Originally posted by Sandman333: On the contrary, I believe the Bill of Rights, and every other Amendment and Right under the Constitution is there specifically to protect the individual and group from government, not from the majority opinion.
You make a distinction between "government" and "majority opinion" which suggests you believe that these rights are protected from government, but NOT from majority opinion.
I suggest to you that the very definition of a democratic government is, in fact, the will of "majority opinion" and therefore, in terms of the protection of rights, are one and the same.
Again, this is a contradiction. What good are rights, if they can simply be overturned by the will of the majority. I believe that in your system, as it is in ours, that is now the role of the judiciary.
Originally posted by Sandman333:This is the true beauty of the Constitution, in that it allows the people to govern themselves, rather than to dictate to them what is right and wrong. The decision of socially, morally acceptable behavior is left to the people to craft into law, and cannot be dictated to them. If that were possible, who would do the dictating?
What it seems you are suggesting is that, if a majority so wishes, "they" could craft laws that disregarded the protections afforded by the constitution and the bill of rights.
I can't think of any example where this has happened. I can, however, think of many where the opposite has happened. Laws crafted based on the majority view of socially, morally acceptable behaviour have been struck down because they were unconstitutional.
