The constitution is in place to protect the minority from the majority.

[Robin Hood]

And in this whole gay marriage "debate", all I ever hear is that the people of California or other states that people voted to discriminate against gays voted in a majority to discriminate. All the talking heads must be a real stupid bunch because not once have I heard any of them say that it doesn't matter what the people voted on, the constitution is the constitution and it's there to protect people from mob rule. Which our founding fathers were all to familiar with.

Remember that at one time 80% of the population was for slavery. Did that make slavery right? No. Just because the public votes a certain way does not mean that it is constitutionally viable or right. And if we are not going to up hold the fundamentals of the Constitution, then we may as well start tearing this experiment down through violent madness.

A constitutional amendment that condones discrimination will be the end of this country as we know it.

In Germany they first came for the Communists,
and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Communist.
Then they came for the Jews,
and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Jew.
Then they came for the trade unionists,
and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a trade unionist.
Then they came for the Catholics,
and I didn't speak up because I was a Protestant.
Then they came for me -
and by that time no one was left to speak up.

Martin Niemoller

[Maat]

1. You're right.

and justices and judges are there to protect the minority also through case law (interpretion of the constitution/bill of rights in question). Right on!

[Elwood P Dowd]

2. Are you kidding?

The right wing judges are not going to protect anybody, unless it's their buds in the repuke party.

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article5646.htm

[Robin Hood]

3. If they can't uphold the fundamentals of the constitution.

Then it's up to the citizenry to string the bastards up.

[noiretextatique]

4. you're speaking figuratively, of course

and i agree with you. i was listening to elaine brown (only woman to head the black panther party) on c-span the other day and she was talking about the dismal history of the various struggles to wrest power away from those who reserved all rights for themselves when this country was first formed. a long and dismal history indeed. i think some forget about that and get lulled into the fantasy that everything's just fine and dandy now.
in my family's history, the opinion of "the majority of americans" rarely meant anything good.

[guitar man]

5. You bet it is!

You are damn right about the rights of the minority. We elect leaders to implement policy within the bounds of the Constitution.

I was listening to NPR on the way to work today and the subject was the gay marriage amendment. The host mentioned at the end of the show that the debate might shift from gay marriage to the Constitution itself. I think this would be a very good thing,since a lot of people I meet don't seem to understand the fundamentals of how it works and a "refresher" course might be in order for the general public these days.

I think if people realize that the majority in the US is NOT allowed to dictate what the rights of the minority are,it will make the $hrub* look like a gold-plated horse's ass.

A general open Constitutional debate may also bring the sinister reality of the Patriot Act to light and people will start to see the man behind the curtain instead of "The Wizard"

[Cronus Protagonist]

6. Bush's Dearest Wish Come True (pic)

http://bushspeaks.com/home.asp?did=160



Spread it around.... use the link above.


"FUCK BUSH" Buttons, Stickers & Magnets

[Lexingtonian]

7. it's not that easy

Even though the talking heads you've been hearing are wrong in a major way, there is a point there. Major institutional injustices tend only to get changed when a sufficiently large proportion of the population backs the change, even if the relevant Constitution(s) can be construed to be inconsistent withe perpetuation of such institutions much earlier. "Separate but equal" was in fact deemed just in Plessy v. Ferguson, then- some enormous number of demonstrations later- deemed injust in Brown v. Board of Education.

So the talking heads are really discussing where that tipping point in time and support is for The Changeover.

For example, I'm in Massachusetts and the state legislature is carefully watching the local polling on gay marriage and its trend in planning out their actions in the next couple of months. It's at 53% against/40% for and the 'against' maxed out at iirc 56/37 three weeks ago. If the trend of -1%/week were to hold up, on May 16 (the day before the Goodridge verdict judicial order goes into effect) each side would shift ~12% to a 41 against/52 for situation, which is a totally different place from the one in which debate began- very few of the oh-so-honorable Members would be pegging their vote on their sense of job prospects in the private sector. Some intermediate points (where one side falls under 50%, the one where they are equal in polling) are good fun too.

Oh, the Niemoeller quote. My people left that place and it is sort of painful to see it used in arguments about relative state-conferred privileges. People getting jailed, beaten, branded, beheaded, stoned, gassed, and machined gunned are not engaged in arguments about what the details of a Constitution are, they're engaged in an argument about whether people should bother with one at all if they're not going to respect its letter or spirit in the first place.

[izzie]

8. Well sure it is but

some people hate it if you do not think and do as they say so they keep trying to stop it. It is the point of the thing.