Clarification/Follow-up by ETWolverine on 07/15/04 3:04 pm:
>>>A minority of one has all the rights listed in the Bill of Rights, plus every other right imaginable; with the exception of activities that interfere with any other persons right to enjoy his or her rights.<<<

Then so does the majority.

PLUS because we are living in a republic, the majority has the right to elect the officials that it votes for to represent them. They also have the right to vote to change the Constitution. A Constitutional Amendment requires a 2/3 vote of Congress, plus 2/3 of the States... but each state may individually be carried by a simple majority.

Thus, the majority have certain rights or abilities that the minority does NOT possess... until the minority can convice others to join their cause and become the majority.

Not quite sure what you are trying to get at here...

Elliot

Clarification/Follow-up by excon on 07/16/04 9:17 am:
Hello again, Tom:

>>>The Courts have restructured our political community without the consent of the people.<<<


The courts already have the consent of the people and don’t need to ask them whether they like every decision they make. We gave them that authority in the Constitution.

>>>a few dissenters can, and often do, use the courts to thwart the legislative intentions of those elected by majority vote.<<<

If the majority, through their elected representatives, votes a bill into law that tramples on the rights of any citizen, then one (not a few, but one) citizen (dissenter?) can sue. If the court determines that his rights were violated by the law, then that law will be struck down. Did the citizen do it? No. Did the court do it? No. Did the prosecutor do it? Did dissention do it? No. The system did it - the system we work under. It actually works pretty well.

>>>…by judges who are protected from the voters by lifetime appointments. <<<

The protection was set up so that the judges would be immune from political pressure. I don’t think that’s a bad idea, even though I think a guy like Scalia or Thomas would be voted out in a snap. You probably don’t think so, but isn’t it better for your side that they’re there for life?

excon

Clarification/Follow-up by tomder55 on 07/16/04 9:25 am:
excon ,

What restraints are there to prevent an imperial judiciary ?What safeguards are placed to prevent one ? Scalia has asked that question many times in his opinions .
This is not just Conservative griping either.
The liberal New Republic's Jeffrey Rosen said , "combine haughty declarations of judicial supremacy with contempt for the competing views of the political branches. The Rehnquist Court differs from the Warren Court only in that it prefers to follow conventional opinion rather than challenge it.... Rehnquist's achievement as Chief Justice has been to reconcile his liberal and conservative colleagues to the aggrandizement of the Supreme Court's power at the expense of Congress and the state legislatures." "the Court's passive-aggressive attitude toward public opinion is part of its strategic concern for its own institutional prerogatives above all." It is a major problem in the country today.

I would be remiss if I didn't quote a dead guy:

The candid citizen must confess that if the policy of the government upon vital questions affecting the whole people is to be irrevocably fixed by decisions of the Supreme Court;the people will have ceased to be their own rulers.

Abraham Lincoln, March 4, 1861

Clarification/Follow-up by excon on 07/16/04 9:39 am:

Hello again, Elliot:

>>>Then so does the majority.<<<

Cool. Then please direct me to the document that says so.

>>>Thus, the majority have certain rights or abilities that the minority does NOT possess<<<

I think you nailed it by saying the majority has “abilities”, which is certainly distinct from having “rights”.

excon

Clarification/Follow-up by ETWolverine on 07/16/04 9:48 am:
The same document that protects the rights of individuals or the minority protects the rights of the majority at the sam level.

>>>I think you nailed it by saying the majority has “abilities”, which is certainly distinct from having “rights”.<<<

If you have a large enough army, you have the ability to take over the world. That doesn't mean that you have the RIGHT to do it. In that sense, you are correct, rights and abilities are sepparate. But the Constitution guarantees that everyone has the right to vote, and that the majority wins. That is a RIGHT that is guaranteed by the Constitution. Not an 'ability', a right.

Elliot

Clarification/Follow-up by excon on 07/16/04 10:11 am:

Hello again Tom:

Ok, I give up. If the Supreme Court is the final arbiter of the Constitution, who is the final arbiter over the Supreme Court?

I don't know. The pres? No. Congress? No. The people? Yes, ultimately, but how? Revolution?

Let's put gade in charge.

excon

Clarification/Follow-up by tomder55 on 07/16/04 10:54 am:
It's easy to get confused ,and it is a debatable point. The founders did not design it the way it is today. In fact ;they deliniated the powers and responsibilities of the other branches pretty well ,but left the role of the judiciary vague/undefined. It wasn't until Marbury v Madison 1803(16 years after the Constitution was drafted) that the Supreme Court bestowed upon itself the 'final arbiter ' role it plays now. But there decisions have not always been 'Solomon 'wise . The Lincoln quote came after the horrible 'Dred Scott' decision.

To see haw far away from the Constitution the court has gone ,just look at the Lawrence V Texas decision .Did tthey even base it on Constitutional principle at all? I have my doubt when the majority opinion says :"A committee advising the British Parliament recommended in 1957 repeal of laws punishing homosexual conduct…Of even more importance, almost five years before Bowers (Bowers v. Hardwick )was decided the European Court of Human Rights considered a case with parallels to Bowers and to today’s case. … The court held that the laws proscribing the conduct were invalid under the European Convention on Human Rights..."

In other words ,a series of European decisions overruled American case law.It has taken power from the citizens and turned it over to itself, making the opinions of nine black-robed Caesars infinitely more important to the governing of America than the democratic will of the 280 million. "