Dogs and cats, living together!

Ace,

You dimwit. If we got to choose aour laws by majority vote do you suppose we would have interracial marriage? Would minorities have the right to vote? Would we have a state religion?

Thomas Jefferson referred to the constitutional protections as relief from the "tryanny of the majority," i.e. assholes like you who would marshall majority opinion to create laws that screwed the minority.

Thank God that we have a constitution that protects everybody from that tyranny. That people like you would just as soon wipe your ass with the constitution doesn't devalue it, but it sure as hell devalues you and your fellow douchebags.

Have a nice day.

Thomas Jefferson referred to the constitutional protections as relief from the "tryanny of the majority,"

No he didn't.

Let me correct that.

No he didn't, you lying ignorant douchebag.

Phil,

Since you are such a constitutional scholar, would you please cite for me the article that states that a lower court judge may interpret the law in any manner they please and therefore overturn the will of the majority? Failing that, please cite for me the writings of ANY founding father that supports that intent.

I'll wait here while you look for it.

Idiot.

No he didn't, you lying ignorant douchebag.

Now, Sue...I object to this sort of language.

"Ignorance" implies lack of knowledge on a particular subject. I think the more correct term for phil would be "willfully ignorant." Enough information exists on the Constitution for him to adequately educate himself, but phil has chosen not to avail himself of that, choosing instead to believe the Constitution says what he thinks it should rather than what it actually does.

I have no argument with the rest of your phrasing, since phil is most likely a lying douchebag.

I did?

I sure don't remember that.

You dimwit. If we got to choose aour laws by majority vote do you suppose we would have interracial marriage? Would minorities have the right to vote? Would we have a state religion?

Are you truly this stupid? Just because the majority chooses to implement laws which protect the rights of a minority group this doesn't mean that minorities make laws.

It also doesn't mean that the majority has to make laws protecting each and every minority group that comes along and has a grievance. The majority gets to decide what is a valid minority group deserving special protection and rights. You shouldn't be quoting Jefferson when you clearly have no idea of the intent behind his thoughts.

Assclown.

I think the more correct term for phil would be "willfully ignorant."

In other words, stupid.

Boy, the liberals sure are all hot n' bothered about "the will of the People", and that "the will of the People be followed".

Except, of course, when those ignorant People just don't agree with them.

But, hey, they're only The People. What do they know, right? How dare they get all uppity!

Not to be too overly technical or anything, but we actually DO make our laws by majority vote. We have these things called "elections" in which the "winner" is someone who has more votes, often called a "majority" of the votes cast for a particular office. He/she/it then takes office, and votes for particular laws, which are passed when a "majority" (again, defined as "more than the votes for the opposite proposition, by at least one) of the elected people vote for them. So, Phil makes a fundamental mistake of thinking that a direct vote of the people on a ballot initiative is much different than voting for people who will vote for what the people want (yes, I understand that sometimes the morons we vote into office chicken out when they get there and don't vote the way they should, but that happens less than we think).

The REALLY INTERESTING thing about this article excerpt is not what Phil thinks about it, but that the article says that the ballot initiative's purpose is to "REDEFINE" marriage as between a man and a woman, as if it has ever been defined as anything BUT that (except in the mind of a single judge, and in the pants of Andrew Ferguson and his "boyfriend." Ich.

Phil,

You dimwit, take your ...relief from the "tryanny of the majority," i.e. assholes like you who would marshall majority opinion to create laws that screwed the minority... and shoove it up your ass.

Assholes like you would marshall minority opinion and judicial activism to create laws that screw the majority and their wishes. I think that is called tyranny of the minority... Jackass.

Historical fact about the Louisiana Purchase:

“Though the transaction was quickly sealed, there were those who objected to the purchase on the grounds that the Constitution did not provide for purchasing territory. However, Jefferson temporarily set aside his idealism to tell his supporters in Congress that "what is practicable must often control what is pure theory." The majority agreed."

It is funny that liberals get all worked up over allegations of voter fraud, but seem to discount the overall value of voting when discussing issues in which they are the clear minority.

Hmm...

If you're going to be arguing against majoritarian democracy, the last person one should be alluding to is Thomas Jefferson.

There's a lot of people putting words into Thomas Jefferson's mouth recently, and they're almost all lying leftist asses.

From now on, that's what I'm going to do. I'm going to attribute every dumbass thing I come up with to Thomas Jefferson, and that way all of the uneducated rubes will suck it down like Electroluxes.

I'm also going to hat tip Allah for everything as well, since it's become so prevalent that it's now a running gag.

Phil, like every other Communist I've ever met, is a blithering imbecile. - Thomas Jefferson

h/t Allah

So, do you guys think Thomas Jefferson supported a tyranny of the majority? Or what?

I mean, there's a whole hell of a lot of vitriol being spewed, and I've yet to hear a reason why. The majority is not infallible, unless you'd like to defend Jim Crow?

Well, if there has got to be a tyranny, I'd prefer it come from the majority. Better odds .... you know?

The "vitriol" was started by Phil. And the last time I checked, Jim Crow laws were put into place long after the majority had put the 13th and 14th Amendments into place, which is why they were considered unconstitutional. - Thomas Jefferson

h/t Allah

Other (real) quotes from Jefferson concerning majority vs. minority:

"The first principle of republicanism is that the lex majoris partis is the fundamental law of every society of individuals of equal rights; to consider the will of the society enounced by the majority of a single vote as sacred as if unanimous is the first of all lessons in importance, yet the last which is thoroughly learnt. This law once disregarded, no other remains but that of force, which ends necessarily in military despotism." --Thomas Jefferson to Alexander von Humboldt, 1817. ME 15:127 "The will of the people... is the only legitimate foundation of any government, and to protect its free expression should be our first object." --Thomas Jefferson to Benjamin Waring, 1801. ME 10:236

"The measures of the fair majority... ought always to be respected." --Thomas Jefferson to George Washington, 1792. ME 8:397

"I subscribe to the principle, that the will of the majority honestly expressed should give law." --Thomas Jefferson: The Anas, 1793. ME 1:332

"All... being equally free, no one has a right to say what shall be law for the others. Our way is to put these questions to the vote, and to consider that as law for which the majority votes." --Thomas Jefferson: Address to the Cherokee Nation, 1809. ME 16:456

"[We acknowledge] the principle that the majority must give the law." --Thomas Jefferson to William Carmichael, 1788. ME 7:28

"This... [is] a country where the will of the majority is the law, and ought to be the law." --Thomas Jefferson: Answers to de Meusnier Questions, 1786. ME 17:85

"Civil government being the sole object of forming societies, its administration must be conducted by common consent." --Thomas Jefferson: Notes on Virginia Q.VIII, 1782. ME 2:120

"The fundamental principle of [a common government of associated States] is that the will of the majority is to prevail." --Thomas Jefferson to William Eustis, 1809.

"The voice of the majority decides. For the lex majoris partis is the law of all councils, elections, etc., where not otherwise expressly provided." --Thomas Jefferson: Parliamentary Manual, 1800. ME 2:420

"It is the multitude which possess force, and wisdom must yield to that." --Thomas Jefferson to Pierre Samuel Dupont de Nemours, 1816. ME 14:492

QED (h/t Allah)

"I mean, there's a whole hell of a lot of vitriol being spewed, and I've yet to hear a reason why. The majority is not infallible, unless you'd like to defend Jim Crow?"

The offensive argument is that the majority have no rights to overturn a judicial decision. If you'd like a precedent demonstrating that's not how our Constitution works, consider the Eleventh Amendment. It was ratified in 1795, a few years after the Constitution itself. The Supreme Court handed down a ruling in Chisolm v. Georgia (1793), the people didn't like it, so they changed it.

What do you think -- impermissible tyranny of the majority? A bunch of states rights freaks abusing power? Or a legitimate response to judicial over-reaching, made by the very same people who wrote the Constitution in the first place?

You are right: the majority is not infallible. That, of course, is why political controls exist to correct the mistakes of the majority, such as elections. But by that same token, neither is the minority infallible, a point seemingly lost on the liberal set. And if GLAD gets its way, then not only is the minority fallible, but it's also not subject to correction. Where does that leave us?

Phil, that's got to hurt. (nice job Sue)

Man, I've got to become a Judge. the inalienable right to force my viewpoint down the throats of both the State Legislature while dictating their actions, and then thumbing my nose at the people by stating they have no right whatsoever to even try to overturn my ruling. Its good to be the king.

Thank goodness the Democrats will ride to the rescue of the little people who are being stepped on by these Dictatorial High and Mighty Judges ... ... ... what do you mean the Democrats aren't trying to stop this? Aren't they the party of the little guy? Don't they want every voice to be heard? :-p

hehe

Phil,

You apparently prefer the tyrany of the minority?

And Ace is not a Dimwit. He may be disturbed, have emotional problems and an unhealthy obsession with Axios, but he is actually quite bright.

Thanks for all the positive feedback. You may be right that Ace is not a dimwit, but I'm pretty certain that he's an asshole.

Thomas Jefferson aside, I simply think it's wrong that people like all you enlightened folks are rushing to deny legal rights to citizens who are different than you (and different from me too, for that matter).

A marriage license is given by a government to consenting adults, it confers certain rights, obligations and priveleges. The constitution clearly does not allow a government denying a license to a citizen based on sexual orientation. That's what nice folks like you are trying to do, deny a right that you and I enjoy to people who are not like us simply because they are...not like us. You can use whatever argument you like, tradition, moral, biblical; they were all used by your forefathers (and perhaps your actual fathers) in arguing against interracial marriage. Ultimately the courts could not find that the constitution allowed the government to grant different rights to citizens based on race. In like manner the constitution will not allow the government to grant (or choose not to grant) a license to a citizen based on their sexual orientation.

So you open-minded folks are trying to change the constitution to deny rights to those who ain't like us. Personally I'm not threatened by somebody who happens to be different than me (but no less a citizen of the good ol' US of A) having the same rights that I enjoy. What are you so afraid of?

And by the way, I think it was Thomas Jefferson who first referred to Ace as a douchebag, I'm sorry for using that reference earlier without attribution

You may be right that Ace is not a dimwit, but I'm pretty certain that he's an asshole.

Thomas Jefferson aside...

Yes, I am the ignorant one, but the irony of calling Ace a dimwit is clearly lost on me. Further, I will make no admittance that the words I attributed to Thomas Jefferson were complete horseshit. Instead I will wave my hands dismissively and call the host of the site an asshole.

For I am phil. Experience all that is me.

Enlighten me. Considering that for millennia "marriage" had been defined as being between a man and a woman (or women), how do two people of the same sex suddenly have the right to get married? What gives us - or anyone else, for that matter - the authority to redefine such an ancient institution?

I still don't understand this. Maybe it's the non-Western environment I grew up in. No one questioned what marriage was or who could get married. That there is a debate on this issue here puzzles me significantly.

Phil, not to flood this thread with comments, but disagreeing with this blog's host is quite permissible. I'm sure everyone disagrees with him at one point or another. But to call him names outside of jest is not tolerable; such insulting and infantile behavior is clearly unacceptable. He has not said anything whatsoever to warrant such a reaction from a guest on his website. Insult him all you want on another blog (I would still dismiss your comments as desperate attempts to bring him down to support yourself): doing so here is in such bad taste, not to mention utterly untoward.

I have always believed that when a person resorts to such insult-lobbing, the person has run out of arguments or the will to debate.

Gay rights bullies ry to prevent to will of the people from being carried out what a bunch of jerks

My good People:

The two comments above are so sweetly juxtaposed. Do you feel it?

Its like mint and chocolate.

Abso-fucking-lutely exquisite.

Do you feel it?

laura, I smell what you're cooking. This is the blog convergence Nostradamus spoke of in Quatrain #47. Revel in these days, people. You will be able to tell your grandchildren about them someday.

"But to call him names outside of jest is not tolerable; such insulting and infantile behavior is clearly unacceptable."

Thanks, but it's quite acceptable. What do I care?

The only thing that annoys me are the inevitable "Ass of Spazz" type insults, which are just so stupid they make my teeth hurt.

But name-callings fair-game. That's how I roll, so that's how everyone gets to roll.

BTW, I name-call myself, too, not always in jest.

I stand corrected. Even if I don't necessarily agree.

(I tend to be so polite that a good friend of mine nicknamed me "Yuna," in reference to the genteel summoner in Final Fantasy X.)

Russ, you and I are the Witnesses.
I will never have children, so you must carry the News.

lauraw: "Russ, you and I are the Witnesses." The Witnesses? As in Jehovah's?

Um, why are people getting ready to stone me?

Not sure how you came to that conclusion Muslihoon.

Nobody's picking on you.

the reason the judge ruled unconstitutional was because of the massholes setup thier state constitution to allow the judiciary to set legally binding precedents that bind the legislative branch.
It appears to be the correct ruling, AT THIS TIME.
The correct thing for the re-definers to do was to amend the mass. constitution, then re-introduce the vote.

mountian. molehill.

As for the tyranny of the majority thing...while i doubt he ever said something like that (I'd expect it more out of Madisen(sp) actually) the sentiment is there. This is one of the few places in the world that has a democracy AND employes an entire branch of government to ensure that the laws passed and descisions taken respect everyone's rights. I kinda like it that way, but mostly because i've read about the 'democracy' of Athens and the mob of rome...