Civils rights versus democracy...

Justforfun000 · Post by **Justforfun000** » 2005-09-01 09:02pm

I've been debating this guy for quite a while now on SpaceBattles. I've pretty well worn him into the ground on most things, but this was the last thing he said and I would like some opinions on this. It's probably the most intelligent thing he's said and I want some perspectives before I respond....

Quote:
Originally Posted by justforfun000
But like I have said, some things do not need to be judged by that court. We have grown up enough to have the ability to recognize what should and shouldn't be a basis for discrimination.
I never said it was a BAD tool either! I'm certainly not advocating communism or Sharia law either. I'm absolutely FOR democracy in its place. The big disagreement we seem to be having is the line in the sand.

AFTER the smaller and more vocal proponents kept "forcing" people to address these issues and realize that the popular opinion was not the RIGHT opinion. Now I would wager even in the States most people would agree on equal rights and opportunities for people of all colour.

Democracy is a wonderful thing, but there is a limit to what it can accomplish, and civil rights has risen to a consideration that supercedes democracy because it is the only fair way to proceed.

I think this last statement here is a little bit dangerous. Recognize who set the law for civil rights and that it was accepted by the people. If the people were to demand that the government change the laws concerning civil rights, the government would have to oblige. We do not have the authoritarian government that can successfully say, "Hell no! These laws are the 'right' laws. Most of the people here that disagree with them are religious bigots/liberals/fundamentalists/whatever and base their decision on that view, so their view doesn't count." If the government were to try that, they would get voted out of office and vote into office people that would change those laws. Outcome: majority rules. Or, if by some chance they tried to maintain power...well, we'd have some seriously bad stuff going down. We've been very lucky no one has actually tried this...

Perhaps you can live in that kind of an authoritarian state, I can't.

Justforfun000 · Post by **Justforfun000** » 2005-09-01 09:03pm

Shit, I screwed up that post....HIS words start with "I think this last statement here is a little bit dangerous. "

General Zod · Post by **General Zod** » 2005-09-01 09:10pm

His argument is mainly sophistry. Laws cannot be passed which violate the basic foundations of the constitution, which include equal rights and protection for every citizen. Loudly screaching bigots aren't enough to assrape the basic rights of a minority group, even though it may take time to get people to seeing this.

Boyish-Tigerlilly · Post by **Boyish-Tigerlilly** » 2005-09-01 09:40pm

True, the government, regardless of the number of people who want something, cannot violate the constitution, but they can amend it to reflect the desires of the people, right? If you have a big enough bigot constituency, would that not pose a problem in democracy?

General Zod · Post by **General Zod** » 2005-09-01 10:09pm

Boyish-Tigerlilly wrote:True, the government, regardless of the number of people who want something, cannot violate the constitution, but they can amend it to reflect the desires of the people, right? If you have a big enough bigot constituency, would that not pose a problem in democracy?

Only until the Supreme Court smacks it down for being unconstitutional. They're there for a reason after all. Though fortunately I don't think we'll ever have to worry about that much concentrated stupidity.

The Guid · Post by **The Guid** » 2005-09-01 11:01pm

Is this debate specifically centred on the US?

Kazuaki Shimazaki · Post by **Kazuaki Shimazaki** » 2005-09-02 02:42am

General Zod wrote:Only until the Supreme Court smacks it down for being unconstitutional. They're there for a reason after all. Though fortunately I don't think we'll ever have to worry about that much concentrated stupidity.

Even that is no guarantee, given a large enough majority. The judiciary is made of men. IIRC the dominating party selects the top justices in the Supreme Court. Over time, the justice team could be replaced by people sympathetic to the bigoted viewpoint, and approve the changes as required.

Boyish-Tigerlilly · Post by **Boyish-Tigerlilly** » 2005-09-02 03:14am

Can SCOTUS shoot down an amendment anyway? I didn't know that.

Justforfun000 · Post by **Justforfun000** » 2005-09-02 04:03am

s this debate specifically centred on the US?

Not REALLY, but a good majority of the arguments have concentrated on the country as a specific because of the people that chose to identify as American, so their foreign policy became the target.

Thanks for the other muses on this as well guys. Tomorrow I'll try to form a good argument against him when I'm wide awake.

Jalinth · Post by **Jalinth** » 2005-09-02 07:39pm

Boyish-Tigerlilly wrote:Can SCOTUS shoot down an amendment anyway? I didn't know that.

No - an amentment (if successfully passed) trumps everything to the extent of the amendment. The reason that the US (and most countries) have a fairly difficult requirement for amending the constitution is to stop this from happening.

In the US, you'd need the House, Senate and President to be bigots, plus at least 3/4 of all the states. More easily said than done (thank god - or satan if you prefer)

General Zod · Post by **General Zod** » 2005-09-02 08:51pm

Boyish-Tigerlilly wrote:Can SCOTUS shoot down an amendment anyway? I didn't know that.

Seeing how hard it is to get an amendment added in the first place, it's not that easy. If something that squashed the rights of a group ever became an ammendment, then our nation would be in serious trouble.