To be fair, the founding fathers actuallydidoverlook that part of the constitution. The supreme court granted itself the power in Marbury v. Madison in 1803. In fact, Hamilton explicitly said that the various branches of government should decide the matter for themselves and that no branch had supremacy. Hamilton was also kind of dumb.
Gun control
- Thread starter Saladus
- Start date
-
Guest, it's time once again for the massively important and exciting FoH Asshat Tournament!
Go here and give us your nominations!Who's been the biggest Asshat in the last year? Give us your worst ones!
I'm sorry but majority rule is how our system of government works. There are times when the majority has unconstitutionally trampled on the rights of the minority, but it isn't your job or mine to determine when that has occurred -- it's the courts' job. This will be challenged, and the minority will have their day in court.
I don't have a problem with mandatory voter ID's provided they are free to the public and you don't have to wait in line 8 hours to get one.
lolwut
So majority rule is how our system of government works except that the court actually decides and, apparently, that means we can't even talk about how theyoughtto decide. Jesus.
chaos
Buzzfeed Editor
- 17,324
- 4,839
Sure, if the government provides them for free to every citizen. Why not. But they don't. They charge for them, they limit the issuance of them, and they target specific groups to exclude from having them. And you know damn well why they do that. Voter fraud is not an issue in our country, discrimination is though.
You made an argument defending the law on the basis that it was in line with the will of the people (as evidenced by the fact that it's a state law and not a federal one). I pointed out why that since it's laughably trivial to find historical examples of "the people" shitting on a minority's rights (sometimes, even within the confines of the constitution), that's a terrible defense. Your counter-argument to that was that it was up to the Supreme Court to decide whether or not people's rights are violated. Why am I such a troll? Because I get the feeling that you're not even following along with the conversation, much less putting any real thought into what you're saying.
Voter fraud isn't a real problem. Saying "come on" won't change that.
That sounds like big government tyranny to me. It's damn near Sharia law.
But seriously, I'm surprised you're a staunch defender of gun rights but also advocate mandatory ID's to be carried at all times in public.
So what, we should go with minority rule ? Should the minority shit on the will of the majority ? Majority rule does run the risk of the Majority shitting on the minority, but that's why we built in checks and balances like the independent judiciary to help mitigate this risk. It isn't perfect, but it is the best that we can do.
The reason you're a troll is because you know that you're full of shit but insist on clinging onto bullshit arguments just for the sake of trolling this thread. This is the gun control thread, and this is the second time you've tried to derail this thread into some philosophical circle jerk about government. If you want to go down that route, again I say to you, get the fuck out and stay in the politics thread.
Are you saying there's something odd about his desire that, at all time, we carry around IHNEN PAPIEREN?
Another thing that we can do is talk about the validity of shitting on the rights of the minority (even if the constitution allows it!) and use that conversation to inform the choices we make when we go to the voting booth.
Yeah you're right cause there's no overlap between the debate about structure of government and its justification and the debate about gun control. Nope. That shit is clearly a nice clean conceptual bifurcation.
Shhhhhh.
Remember, that's not for us to talk about. Our state representatives have to exercise the will of the majority and then the supreme court will decide. Ours is not to reason why.