles and machine guns at our local big box sporting goods
store is now up to six months. American is arming for a reason.

JG

Iran holds elections on schedule. So does North Korea. So did the
former Soviet Bloc countries. That doens't make them not abusive!
Alex, you really DO have a thing for dictatorships and iron-fisted
rule.

No, the presupposition for my comment was that the elections would be

The test of the validity of a government is the freedom of the
people under it, NOT its ability to hold elections!

The holding of honest and timely elections is a guarantee that abuses

On 4 Jul 2009 20:42:23 GMT, Stephen Adams <adamst at (no spam) no.spam> wrote:
Iran holds elections on schedule. So does North Korea. So did the
former Soviet Bloc countries. That doens't make them not abusive!
Alex, you really DO have a thing for dictatorships and iron-fisted
rule.

No, the presupposition for my comment was that the elections would be
honest as well as on schedule.

The test of the validity of a government is the freedom of the
people under it, NOT its ability to hold elections!

The holding of honest and timely elections is a guarantee that abuses
would be corrected. The people get to decide what degree of "freedom"
they want to have, considering that sometimes "freedom" has to be
balanced against social order and good government (in the "POGG"
British Victorian colonial government sense). If you have complete
"freedom," you also have complete anarchy.

The situation in Greece,
for example, has come to resemble the anarchistic model. As someone
has said, "everything is prohibited, yet everything is permitted." The
government doesn't have the balls to enforce its own laws, and as a
result the citizenry can't be sure of its security, can't conduct
business under a set of predictable rules, etc., etc. That's no way to
live.

On 4 Jul 2009 20:42:23 GMT, Stephen Adams <adamst at (no spam) no.spam> wrote:

Iran holds elections on schedule. So does North Korea. So did the
former Soviet Bloc countries. That doens't make them not abusive!
Alex, you really DO have a thing for dictatorships and iron-fisted
rule.

No, the presupposition for my comment was that the elections would be
honest as well as on schedule.

The test of the validity of a government is the freedom of the
people under it, NOT its ability to hold elections!

The holding of honest and timely elections is a guarantee that abuses
would be corrected.

The people get to decide what degree of "freedom"
they want to have, considering that sometimes "freedom" has to be
balanced against social order and good government (in the "POGG"
British Victorian colonial government sense).

If you have complete "freedom," you also have complete anarchy.

"John Galt" <kady101 at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote in message
news:C404m.276328$fo6.11200 at (no spam) en-nntp-09.dc1.easynews.com...
Alexander Arnakis wrote:
On Sat, 04 Jul 2009 16:29:33 -0500, John Galt <kady101 at (no spam) gmail.com
wrote:
Of course it could. The military is sworn to uphold the Constitution
(first oath) and obey the POTUS (second oath). If (as happened in
Honduras) the judicial branch rules that the President has gone off
the reservation, you "uphold the Constitution" by removing the SOB.

No, because the Constitution provides for the exclusive method of
removing the President -- impeachment by the House and conviction by
the Senate. The armed forces don't have a role in this. I have no idea
what the Honduran constitution provides, nor is it relevant here.

There is always the possibility that the House and the Senate are
populated by fellow-travelers with the POTUS.


***WOW! This is the biggest friggin' understatement since inauguration
day!!

Never let it be said that a congressperson who will vote for something
without reading it is upholding their oath of office.

Sometimes this just isn't possible. A piece of complex legislation can

She's ridiculous.

Pelosi is good at using the levers of power. It's about time that the

On Sun, 05 Jul 2009 20:10:12 -0500, John Galt <kady101 at (no spam) gmail.com
wrote:
She's ridiculous.

Pelosi is good at using the levers of power.