“State officials have the right to act as a check on the peo

[n5wd]

So how do loadedliberal and n5wd respond regarding the rights of the majority? They do have rights.

Sure! But when the rights of the majority run roughshod over the rights of the minority, to the point of denying someone civil rights without just cause, even though the Constitution does not speak to it, SOMEONE has to do something, wouldn't you agree? Or do you agree that the United Sates was correct in locking up all the Japanese, citizens and native-born or not, at the beginning of WW2. (Not exactly the same thing that we're talking about, but close enough - the great majority of the Caucasian citizens of the US did not protest the internment of the Asians).

I also believe that the Law of Unintended Consequences will bite us in the butt quite frequently, and I believe this may be one of those times.

[The Mad Moderate]

I do not agree with how the AG and GOV are refusing to defend the law based on personal bias, the issue has made it to the California Supreme Court and Prop 8 was overturned. It is making it's way to the SCOTUS where the matter will be settled.

[The Annoyed Man]

So how do loadedliberal and n5wd respond regarding the rights of the majority? They do have rights.

Sure! But when the rights of the majority run roughshod over the rights of the minority, to the point of denying someone civil rights without just cause, even though the Constitution does not speak to it, SOMEONE has to do something, wouldn't you agree? Or do you agree that the United Sates was correct in locking up all the Japanese, citizens and native-born or not, at the beginning of WW2. (Not exactly the same thing that we're talking about, but close enough - the great majority of the Caucasian citizens of the US did not protest the internment of the Asians).

I also believe that the Law of Unintended Consequences will bite us in the butt quite frequently, and I believe this may be one of those times.

Actually, I have very mixed feelings about what happened to Japanese citizens. There is no doubt that there was a strong element of racism in it. But there is equally no doubt that Japanese spies did live among the loyal citizens of Japanese ancestry, and they did do some harm. Read "Unbroken," the story of Louie Zamperini, who befriended a Japanese man during the prewar years while he was running track at USC, only to find out later that his friend actually was a spy...........which he found out later, during the war, while Louie was a POW in Japan.

Now, another question to go deeper........ When the majority claim certain rights, and the minority claim competing rights, and there can be no reconciliation of those claims, is it better to disregard the rights of the majority, or the minority?

[The Annoyed Man]

I do not agree with how the AG and GOV are refusing to defend the law based on personal bias, the issue has made it to the California Supreme Court and Prop 8 was overturned. It is making it's way to the SCOTUS where the matter will be settled.

But here is the danger of that, and the very reason that this SHOULD have been defended by the AG, and should never have been appealed to the SCOTUS:

1. SCOTUS may decide not to grant cert., in which case the lower court ruling stands, and the unconstitutional (according to the state's constitution) refusal by the AG and governor becomes the law of the land for California, and worse yet, it becomes the law of the land that any elected official can, at any time, decide for personal reasons to squash the will of the people. No more democracy. No more constitutional republic. Gone. Bye bye.

2. SCOTUS may decide to hear the case, and might conceivably rule that any elected official can, at any time, arbitrarily decide for personal reasons to squash the will of the people. Same results.

Either way, it becomes time to start buying bulk ammo. It is the constant push from the radical left to circumvent the Constitution and to ignore, invalidate, or overthrow the will of the people that is what will eventually push us over into another civil war. They don't know when to quit, and they hate the country, so they don't really care where their irresponsibility leads us.

I do not believe that the civil rights of a minority population ought to be contravened. But I also believe that those civil rights are no more and no less than those clearly and plainly protected in the Constitution. ANYthing not clearly enumerated should be up to the states to regulate. That is how the founders wrote it. The proper recourse if one feels that the Constitution doesn't protect a right that they believe they have, is to campaign to amend the Constitution................NOT to subvert the will of the people.

[n5wd]

There is no doubt that there was a strong element of racism in it. But there is equally no doubt that Japanese spies did live among the loyal citizens of Japanese ancestry, and they did do some harm.

No doubt,but... why didn't we do the same to German-Americans, who it can be argued did MORE damage than any Japanese spies ever did. Fer goodness sakes, up until the point we entered the war with Germany, there was a German radio-telegraph station transmitting coded messages to and from der Fuhrer being relayed to American citizens and immigrants on our own shores! We just interned the German citizens until we could ship 'em out to a neutral country to be repatriated to Germany. Again, I agree with you that racism had a lot to do with it, but that still didn't make the internment of the Japanese-Americans and native-born but Japanese race American citizens legal, as was recognized by Congress many years after it happened.

Now, another question to go deeper........ When the majority claim certain rights, and the minority claim competing rights, and there can be no reconciliation of those claims, is it better to disregard the rights of the majority, or the minority?

No, but if an elected official decides that his beliefs do not allow him to defend that claim, I think he has a duty to himself and his oath to take or not take, in this case, action. We do not appoint officers of the government (whether they be civilian or military) to absolutely obey all orders. They have a solemn duty to disobey illegal orders.

Members of Congress, for example, take the following oath at the beginning of their term:

I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God.

City and state officials also take an oath that is very similar (at least the ones I've seen). If they really believe that whatever action they're being asked to do violates the "true faith and allegiance" to the Constitution, then they have to do what they believe is right. They may suffer consequences as a result of their beliefs (for example, if the voters in California want to oust the AG in the next election, they certainly can), but the oath they took requires them to take the actions they believe best, within the framework of the Constitution.

Bottom line, in cases like the one that was originally posted, as you said, it will come down to a SCOTUS decision, or a chickening-out of SCOTUS so that the next lower court's decision will hold. No one in their right mind, who believes in the Constitutional way of our government wants someone to shirk their duties, but sometimes people of good conscience may have to. Doesn't make it right, doesn't make it wrong. It is what it is.

And with that, I believe I'll go into listening mode. I've enjoyed the civil discourse! Thanks for bringing it up.

Wayne

[Dave2]

(Not exactly the same thing that we're talking about, but close enough - the great majority of the Caucasian citizens of the US did not protest the internment of the Asians).

Nor did they vote to pass a State Constitutional Amendment requiring said internment.

[Bullwhip]

I agree to a point, if for example the people voted to restrict gun ownership to police and military this line of reasoning fits. I do not think the people have any more right to restrict peoples rights than the government does.

I think thats the point... if you can vote away a right its not much of a right, is it?

Like the first post said, dont' make it about gay marriage, make it about something you like and think is protected by the constitution. If the courts decide its a right then no law should undo it or restrict it. Guns or gays or prayer or whatever, don't matter how many people are against it if its your right to do it or have it or say it.

[jimlongley]

I agree to a point, if for example the people voted to restrict gun ownership to police and military this line of reasoning fits. I do not think the people have any more right to restrict peoples rights than the government does.

I think thats the point... if you can vote away a right its not much of a right, is it?

Like the first post said, dont' make it about gay marriage, make it about something you like and think is protected by the constitution. If the courts decide its a right then no law should undo it or restrict it. Guns or gays or prayer or whatever, don't matter how many people are against it if its your right to do it or have it or say it.

Exactly!

The whole reason for the Constitution, and the Bill of Rights that followed, was to establish the form of government and the system of checks and balances so that no politician could rule over the people in such a manner, and to enumerate certain rights that were so inviolate that even if the checks and balances were overcome, the law of the land would still be clear and prevail.

And then "we" started letting "them" interpret those documents.

[C-dub]

Our own US Attorny General has selectively decided not to prosecute others for committing crimes.

The New Black Panthers in PA.
Many illegal immigrants.

I will say thine one more time. The criminal charges were dropped by the BUSH DOJ the Obama DOJ declined to push a civil case. Also more people have been deported under Obama at this point than many of his predecessors. So your statement is wrong on both points, contribute to the discussion or don't, but do it with facts.

I don't get Obama either. He says one thing and then does another all the time. He has deported more people, but then his justice department has also elected to not deport many many others. I wasn't making a point about the volume, but rather the selective enforcement. I wasn't aware that the Panther issue was dropped under Bush's watch. I only first heard about it when Eric Holder's department elected to not go forward with anything against them. Then we also started hearing that they would not prosecute black on white crime. Since I don't remember hearing about this case until it was about Holder's policy of not prosecuting blacks for crimes against whites I don't know what the reason was for dropping the charges earlier. However, based on the video that everyone saw I don't know how this cold have not been construed as a crime of voter intimidation.

Wait, is this the case where Holder's DOJ had the case won and then before the judge's ruling they dropped the charges?

[mamabearCali]

I watched a documentary last night on the historical monarchy and gov't in England going all the way back to the year 700. As merry olde England is where we get a bunch of our laws and customs I think it should be mandatory for anyone wishing to serve in public office to spend a few hours watching it. My husband said it was dead boring--but I got a great deal out of it. Some of it has to do with what is in this thread so I thought I would share.

It seems the nature of those in power no matter how large or small to be grasping and to want to impose their will over those they are entrusted with governing no matter what they agreed to or what oaths they took when they assumed their positions. They often will have their own way for a short period of time, but the more overreaching their grasp and the more brutal they, are the worse their end is. It is always those with skin in the game (those who supply the gov't with funding/today known as taxpayers) who pay the most attention when things go awry and are always the ones to fix the problem. Eventually the problem always gets fixed, and the wings of the monarch or those wielding power are clipped--sometimes more than the wings are clipped. Occasionally heads rolled. Sometimes it was bloodless, but often it was costly in terms of resources and lives to subdue a king or governing official and to put things right. One thing I found quite interesting is even those kings and other governing officials that "got away with murder" still had to pay for it in some way, often in their own body or their own families. A king does terrible things, but then gets an illness and goes mad. A baron does great evil to his people and causes terrible pain to the families he is charged to look after, no political consequences come to him at first but then 15 years later his own sons take up arms against him.

So I say to a governing official using his position to "check" the power of the people. Be warned, be very cautious in your checking. Because as my father used to say "Be ye not deceived God is not mocked whatsoever you so shall you also reap."

[Ameer]

Now, another question to go deeper........ When the majority claim certain rights, and the minority claim competing rights, and there can be no reconciliation of those claims, is it better to disregard the rights of the majority, or the minority?

That depends. There are times when majority rule is the right answer but not always.

Suppose you break down in the middle of nowhere. You hear banjos in the distance. A truck pulls up and three guys get out. They claim they have the right to make you squeal like a pig. You disagree, but they're they majority and you're the minority.

Or maybe a more realistic scenario. The US is reaching the point, if we're not there already, where the majority of people are a net drain on the public treasury. They get more from the government than they pay in. Many pay no income taxes. Do they have the right to have the government seize the fruits of your labor so they don't have to work?

[The Annoyed Man]

n5wd, thank you for the extended and thoughtful response. I'm sorry you're bowing out of the conversation, because I think it is exactly these kinds of conversations which will be the salvation of the nation. If we can agree that the system as it stands is broken and has generally abandoned the framework upon which it was originally founded, we can then debate the means of returning ourselves to a less dysfunctional government. We're having a great and civil discussion here. I'm sorry you won't be contributing any further.

I honestly, from my heart, want to hear from people like you and loadedliberal, because you form a significant part of our body politic. No remedy can be arrived it without your input, contributions, and possibly even, agreement.

I consciously ommitted the comparison to German immigrants in my previous post because I thought that my mention of the Japanese internment as being fundamentally a racist decision already answered that question. I can only offer the following, and please understand that I do not consider them to be "justifications," but rather merely explanations. The Japanese internment was fundamentally racist, unjustified, unconstitutional, and opportunistic men of low character took advantage of it to rob most of those people of nearly all their worldly possessions. It goes without saying that the men of the 442nd Regimental Combat Team gave the lie to the notion that Japanese-American citizens were fundamentally disloyal as a group. There is great shame in it, and I agree up to a point with the Congressional acknowledgment of the same. The only thing I cannot agree with is the idea of the restitutions......not because it wasn't deserved on some level (and I am happy that it had some limitations placed on it), but because it was a bad national policy which gave direct rise to the idea of black restitution for slavery......and you can take it to the bank that a demand for restitution will be the hallmark of any list of demands from any aggrieved people group, no matter how large, small, important, or insignificant, directly because of the precedence set by the restitution to Japanese-Americans.

That said, in addition to the German espionage in the years/months leading up to the outbreak of hostilities, there was also Japanese espionage during this period. In addition to the German nationalist radio broadcasts and printed articles aimed at the German-American community, there were Japanese nationalist messages in the media targeted at the Japanese-American community. You may or may not recall a scene from the HBO series Band of Brothers, where one of the men of Easy Co. encounters a German POW who speaks perfect english with an American accent. It turns out that the POW is from his home town, and he was a German-American who responded to the call of the Bundt to return to the Fatherland before the U.S. entered the war, to fight for Germany. There were such people who did do such things. But, just as disloyal Germans were not rounded up before Pearl Harbor and a U.S. declaration of war, neither were disloyal Japanese rounded up before the war broke out. This is directly traceable to two things: 1) the 1st Amendment; and 2) a strong isolationist national sentiment wanting to not get involved in what was happening in Europe or Asia.

Once hostilities did break out, I suspect that racism only made the task easier to "justify" in the minds of those charged with national security at the time, but that there were significant barriers to doing the same with German-Americans. Not the least of these barriers was the simple fact that it was easy to visually identify someone of Japanese ancestry in a nation of overwhelmingly caucasian people. Seriously, based on simple appearance, try to tell the difference between a German-American and a Scotts-American. Pretty much can't be done. Secondly, if you tried to do it by family name.....well, German immigrants have been coming to America's shores since before the Declaration of Independence. Imagine trying to round up just Texans with Germanic last names. The numbers would run into the millions. And then there were the Jews with German last names. There certainly existed some religious/ethnic bigotry against Jews in the U.S. at the time, but A) many were fugitives from Germany; and B) there was some national outcry against Germany's treatment of Jews. These things would have made rounding up Jews with German surnames politically impossible. So now, how do you know if someone of German surname is A) a Jewish refugee, B) a 7th generation immigrant, C) a spy? The answer of course is, you don't. So, while racism certainly made the task of rounding up Japanese-American immigrants more palatable, the practical logistics of doing the same to German-Americans made it an insurmountable task.

Again, I seek not to justify the racism, but to explain the context in which it took place.

With that, I have to let Jim Longley speak for me:

I agree to a point, if for example the people voted to restrict gun ownership to police and military this line of reasoning fits. I do not think the people have any more right to restrict peoples rights than the government does.

I think thats the point... if you can vote away a right its not much of a right, is it?

Like the first post said, dont' make it about gay marriage, make it about something you like and think is protected by the constitution. If the courts decide its a right then no law should undo it or restrict it. Guns or gays or prayer or whatever, don't matter how many people are against it if its your right to do it or have it or say it.

Exactly!

The whole reason for the Constitution, and the Bill of Rights that followed, was to establish the form of government and the system of checks and balances so that no politician could rule over the people in such a manner, and to enumerate certain rights that were so inviolate that even if the checks and balances were overcome, the law of the land would still be clear and prevail.

And then "we" started letting "them" interpret those documents.

Congress makes the laws. The executive enforces the laws. The judiciary examines whether the laws, when challenged, are constitutional or not. The Constitution does not give authority to any one elected official to determine which laws will be enforced, and which will not be enforced. Therefore, ANY decision by ANY elected official to selectively choose to not enforce existing law is unconstitutional......Obama's refusal to fully enforce immigration law is an example (as well as Bush's, Clinton's, Bush's, and Reagan's decisions to selectively enforce the laws).

We claim to be a nation of laws. But when men selectively choose which laws to enforce, and which laws to ignore, then we are no longer a nation of laws, but rather a nation of men. In such a nation, the Constitution is a meaningless document because it no longer has any practical applications.

As a nation, we have become divided into three kinds of people, politically. The first group believes that everything about our laws and political structure must be hung on the framework of the Constitution, and that any politician who plays fast and loose with that standard is not a believer in a nation of laws. The Constitution may be altered, but only by the means prescribed within the document.

The second group believes that the power to interpret whether a law is constitutional is not reserved to the courts alone (despite the Constitution saying so), and that they may, in their own infinite wisdom, determine which laws they will enforce. If the Constitution disagrees, then it can be ignored.

The third group believes that the Constitution is an archaic document which has no practical meaning in everyday life, and it should be gotten rid of, and we should simply trust in the wisdom of our leaders...........as long as they espouse the correct political philosophy.

I submit that there is no practical difference between the second and third groups. The governor and AG of California clearly fall into the second group..........which also puts them in with the third group.

In an earlier time, that would have been deemed treason. Now, in the context of gay marriage, I am not trying to argue that someone who supports it is treasonous. But, from a purely constitutional perspective, if it is to be accepted by the country then it must be enabled through Constitutional means. It is fundamentally unconstitutional to ignore the constitution. We can change it, but we are not permitted to ignore it if we don't like it. The voters of California have amended their constitution. The governor and AG of California took an oath to uphold the state's constitution, and to uphold the Constitution of the U.S. The state's constitution has been amended to clearly reject gay marriage. The U.S. Constitution takes no position on it, making it a state's rights issue. The governor and the AG have a constitutional obligation to defend the law. Their refusal to do so is unconstitutional. The problem isn't just gay marriage. The problem is that if the proponents of gay marriage prevail this time, it will become the literal law of the nation that governments may arbitrarily ignore the will of the people who elect them, and there will be no more accountability.

Worst case scenario: a national government suspends the Constitution, based on the LEGAL PRECEDENCE that it is no longer necessary as a guiding document, which in turn is based on the decision reached in a gay marriage lawsuit that elected officials have the right to act as a check on the power of the people. It's not the gay marriage that is the issue, it is the fallout of litigating to take away that power which the Constitution says resides in The People, and giving it to politicians. Based on that, politicians can do away with elections entirely because it is now their legal authority to act as a check against the will of the people.

End of the good old U.S. of A. It was a nice experiment while it lasted. The Constitution of the United States is such a provident document that it is difficult for almost anybody except perhaps an atheist to not see the provident hand of God in its provision. The men who wrote it, during a brief time in history, were moved by such lofty ideals that it is scarcely within human power to conceive of its elegance alone, without some kind of divine spark of inspiration. There has never before been such an elegantly constructed document. There has never since been such an elegantly constructed foundational document.

I am a religious man. Consequently it is impossible for me to interpret the world in which I live through any other means than the filter of my faith. Yet, I recognize that not everyone shares that faith (or sexual orientation), and the Constitution, in its providential wisdom makes allowance for those who do not. But, if one is going to live without a sense of accountability to God, then one should at least live with a sense of wisdom and discernment (to the extent that it is possible for mere men to do without without the guidance of the Spirit), and to question whether their actions are good for the nation, beyond their immediate selfish interests..........including those interests that they may believe to be rights, despite those rights not being enumerated in the Constitution. In other words, for the document to have meaning, there has to be suitable reverence for it, whether that reverence is motivated by a belief in a Higher Power, or a belief that mankind is fundamentally good and capable of constructing excellence.

For those who are religiously inclined, go read Romans 1:18-32, like I did this morning. If not, then simply ignore that reading; but know that every step you argue that we should take away from strict adherence to the Constitution is a step toward the dissolution of any of those rights that you hold dear.

And that, much, much more than the the gay marriage issue, is why I was so profoundly disturbed by what is happening in California. For my own part, while I do want to see the rights of minorities protected, I define those rights strictly by whether or not they are enumerated in the Constitution. If a perceived right is not so enumerated, then the proper course is to amend the Constitution, in the manner prescribed by the Constitution itself. Selective enforcement of its provisions is completely unacceptable, and will never be acceptable. People of good will need to figure out how to determine if something is indeed a right, and then how to make accommodation for it without trampling on the rights of the majority. People of ill will need to grow up and understand that they are not going to get everything that they agitate for; and that just being loud may get them slapped down instead of listened to.

[The Annoyed Man]

Just to stir the pot a little bit, here are some quotes from this thread on the Obama jobs speech: viewtopic.php?f=94&t=48292

I think he said his jobs stimulus plan is to scrap the US Constitution:

What kind of country would this be if this Chamber had voted down Social Security or Medicare just because it violated some rigid idea about what government could or could not do?

(full text here)

This is another line of attack against the Constitution, and is pertinent to this thread here because it speaks EXACTLY to this notion that the Constitution is an archaic and irrelevant document which should be scrapped. Obama's true colors revealed......and the emperor has no clothes.

Quotes like that are exactly why we need to work hard to make sure he is a one term President.

What if he represents the rights of the majority over the rights of the minority?

In one sentence he wants to tax the rich and large corporations more then offer them tax breaks to hire peope. As usual, makes no sense

That's because he is not thinking about what is constitutional and what isn't; only about what will get more unemployed people to ignore what he's done to their wallets and vote for him.

He said "you must pass this bill" 18 times during his speech. I guess instead of Nancy Pelosi's 'You have to pass the bill to see what's in it" we've gone to Barrack Obama's 'You have to pass the bill so we can write it'!

More examples of government employees who believe that they are no longer accountable to the people who elected them. "Don't worry about what's behind that curtain. Trust me to know what's right for you."

In this kind of climate, is it any wonder that we have to have discussions like this to fix what is broken? And the one movement (it's not really an organization) that is actively seeking to back us away from this cliff we are looking over—the Tea Party—is routinely vilified by those who prefer the rule of men to the rule of law.

To them, I say, "The rule of men is what we had when we lived at the whim of King George. Are you SURE that is what you want?"

[Heartland Patriot]

I refer all of you, most respectfully, to the two following statements:

Ninth Amendment – The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Tenth Amendment – The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

I think this country would be a LOT better off if those two amendments to the Bill of Rights could get some modicum of respect for a change, instead of the Federal government running roughshod over them, or acting like they don't exist...everyone LOVES to trumpet the First Amendment (and misquote the daylights out of it)...we on this forum are obviously enamored of the Second Amendment (and with good reason)...but those two amendments get forgotten and a certain segment of the population leaning to the port side of the boat pretty much REFUSE to acknowledge their existence...far too many items are taken on by the Federal government at the behest of many groups, once again mostly those port-leaners...when they should simply be left up to each state, or to the people, respective. Just because you FEEL bad for someone does NOT give the Federal government room to find new rights for them...or to BLOCK their rights, which for our purposes, is the carry and usage of firearms. That should be TEXAS and TEXANS' business, PERIOD!

[Heartland Patriot]

@TAM: Are you sure you aren't a REAL Constitutional Scholar? If not, you sure could fool me...that was a most excellent read on things, seriously. IF you decide to run for office, I might just have to volunteer to help campaign for you.