Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: SecularBull who wrote (544091)	2/23/2004 11:18:14 AM
From: Kevin Rose	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 769670

Rights, by definition, are not decided by the majority, but protected by the Constitutional framework. Privileges are subject to legislation, politics, and thus, majority rules. Rights can be restricted in certain cases, for the good of the whole, like yelling fire in a crowded theater. Still, that is decided by judicial interpretation, and not majority rules. If it were otherwise, a good number of people would not have their 'inalienable' rights. For example, if rights were granted by the voting majority, right now only rich white folks would be voting...

To: SecularBull who wrote (544091)	2/23/2004 11:43:48 AM
From: cnyndwllr	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 769670

SecularBull, your question of "how else...are" rights defined if not by the majority, seems to reveal an ignorance of the very foundation for a free society. The role of the courts in American democracy was established by some very bright men. They understood that the majority can act in ways that are intolerable to the freedoms and liberties that they held dear. They gave the courts the power, and the obligation, to protect certain individual rights, FROM THE MAJORITY, and they set criteria to define the kinds of rights they were talking about in the Constitution and the Bill Of Rights. Subsequent courts have further defined the kinds of rights and liberties that are subjected to the will of the majority only when a COMPELLING STATE INTEREST is involved. In those instances the individual's right or liberty can be interfered with no more than necessary to achieve the compelling state interest. This is necessary so that we can have true freedom to live our lives the way we want, rather than the way the religiously righteous or morally "right" majorities would have us live them. Remember that many of our founding fathers had fled the yoke of strong religious oppression and distrusted the "benevolence" of those that "know what's good for you." This is an unpopular role that the courts must play. It is, however, as important a role in a free society as the role played when we cast our ballots. The fact is that most of those in power are in a perpetual state of low level attack against the courts. I don't find that surprising since without courts they would have few limits on the exercise of their power. What I do find surprising is that so many who are protected by the court's rulings are so gullible that they align themselves with the powerful anti-court lobby. Maybe we all should pay more attention to the U.S. Constitution and learn the logic and wisdom behind the separation of powers it established.