Why don't conservatives use leftwing methods - like econimc pressure?

[GenSeneca]

Yes, I think that it is necessary sometimes to deny people their rights because they are too dangerous to others--murderers, pedophiles, some kinds of mentally ill people for instance. Some of these people need to be corraled, unfortunately, for the safety of the rest of us.

If someone violates the rights of another, by initiating the use of force or perpetrating fraud, then the violator has already yielded his own rights. So I'm not talking about people who have committed crimes, sorry I wasn't specific about that in the question.

Is a majority of voters ever justified in denying rights to an individual who has violated the rights of no one?

 

[Mare Tranquillity]

If someone violates the rights of another, by initiating the use of force or perpetrating fraud, then the violator has already yielded his own rights. So I'm not talking about people who have committed crimes, sorry I wasn't specific about that in the question.

Is a majority of voters ever justified in denying rights to an individual who has violated the rights of no one?

Not in an instance that I can think of at this moment. Of course this hinges on definitions of phrases like "violated the rights of no one," or "denying rights" (which rights?)

Of course this leaves a lot of wiggle room around the terms "legal" and "ethical" when it comes to the violation of the rights of others costing someone their individual rights.

 

[Centrehalf]

Is a majority of voters ever justified in denying rights to an individual who has violated the rights of no one?

I know that your question wasn't aimed at me, but I've been lurking and I was wondering if you could clarify this. The problem I'm having is that it's very rare in America for voters to have a say in whether or not rights are violated, usually it's the representatives of the people who do such things.

The only examples I can come up with off the top of my head of direct denial of rights are gay marraige and maybe affirmative action involving college admissions.

 

[GenSeneca]

Not in an instance that I can think of at this moment. Of course this hinges on definitions of phrases like "violated the rights of no one," or "denying rights" (which rights?)

Do you consider some rights to be more important than others?

 

[GenSeneca]

I know that your question wasn't aimed at me, but I've been lurking and I was wondering if you could clarify this. The problem I'm having is that it's very rare in America for voters to have a say in whether or not rights are violated, usually it's the representatives of the people who do such things.

The only examples I can come up with off the top of my head of direct denial of rights are gay marraige and maybe affirmative action involving college admissions.

Anyone is welcome to jump in...

As for clarification... Do the representatives not vote when deciding such things? Are those votes not won or lost based on a majority? I believe they do and I believe they are.

Here's one example, the Right to Free Speech. Despite constitutional language specifically forbidding Congress from passing laws that abridge the freedom of speech, Congress has, nevertheless, passed such laws. The most obvious of which are enforced by the FCC.

Just in case Congress doesn't know the definition of the word:

Abridge: to reduce in scope : diminish <attempts to abridge the right of free speech>​

 

[Centrehalf]

As for clarification... Do the representatives not vote when deciding such things? Are those votes not won or lost based on a majority? I believe they do and I believe they are.

Of course they do, but I think it's a mistake to assert that the percentage of representatives voting a certain way on a specific issue matches with the percentages among the represented.

 

[GenSeneca]

Of course they do, but I think it's a mistake to assert that the percentage of representatives voting a certain way on a specific issue matches with the percentages among the represented.

Which is why I made no such assertion. Whether the majority vote comes from the people, as was the case in Prop 8, or whether the majority vote comes from the legislature, as is the case with most laws, the question remains the same:

Is a majority vote grounds to deny, or infringe upon, the rights of an individual?

If the answer is Yes, then none of our rights are safe as we will all find ourselves in some minority that will be subject to having our rights violated by the will of some majority that opposes us.

 

[Rick]

It always amazes me what people don't learn with a public school education and what they learn that isn't true.

Perhaps you could give us an example of a contract to which you personally are denied by US law because you are a heterosexual.

I'm denied lots of things for other reasons - that's the point. You said "it is a legal contract in US law and therefore should be available to all citizens" as if mere citizenship qualified anyone for any contract - clearly a false statement.

John Boswell in his book THE MARRIAGE OF LIKENESS details the history of same-sex unions/marriages in the pre-modern world. Among others, the Catholic church married and blessed the union of Saint Serge and Saint Bacchus with a ceremony that is still in the liturgy today.

Saint Bacchus??? Did they have wine at the reception? So that's your proof that " gay marriages have been widely recognized throughout history in many cultures. "?

Homosexuality is a normal variant in human sexuality just as it is in most of the animal world, an excellent work on this subject is Bagemihl's BIOLOGICAL EXHUBERANCE. You really should keep up on your reading if you are going to discuss these kinds of issues.

"Normal" and "variant" describing the same thing is a self-contradiction - you should read a book on statistics. And I personally am not even necessarily arguing that homosexuality isn't "normal" - I said homosexuals are attempting the hijack it because they want to force the "normality" perception on people who don't believe it.

As far as I know there is no valid reason why gay people should be denied marriage equality.

You are proposing the change - you should come up with a convincing reason WHY it's needed. Otherwise it's merely an issue for the voters at the polls, who in liberal california have turned it down twice, inspite of leftwingers trying their usual end-run around democracy by shopping for the right leftwing judge who will give it to them anyway.

I know this won't satisfy you, any more than Obie's birth certificate would satisfy a birther, because this is an emotional issue for you

HA HA HA! Uh, noooooooo, it's not an emotional issue for me - it's just a bullshiit issue which has been repeatedly squashed at the polls and in the courts. It's more like a pesky mosquito that keeps coming back for another swat.

 

[Centrehalf]

Which is why I made no such assertion. Whether the majority vote comes from the people, as was the case in Prop 8, or whether the majority vote comes from the legislature, as is the case with most laws, the question remains the same:

Is a majority vote grounds to deny, or infringe upon, the rights of an individual?

If the answer is Yes, then none of our rights are safe as we will all find ourselves in some minority that will be subject to having our rights violated by the will of some majority that opposes us.

I see the disconnect here. I thought you were talking about direct democracy when you used the term majority vote. I don't consider a vote in Congress to be a majority vote. Thanks for clearing that up.

In answer to your question......it depends on what the USSC has to say about it

 

[GenSeneca]

I don't consider a vote in Congress to be a majority vote.

What do you consider it to be?

In answer to your question......it depends on what the USSC has to say about it

That's pretty scary...

The Judicial Procedures Reform Bill of 1937, frequently called the court-packing plan, was a legislative initiative proposed by U.S. President Franklin Roosevelt to add more justices to the U.S. Supreme Court. Roosevelt's purpose was to obtain favorable rulings regarding New Deal legislation that had been previously ruled unconstitutional.​

 

[Centrehalf]

Roosevelt failed. No problem there.

To your question, I dont think the majority matters much at all. I think you either have the rule of law, or you have a situation where political power emanates from the barrel of a gun. Either way, the majority doesn't matter much at all.

I don't want to be difficult, so I'll say that the majority should not be able to strip rights from the minority. I just think that historically it's been the other way around.

 

[GenSeneca]

Roosevelt failed. No problem there.

I don't know that it's accurate to say he failed. While it's true that his reform bill did not pass, FDR still achieved his goal of having the SC rule the Welfare State constitutional. And there is PLC's newest thread about the Courts allowing blatant violation of civil rights under the pretense of fighting the war on drugs.

 

[TruthSeeker]

The U.S. Supreme Court is the "final arbiter" in all matters of law, which in itself is quite scary, when you consider the fact that the members of the SCOTUS are all political appointments that are all confirmed by a simple MAJORITY vote in the U.S. Senate.

 

[Dr.Who]

Perhaps you could give us an example of a contract to which you personally are denied by US law because you are a heterosexual.

I cannot marry two wives despite the fact that my heterosexual nature causes me to be attracted to all attractive women.

The reason for that is of course that the purpose of marriage is not to confer rights but to limit them.

 

[Dr.Who]

why can't gays just find one person and stay with them, you know get married?
oooo wait....

They can. They can find any officiant who will perform the ceromony and if they can't find one they can create one and then get married.

What they can't do is enter into a state licensed contract that restricts their rights based on societies need to force child producers to take care of children.