Feel FREE to move it then.
The OP’er seems to specialize, in a non-prolific way, in the same sort of dreamy incoherence that he displayed in the OP for the current thread. See a previous one he started: [thread=298354]Thread[/thread]. Debating is probably futile.
If they fail, and the majority oppresses the minority (as in Jim Crow); what would you call it? Both “tyranny” and “dictatorship of the majority” work for me.
rwj
I would call it a failure of the system and attempt to bring change as per the actual rules in the constitution.
I am only suggesting, that if judges understood the obligation to weigh unalienable rights on law we would be even better. It is my experience that some do not.
I am not speaking of changing the Constitution; I am speaking of the precedent understanding that the Constitution is Just only if it secures unalienable Rights.
Law can only take you to good and better, to way to best is through justice.
In Marbury vs. Madison, the Supreme Court asserted it’s obligation to rule whether a law is Constitutional. I am patiently waiting for the court to recognize its obligation to rule whether a law is Just.
I would ask that as reparation for injustice suffered.
rwj
Unfortunately, some words have more than one meaning, and sometimes the word fits the other meaning better than any other word available. I am using dictate in the “impose will” sense.
That is my point. English needs more words.
rwj
The ‘Jim Crow’ system is widely recognized nowadays as a shameful betrayal of the principles of our Constitution and the concept of Justice. Can you give us a more modern and tangible example of exactly the sort of injustice you mean?
Any country that seeks to secure the unalienable rights of all cannot, by my definition, be a dictatorship.
rwj
So that would be none, then?
You’re speaking in riddles again. Name some and explain exactly why they are not dictatorships and how they differ from the US. As many others have noted, your defintion seems to imply that all governments are dicatatorships.
Thanks.
The least tyranny is found only if the unalienable rights of both plaintiff and defendant are weighed, not dictated, by law.
rwj
Catalyst:
Whooooosh. Try again.
Public school, American History. Truth is self-evident to some, incomprehensible to others.
rwj
Okay, and the name of a country that did this is…?
But with that you’re directly countering the founding fathers ‘government of laws and not of men’ concept.
I think you’re placing faith outside the law is far more open to abuse and misbehavior than faith is laws.
The obligation we all owe Liberty is to secure (protect) the rights of others. If one is a threat to liberty, the right to liberty is forfeit.
I am not the one that is dictating how you use your words. I am using the words that best fit my vocabulary and understanding. I am only asking you to attempt to understand them as I use them. I will do the same for you. You use the words that best fit your meaning and understanding, I will do the same.
rwj
I’m not sure if anyone’s explained this to you yet, but snappy comebacks alone do not a refutation make. If you’d care to actually address the content of my post, I’ll be around.
If you truly wish others to understand your posts, it would help if you would deign to publish your brand-new definitions for words when you use them with definitions currently only known to you.
I’ve read this thread over a few times and have absolutely no idea what you’re trying to say.
What grade did you get in that public school’s American history class? From where I sit, along with a few other posters in this thread, it certainly seems that you misunderstand quite a few of those concepts. I do see other posters trying to explain the actual definitions of those concepts to you, all to no avail it seems.
To clarify my post (#59), I mean that I’m sitting, figuratively speaking, along with a few other posters in this thread, not that I mean that those other posters misunderstand those concepts as rwj seems to.