I’ve lost count of the number of times I’ve heard the accusation that the right is restricting the rights of the people, that the right is taking away free speech and freedom of expression. Etc Etc Etc. We all know the drill. Its the mantra…

In a Republic the minority is never ultimately in charge, that’s anathema to our system of government and contrary to the definition of republic, or democracy for that matter.

I think its common in collages and universities these days to teach that the Constitution was intended to protect “minority” rights, but that’s really a misrepresentation of the Constitution’s intent and function. Presenting the Constitution in this light works to the Lefts advantage because it creates the mind-set that the Constitution divides people into groups… minority vs. majority. This is just more leftist spin to divide people against each other, which is of course the Left’s standard operating procedure. In reality the Constitution protects “individual” rights without regard to your minority or majority status.

The individual’s rights are protected against any person or group who attempts to obstruct or deny your rights. It makes no difference if you are part of a minority or a majority or black or white or anything else, you only have to be a citizen to enjoy full rights under the Constitution.

There is another advantage for the Left in portraying the Constitution’s intend as protecting minority rights. It gives the false impression that the rights of the minority are somehow more sacred or superior to the rights of the majority. That is completely false and unfounded in Constitutional law.

Professor, I ask Allah to give me an example in Constitutional law where the minority is allowed to override the rights of the majority. You responded to that request too and the first item you offered as an example, was this:

Every time someone expresses themselves in a way that the majority would like to silence, the minority is protected by the Constitution. When the KKK marches in your town is rather obviously a minority protected against a majority.

Professor Blather on October 27, 2007 at 11:15 PM

In reality this is not an example of the minority overruling the majority. It is also not an example of minority rule instead of the majority. While the majority of townspeople may be against the KKK’s march, it is nevertheless the supermajority of Americans that have accepted the First Amendment as the law of the land and it is actually that supermajority that should be credited for upholding the KKK’s right to march. This is still a majority in control, because the vast majority of Citizens have acceded to the First Amendments authority to protect free speech. Just as the KKK can march, so can the YAF, it’s the majority that protects each of their rights.

Next you speak of “Racial discrimination and Affirmative action” as being examples of the minority overriding the rights of the majority.

Racial discrimination. Affirmative action. Hello? If every white person in America decides to discriminate against a minority, the constitution will ensure the rights of that minority “override the rights of the majority.” Read the 14th Amendment.

Professor Blather on October 27, 2007 at 11:15 PM

Firstly, if every white person in America wanted to bring back segregation, that would probably compose a supermajority large enough to change the Constitution and get it done. Once the Constitution is changed, not even the Supreme Court has anything to say about it. They have no power to declare a part the Constitution as un-Constitutional.

Furthermore, nothing in your comment provides an example of the minority overriding the rights of the majority within Constitutional law. Racial discrimination and Affirmative action laws are examples of civil rights legislation passed by Congress. While these laws were found Constitutional by the courts they are examples of statutory law and not “Constitutional law.” The debate at hand is about Constitutional Law, not statutory law.

Congress and the courts have been all over the map concerning Racial discrimination and Affirmative action laws. Anyone would need a team of Philadelphia lawyers to figure it all out. But if you still think they represent examples of minority rule, you might want to think again because the Supreme Court of late has dealt several mighty blows to the old standards of, especially Affirmative action. The court has started to realize theses laws are responsible for what has been called reverse discrimination, thus so called affirmative action seems to be on it’s way out. The MAJORITY of the court will decide that by the way.

Lastly on this point, it was a majority of congressmen, who were elected by the majority of voters, that are suppose to be representing the will of the people, that put these laws into effect. Once again, it’s very much the majority in control.

You also ask that I read the 14th Amendment and mentioned the Bill of Rights along with other Constitutional amendments. You suggested this reading would lend support to your view the Constitution was intended to protect “minority” rights. Being that you hold that view, I feel quite confident that I’ve read those amendments a few more time than you have. As I’ve stated prior, the word “minority” is nowhere to be found in the Constitution, whenever a right is bestowed it is usually bestowed on “the people” or “any person” but never upon the “minority.”

Alright, so what about our friend that made the complaint to the National Cemetery Administration. Exactly what right was he exercising ? Could he be claiming his religious freedoms were trampled because the religious ceremony included beliefs that were not his own ? The simple solution for that is of course to simply walk away. He was there voluntarily as far as we know. If he was there in some official capacity, then he’s in the wrong business. Could a porn star refuse to “act” because it’s against their religion? I think not, any “star” that made such a claim would be fired, there are certain expectations that come with every job.

But whatever the complaint was, it was probably this misconception that the rights of the minority are somehow superior to the rights of others that drove the National Cemetery Administration to take the action it did. That action was wrong, minority or not, your rights are no more important than anyone else’s. This is why this erroneous idea that the Constitution protects minority rights is so disruptive and misguided, the Constitution protects everyone’s rights, not just the minority.

This isn’t a joust Professor, I just wanted to explain further.

a mob broke into a jail and hung a couple guys arrested for a particularly gruesome kidnapping/murder

I see where al-Maliki has promised to do more to protect the 3% of Iraqi’s who are Christian, although maybe 50% of those have already left. With the chaos in Iraq Sunni’s, Shi’ite’s and Kurds all look to militias of their own ethnic makeup to protect them. If Iraq is going to function as a constitutional democracy, one indicator will be whether the 3% of Christians are safe from militias serving as judge, jury and executioner.

a mob broke into a jail and hung a couple guys arrested for a particularly gruesome kidnapping/murder

It sounds like governor saw the 4th, 5th, 6th and 8th Amendments as optional. Even today, with jury trials some people are being cleared via DNA. Its usually easy to know that a crime is heinous but harder to ascertain guilt.

Mine tags said “hedonist” for my religion. I wonder what sort of ceremony they have for that.

TheSitRep on October 27, 2007 at 5:52 PM

One where everybody but the deceased has a lot of fun. ;-D

Are you serious? I could literally name thousands.

Every time someone expresses themselves in a way that the majority would like to silence, the minority is protected by the Constitution. When the KKK marches in your town is rather obviously a minority protected against a majority.

Racial discrimination. Affirmative action. Hello? If every white person in America decides to discriminate against a minority, the constitution will ensure the rights of that minority “override the rights of the majority.” Read the 14th Amendment.

The primary job of the Constitution, and certainly the first ten Amendments, along with Amendments 13-15 and sundry others, is to precisely what you think it doesn’t do.

Professor Blather on October 27, 2007 at 11:15 PM

Professor, I’ve already made the point that address’s all of those items and you must have missed it.

To put the whole thing back into context, I made the statement that the majority rules.

Allah comes back saying the majority doesn’t matter when it comes to Constitutional rights. He is correct and you are correct to a point, but ultimately it’s still the majority that rules.

If enough people are willing to come together to push a certain idea, the Constitution itself can be changed. I’m not saying its a good idea, I’m merely saying that the majority does in fact rule, that is the way the Republic is set up.

Look to the gay marriage debate for an example. Out of the blue gays came forward one day and said they believed they had a right to get married. In all of recorded history no one had ever heard of such a “right.” But they pushed it and finally the majority that was against it actually changed their Constitutions on a state by state basis. I think there are over a dozen state that currently have language in their Constitutions that restrict marriage to one man and one woman. There is talk of doing it on the federal level.

So you see…. the majority does in fact rule. Simply claiming to have a particular right doesn’t mean you have it unless the majority agrees. That’s the way our country works.

I have taken upon myself to contact our fine Senators and Representative Tiberi to endeavour to overturn this stupid decision by the NCA and I encourage anyone reading this to also advocate a reversal of this decision.

For the life of me I cannot …..

What part do you disagree with.

Maxx on October 27, 2007 at 5:04 PM

Seriously?

It really frightens me how little some people understand their government. You could not be more wrong if you tried.

Please – I’m begging – take an undergraduate course in constitutional law. Just one.

That’s just silly, give me an example in Constitutional law where the minority is allowed to override the rights of the majority.

Maxx on October 27, 2007 at 4:43 PM

Are you serious? I could literally name thousands.

Every time someone expresses themselves in a way that the majority would like to silence, the minority is protected by the Constitution. When the KKK marches in your town is rather obviously a minority protected against a majority.

Racial discrimination. Affirmative action. Hello? If every white person in America decides to discriminate against a minority, the constitution will ensure the rights of that minority “override the rights of the majority.” Read the 14th Amendment.

The primary job of the Constitution, and certainly the first ten Amendments, along with Amendments 13-15 and sundry others, is to precisely what you think it doesn’t do.

You seem to be confusing civil right legislation enacted by Congress with Constitutional law.

Thanks for the reply. I wasn’t using minority to apply to a particular group and I don’t like laws that do. I was using “minority” in the sense of not being in the majority. You are right, the Bill of Rights is talking about individuals and it protects your rights even if a majority of people are opposed to your speech or religion.

You lost you’re bet.

mjkazee on October 27, 2007 at 9:18 PM

Latecomer and humble student entreats you to explain.

It is only by protecting minority rights that the Bill of Rights is critical.

dedalus on October 27, 2007 at 9:12 PM

Your heart is in the right place but your statement is nevertheless wrong. The Bill of Rights protects everyones rights and the word “minority” is nowhere to be found in the Constitution.

You seem to be confusing civil right legislation enacted by Congress with Constitutional law. Yes, Congress has given special privileges to certain groups, which in my opinion is anathema to Constitutional principles. Sometimes the courts allows Congress to get away with this and sometimes they don’t. But in either case the Constitution does not concern itself with one group over another, its plain and stated purpose was to secure equal rights for WE THE PEOPLE, that is, ALL citizens. That is equal protection under the law, for everybody who is a citizen.

There probably are few purer examples of democracy than a lynch mob,

And if a certain loud-mouthed extreme minority of atheists don’t stop pulling these stunts in order to deny us Christians our Constitutionally protected rights to exercise our religion as we please, then they’re going to get a first hand demonstration of that kind of democracy.

Hemp or nylon, Newdow? Pine or oak?

TheSitRep on October 27, 2007 at 7:03 PM

You lost you’re bet.

When any minority can rule over the majority it is a tyranny! Our nation is about the rights of the individual to be free from government intrusion, to be free to pursue their own God given rights and dreams! To be free to worship, to build. To own property and wealth and to protect it! Or to choose not to! To petition their government and to meet and assemble with whom they please!

It is only by protecting minority rights that the Bill of Rights is critical. It ensures that your right to worship and other rights you cherish are granted not by the government or by a majority of your fellow citizens, but by your natural rights.

In this case as long as the prayer isn’t being selected by by the government and forced on the family, I don’t see a problem.

… it was the one after the 11th fold — meant to celebrate Jewish war veterans — that drew the objection.

The Big A

Sweet divide and conquer manuever, Allah. Top shelf.

But I have a hard time picturing some atheist douche like Newdow winning a fight like this one. If and when my family is involved in such an affair, nothing will stop us from having those words read in the ceremony.

You guys need to stick to school board meetings and municipal events where no one in uniform has died.

But the Free Exercise clause says that if the deceased’s will, or the executor named therein, calls for these words to be spoken, the government isn’t the one granting the preference. The difference between personal preference and government mandate is as night and day, but some folks can’t seem to grasp it.

When any minority can rule over the majority it is a tyranny! Our nation is about the rights of the individual to be free from government intrusion, to be free to pursue their own God given rights and dreams! To be free to worship, to build. To own property and wealth and to protect it! Or to choose not to! To petition their government and to meet and assemble with whom they please!

JellyToast on October 27, 2007 at 7:11 PM

Exactly… and there is no right to NOT be offended.

May God bless all American Legionnaires