Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I was refering to the apparent ability of people or groups of people in the minority getting laws,elections etc overturned once the majority had leaglly voted on the question
That's the reason we have the courts. To protect minority rights, no matter what laws get passed.
Yes but what you guys are saying doesn't hold true as far as income taxes and with the recent election it has become clear the the majority can take money away from the richest few people and divide it amongst themselves. You can also think about eminent domain. Where did the constitution draw the line on this subject?
There is actually a system of lines in place, called the Substantive Due Process. It is recognized that the will of the majority will clash with individuals' interests, and so there is formula for achieving a balance, which goes like this:
First, we determine what interest is at issue and whether it is a "fundamental right". For example, courts have held that the freedom of interstate travel is a fundamental right. By contrast, international travel is an interest, perhaps a legitimate one, but it does not rise to the level of a fundamental right.
Next step: if what is at issue is a fundamental right, then the government (i.e., the majority) can abridge it only by "narrowly-tailored means" and only in order to achieve a "compelling" governmental objective. Thus, a law that abridges an individual's fundamental right is presumed unconstitutional, though the presumption is rebuttable. In other words, it's not like the majority can never trump individual rights -- but almost never. This is called "strict scrutiny".
If, on the other hand, what is at issue is not a fundamental right, then the majority can frustrate that interest as long as the means are rationally related to a legitimate government objective. (Notice the difference from the previous standard: narrowly-tailored means versus rationally related means, compelling objective versus legitimate objective.) A law that abridges an interest that's not a fundamental right is presumed constitutional, and the burden is on the individual to prove that it's not. This is called "rational basis review". Again, it's the flip side of strict scrutiny: it's not like the individual can never trump the majority in such cases -- but almost never.
Then there is the "intermediate scrutiny" (which applies to sexual and reproductive rights), in which individual interests can be frustrated only for the sake of important government interests by substantially related means. (Again, note the differences: narrowly tailored means versus substantially related means versus rationally related means; compelling governmental objective versus important governmental objective versus legitimate governmental objective.)
In other words, it's complicated, and determined on a case-by-case basis, balancing all the competing interests and needs.
----------------------------------------------------------
The Founding Fathers were actually not too fond of the Athenian-style democracy. The pure majority rule was criticized since the time of antiquity (by Socrates, no less) as the rule of the mob. Later generations constructed a myth of primacy around Athens, but in fact, it was not the only form of democracy that existed in ancient Greece, and later scholars did look elsewhere for models (to Sparta, for example). The Founding Fathers also appear to have been greatly influenced by Machiavelli's idea of the perfect republic: a balanced mix of democracy (rule of the masses), aristocracy (rule of the best), and monarchy (rule of one).
Okay for one thing the United States of America is not a democracy. We are a federal constitutional republic. There is no majority makes the rules here, the way it is suppose to work is we vote for people to represent us and let them make the laws.
We have a tendency to protect the individuals rights, even if it goes against what the majority of people want. While this may seem unfair, it is the way our system works. This is why I believe that eventually gay and lesbian couples will be allowed to get married (I don't have a problem with civil unions myself, I just don't like them using the term married, it bugs me).
So, in the end, I think individual rights takes precedence over majority rule, and in most cases I agree with it.
The courts have to protect individual rights, otherwise, you'd have the majority telling minorities (like gays) what they can or cannot do. I don't think the majority should be doing that, any more than a minority telling the majority what to do.
I'm gay and live in Massachusetts where we can marry. I'm curious - why does using the term "married" bug you?
So then it's ok for the courts to overturn a decision of majority based on the will of the smaller group???????????
Yes, of course. The majority cannot be telling a minority how to live their lives, as long as it does not affect them.
Gay marriage, for example, affects no one but the couple, their family and their friends.
If it's something that affects everyone, like, say, some group going around stealing and killing peoples' pets for some religious reason, that's different. Then, the minority group of pet killers should be told they can't do that because it affects a lot of people.
So then it's ok for the courts to overturn a decision of majority based on the will of the smaller group???????????
That's right. Not only is it "ok" -- it's enshrined in the US Constitution. This is the very purpose for which the Constitution establishes the judicial branch.
so then you all did not object to the courts decision to award mr. Bush his office????????
No, as the courts were correct. Bush got the electoral votes.
However, I do think we should get rid of the electoral college.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
