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.
Majority rule is a terrible concept. Rule of law under the U.S. constitution is a great concept.
From what I see the Constitution points to the power of the Government being derived from the governed, and has it's basis in Lincolns' concept of "Government of, for, and by, the People"...what with the first words being..."We the People of the United States", NOT, "We Who are Drafting This Document containing The Rules"
The only way to actually facilitate "We the People" is by Majority Rule...since not everyone thinks alike. "We the People of the United States" is indicative of a "Majority Rule".
If we go by the strictest interpretation of The Constitution..."majority rule" through a vote by "the people" would be used as much as possible. That's why The Constitution indicates that is how we are to pick our Reps. They provided for Reps because there was no other way to do it at the time...and those Reps were supposed to mirror the majority of their constituency. With modern technology we CAN have a "We the People" system.
If anyone knows of an overall "more fair" way to do it than by "majority rule based on the results of an honest vote by The People" ...I challenge you to tell me about it. The way I see it...THAT'S the "Most Common Ground" you can get. So...let's hear it.
From what I see the Constitution points to the power of the Government being derived from the governed, and has it's basis in Lincolns' concept of "Government of, for, and by, the People"...what with the first words being..."We the People of the United States", NOT, "We Who are Drafting This Document containing The Rules"
The only way to actually facilitate "We the People" is by Majority Rule...since not everyone thinks alike. "We the People of the United States" is indicative of a "Majority Rule".
If we go by the strictest interpretation of The Constitution..."majority rule" through a vote by "the people" would be used as much as possible. That's why The Constitution indicates that is how we are to pick our Reps. They provided for Reps because there was no other way to do it at the time...and those Reps were supposed to mirror the majority of their constituency. With modern technology we CAN have a "We the People" system.
If anyone knows of an overall "more fair" way to do it than by "majority rule based on the results of an honest vote by The People" ...I challenge you to tell me about it. The way I see it...THAT'S the "Most Common Ground" you can get. So...let's hear it.
It's just important to recognize that we are governed by basic concepts which protect minorities from majorities. As long as some semblance of the constitution is in place the majority can't change the rules concerning this through a popular vote.
On the other hand - popular opinion sways politicians and the majority indeed has power but I don't think "Majority rule" describes what we have here in the U.S.
I guess, theoretically, a unified strong majority could vote out anyone who would refuse to change the constitution according to their desires.
I'm no political scholar though - just speaking off the cuff.
As far as common ground - how many of us agree on the following:
Universal Declaration
of Human Rights
As adopted by the United Nations General Assembly, December 10, 1948
Preamble
Whereas, recognition of the inherent dignity and of the equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family is the foundation of freedom, justice and peace in the world,
Whereas, disregard and contempt for human rights have resulted in barbarous acts which have outraged the conscience of mankind, and the advent of a world which human beings shall enjoy freedom of speech and belief and freedom from fear and want has been proclaimed as the highest aspiration of the common people,
Whereas, it is essential, if man is not to be compelled to have recourse, as a last resort, to rebellion against tyranny and oppression, that human rights should be protected by the rule of law,
Whereas, it is essential to promote the development of friendly relations between nations,
Whereas, the peoples of the United Nations have in the Charter reaffirmed their faith in fundamental human rights, in the dignity and worth of the human person and in the equal rights of men and women and have determined to promote social progress and better standards of life in larger freedom.
Whereas, Member States have pledged themselves to achieve, in cooperation with the United Nations, the promotion of universal respect for and observance of human rights and fundamental freedoms.
Whereas, a common understanding of these rights and freedoms is of the greatest importance for the full realization of this pledge,
Now, Therefore, the General Assembly proclaims this Universal Declaration of Human Rights as a common standard of achievement for all peoples and all nations, to the end that every individual and every organ of society, keeping this Declaration constantly in mind, shall strive by teaching and education to promote respect for these rights and freedoms and by progressive measures, national and international, to secure their universal and effective recognition and observance, both among the peoples of Member States themselves and among the peoples of territories under their jurisdiction.
Articles
ARTICLE 1. All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights. They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood.
ARTICLE 2. Everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration, without distinction of any kind, such as race, color, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status. Furthermore, no distinction shall be made on the basis of the political, jurisdictional or international status of the country or territory to which a person belongs, whether it be independent, trust, non-self governing or under any other limitation of sovereignty.
ARTICLE 3. Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person.
ARTICLE 4. No one shall be held in slavery or servitude; slavery and the slave trade shall be prohibited in all their forms.
ARTICLE 5. No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.
ARTICLE 6. Everyone has the right to recognition everywhere as a person before the law.
ARTICLE 7. All are equal before the law and are entitled without any discrimination to equal protection of the law. All are entitled to equal protection against any discrimination in violation of this Declaration and against any incitement to such discrimination.
ARTICLE 8. Everyone has the right to an effective remedy by the competent national tribunals for acts violating the fundamental rights granted him by the constitution or by law.
ARTICLE 9. No one shall be subjected to arbitrary arrest, detention or exile.
ARTICLE 10. Everyone is entitled in full equality to a fair and public hearing by an independent and impartial tribunal, in the determination of his rights and obligations and of any criminal charge against him.
It's just important to recognize that we are governed by basic concepts which protect minorities from majorities. As long as some semblance of the constitution is in place the majority can't change the rules concerning this through a popular vote.
On the other hand - popular opinion sways politicians and the majority indeed has power but I don't think "Majority rule" describes what we have here in the U.S.
I guess, theoretically, a unified strong majority could vote out anyone who would refuse to change the constitution according to their desires.
I'm no political scholar though - just speaking off the cuff.
As far as common ground - how many of us agree on the following:
Universal Declaration of Human Rights
As adopted by the United Nations General Assembly, December 10, 1948
Preamble
Whereas, recognition of the inherent dignity and of the equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family is the foundation of freedom, justice and peace in the world,
Whereas, disregard and contempt for human rights have resulted in barbarous acts which have outraged the conscience of mankind, and the advent of a world which human beings shall enjoy freedom of speech and belief and freedom from fear and want has been proclaimed as the highest aspiration of the common people,
Whereas, it is essential, if man is not to be compelled to have recourse, as a last resort, to rebellion against tyranny and oppression, that human rights should be protected by the rule of law,
Whereas, it is essential to promote the development of friendly relations between nations,
Whereas, the peoples of the United Nations have in the Charter reaffirmed their faith in fundamental human rights, in the dignity and worth of the human person and in the equal rights of men and women and have determined to promote social progress and better standards of life in larger freedom.
Whereas, Member States have pledged themselves to achieve, in cooperation with the United Nations, the promotion of universal respect for and observance of human rights and fundamental freedoms.
Whereas, a common understanding of these rights and freedoms is of the greatest importance for the full realization of this pledge,
Now, Therefore, the General Assembly proclaims this Universal Declaration of Human Rights as a common standard of achievement for all peoples and all nations, to the end that every individual and every organ of society, keeping this Declaration constantly in mind, shall strive by teaching and education to promote respect for these rights and freedoms and by progressive measures, national and international, to secure their universal and effective recognition and observance, both among the peoples of Member States themselves and among the peoples of territories under their jurisdiction.
Articles
ARTICLE 1. All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights. They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood.
ARTICLE 2. Everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration, without distinction of any kind, such as race, color, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status. Furthermore, no distinction shall be made on the basis of the political, jurisdictional or international status of the country or territory to which a person belongs, whether it be independent, trust, non-self governing or under any other limitation of sovereignty.
ARTICLE 3. Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person.
ARTICLE 4. No one shall be held in slavery or servitude; slavery and the slave trade shall be prohibited in all their forms.
ARTICLE 5. No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.
ARTICLE 6. Everyone has the right to recognition everywhere as a person before the law.
ARTICLE 7. All are equal before the law and are entitled without any discrimination to equal protection of the law. All are entitled to equal protection against any discrimination in violation of this Declaration and against any incitement to such discrimination.
ARTICLE 8. Everyone has the right to an effective remedy by the competent national tribunals for acts violating the fundamental rights granted him by the constitution or by law.
ARTICLE 9. No one shall be subjected to arbitrary arrest, detention or exile.
ARTICLE 10. Everyone is entitled in full equality to a fair and public hearing by an independent and impartial tribunal, in the determination of his rights and obligations and of any criminal charge against him.
From what I can see it's MOSTLY "Majority Rule" in the U.S. It's how we elect our leaders and determine our laws. Some officials are appointed...but they are appointed by the elected. All you hear about on "Capitol Hill" is "do they have the votes?" (to achieve the required MAJORITY)...to pass this or that Bill, or seat somebody.
Yeah, the UN wrote that Declaration a few years after WWII...then sanctioned and supported the Korean War a year and a half later. Alotta good all that talk about, "act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood" did. All that stuff is just a bunch of posturing...like writing something down and swearing to it ever assured compliance by all. It's conceptually wonderful...but words are cheap...deeds are what counts. Anything written by a small group of people only represents the views and wishes of that small group...and could never be considered the "most fair" way to determine policy or law. A bunch of "Rules" or "Declarations" put together by a few, may or may not represent the will of most of the people...it only represents how those few people think it should be. How "fair" is that?
I STILL haven't heard a "more fair" way than going with the majority after an honest poll of ALL the voters.
IMO...we don't need a Congress...we don't even need a Supreme Court. EVERYTHING possible should be presented on a C-Span type show for 30 days with presentations pro and con...then a 72 hour window where each citizen over 18 can vote their S.S.# by telephone or internet. With "The Will of The People" presiding. THAT'S the "most fair" way...anything else is less.
From what I can see it's MOSTLY "Majority Rule" in the U.S. It's how we elect our leaders and determine our laws. Some officials are appointed...but they are appointed by the elected. All you hear about on "Capitol Hill" is "do they have the votes?" (to achieve the required MAJORITY)...to pass this or that Bill, or seat somebody.
Yeah, the UN wrote that Declaration a few years after WWII...then sanctioned and supported the Korean War a year and a half later. Alotta good all that talk about, "act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood" did. All that stuff is just a bunch of posturing...like writing something down and swearing to it ever assured compliance by all. It's conceptually wonderful...but words are cheap...deeds are what counts. Anything written by a small group of people only represents the views and wishes of that small group...and could never be considered the "most fair" way to determine policy or law. A bunch of "Rules" or "Declarations" put together by a few, may or may not represent the will of most of the people...it only represents how those few people think it should be. How "fair" is that?
I STILL haven't heard a "more fair" way than going with the majority after an honest poll of ALL the voters.
IMO...we don't need a Congress...we don't even need a Supreme Court. EVERYTHING possible should be presented on a C-Span type show for 30 days with presentations pro and con...then a 72 hour window where each citizen over 18 can vote their S.S.# by telephone or internet. With "The Will of The People" presiding. THAT'S the "most fair" way...anything else is less.
What you're missing though is that 1 person can challenge a law as being unconstitutional even though 10 million people may have voted in the people who passed the law.
"Majority rule" without laws to confine the possibilities = "Mob rule".
I asked you about the Universal Declaration of Human rights. Are you in agreement with it? Is it common ground?
What you're missing though is that 1 person can challenge a law as being unconstitutional even though 10 million people may have voted in the people who passed the law.
"Majority rule" without laws to confine the possibilities = "Mob rule".
I asked you about the Universal Declaration of Human rights. Are you in agreement with it? Is it common ground?
What YOU'RE missing is even though a person challenged a law as being unconstitutional...it would STILL come down to a MAJORITY RULE based on how MOST of the Justices on the Supreme Court determined the issue. That's besides one having to consider The Constitution the "end all, and be all" as a "Rule of Law". I don't necessarily agree with all of it.
And what do you suggest is "the fairest" way to determine the "laws to confine the possibilities"? Some person, or group of people, that arbitrarily decide they know what is "best" for everyone, writes up a "Declaration" or "Constitution"...and says, "it is my/our opinion that this should be the law for EVERYONE"...and "that's that"? Or, let The People (EVERYONE) decide what is "best" for EVERYONE? The word "mob" has negative conotations...substitute "We the People" like the Constitution says...if that's the supposed "gold standard".
And as I said...The Universal Declaration of Human Rights is "conceptually wonderful". It would be great "Common Ground". It's getting/enforcing compliance that's the problem.
What is needed is a DMZ between religion and our government and schools.
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.
In a word....
