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: Kevin Rose who wrote (544106)	2/23/2004 11:21:13 AM
From: redfish	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 769670

"For example, if rights were granted by the voting majority, right now only rich white folks would be voting..." I don't think that is true. The Civil Rights Act of 1964 was passed by a majority of Congress, and assuming that Congressmen voted as their constituents would want, in effect by the majority of the nation. Without it blacks would not have the right to eat at Dennys, use the bathroom there, etc.

To: Kevin Rose who wrote (544106)	2/23/2004 12:34:05 PM
From: Gordon A. Langston	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 769670

Do you think an Amendment can be voted out like Prohibition? Are the first 10 Amendments sacred? Actually the Bill of Rights was decided on by the majority, only the wording of the Declaration of Independence gives rise to the belief that they are unalieanble. When we have judicial interpretation it is majority rules, as in Bush v. Gore. I'm amazed that we have such a brouhaha over abortion "rights" and gay marriage "rights" and yet are unable to have any kind of consensus on what the Right to Keep and Bear Arms means. It's a lot more plainly written in the Constitution than the right to privacy or right to marry.