Legally, the judicial system should prevent the government, even a majority, from passing legislation restricting the rights of a minority, unless they have enough of a majority to amend the Constitution. So there is a situation in which it is LEGAL for the will of the majority to infringe upon the rights of the minority.
Are the judicial, legislative, and executive branches of government doing enough to protect the rights of minorities (same-sex marriage, separation of church and state, etc.) from the will of the majority?
Is it ever morally correct for the majority to take the rights away from a minority?
2007-02-08 08:34:10 · 9 answers · asked by Aleksandr 4 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
So people who are against same-sex marriage simply do not believe that people have the right to marry who they choose? They are not recognizing that the will of the majority is taking precedence? If that's the case, why do they keep using the argument that the majority is against same-sex marriage when they support marriage amendments?
2007-02-08 09:04:42 · update #1
skorboar thanks, so far so good, we all get reported for speaking our minds sometimes.
2007-02-08 09:29:07 · update #2
no. The Bill of Rights wa smeant to protect the minority, as the majority never needs protection. It really is brilliant legislation if you think about it. It is self correcting. Otherwise democracy would be 'mob ruled' and laws would be made with a mob mentality. That is why the ACLU exists, and is necessary. And that is why the majority of those trying to restrict human rights hates them.
No, government isn't doing enough, and elected officials never will, because the amjority is what determines elections. So it does happen, too often, but there are people willing to fight it. I am one of them
2007-02-08 08:39:10 · answer #1 · answered by hichefheidi 6 · 2⤊ 2⤋
No, it is never correct for the majority to remove any rights from anyone. Just because several million people say something's OK doesn't mean that it is. Let's stick to basics and say that 95% of the people approved of legalizing murder. Assuming our current level of amorality ever reached this point, would that make it right? "It is strangely absurd to suppose that a million of human beings, collected together, are not under the same moral laws which bind each of them separately." ~Thomas Jefferson
Now, let's turn this question on its head: Is it ever morally correct for the minority to take the rights away from a majority? This may come as a shock to some of you, but the answer is the same: no. Remember that bit in the Declaration of Independence about "inalienable rights?" That isn't just something Jefferson put in there to make it sound nice -- he meant everything he ever said or wrote. Everyone, regardless of majority or minority status, has equal rights to the others -- it doesn't matter if there are more of one group than the other, or even if the majority is guilty of past injustices against the minority (or, indeed, vice versa). No individual or entity has any entitlement to remove any rights from any other individual or entity, under any circumstances. No exceptions.
2007-02-08 08:57:42 · answer #2 · answered by Richard S 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
It may not be correct but it is done every day because the majority are not bothering to vote. For example: In our town, less than 1/3 of the people eligible to vote actually vote. Therefore that minority determines how the majority will live, what they will pay for, how their children will be educated, how much their taxes will be, etc. The majority should not complain until and unless they have been continuously voting or are voting and standing up and shouting out what they want, when they want it, how they want it, and ensuring that those who don't give them what they want get booted out of office. Wouldn't that be something?
2007-02-08 08:42:23 · answer #3 · answered by MH/Citizens Protecting Rights! 5 · 1⤊ 1⤋
tough... I think this is a dilemma that can't be answered with fact so much as opinion.. and this is why.. being a democratic republic.. we are ruled by the majority.. but the Constitution is set up to protect all people equally.. so when equality is not the mindset of the majority the constitution and the government will be in conflict with one another.
2007-02-08 08:39:22 · answer #4 · answered by pip 7 · 0⤊ 1⤋
in my question that you answered about hte patriot act and global warming, i did not think you did a personal attack. I actually thought you were the only opposing view that brought any common sense to the argument, and i strongly applaude you for that. I do however, hope no one reported you
2007-02-08 09:16:01 · answer #5 · answered by Captain Planet 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
No, never. Amending the constitution is extremely difficult, and has not yet resulted in the restriction of rights. I hope it stays that way.
2007-02-08 08:41:27 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
good question....and that i think of the suitable court docket is approximately to rule on that very situation. they are listening to arguments re: the Constitutionality of Prop 8 that surpassed in California, which created a state constitutional modification banning comparable intercourse marriage.
2016-11-02 22:13:16 · answer #7 · answered by ? 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
what rights are being taken away in the examples you provided?
No one, straight or gay, has rights to marry whomever they choose, so your argument is crap. I can't choose to marry an 8 year old girl, or my dog, or my truck, or more than one woman, etc.
2007-02-08 08:38:16 · answer #8 · answered by I hate friggin' crybabies 5 · 1⤊ 2⤋
N O rights have been taken away from anyone!!
2007-02-08 08:44:21 · answer #9 · answered by Vagabond5879 7 · 0⤊ 2⤋