Comments on: What Do the People of Maine and President Obama Have in Common?

By: John

John — Fri, 06 Nov 2009 21:24:58 +0000

I actually agree with this. Remember, we live in a republic and not a democracy. This was established because it protects the rights of those in the minority as well as the majority. Had we put civil rights legislation to the vote in 1964 we’d still have separate water fountains today.

I shudder to think some of the rights I enjoy could be stripped away by 50% + 1 of the votes in an election.

By: Pat

Pat — Wed, 04 Nov 2009 20:51:54 +0000

It took 100 years for Americans to enfranchise black citizens, and only after the courts repeatedly struck down state legislative attempts to prevent that from occurring. The 14th and 15th Amendments were passed in the 1860s, but the states and majorities of its citizens did not want equal rights for black people. Do you think the states had a right to ignore the Constitution because its voters disagreed with it?

The courts’ proper role under the Constitution is to interpret what the laws mean. Many states legislatures were violating the law of the land decades. Just as the courts led the way to passage of the Voting Rights Act thru Brown v. Board and other landmark civil rights cases, it will also lead the way to abolishing state-sanctioned privileges for citizens based on their sexual preferences.

By: No2Liberals

No2Liberals — Wed, 04 Nov 2009 18:48:28 +0000

most Americans don’t support the Bill of Rights, either

I disagree with that assumption, and have neither heard nor seen any evidence that would support that conclusion.

that’s why the Constitution protects the rights of the individual against the tyranny of the majority.

No, it doesn't. It protects the representative nature of our system, where every citizen has an equal right to vote for their interest. I can think of nothing more anarchical than an individual's right superseding that of the majority.

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

Ninth Amendment. Calling on the vaguest of all the Bill of Rights to justify homosexual marriage, as opposed to the will of the people, is indicative of a narrow social agenda. BTW, there is no such word as "irregardless," it's a double negative.

By: dianne

dianne — Wed, 04 Nov 2009 18:45:49 +0000

Reference please for statement, “Most Americans don’t support the Bill of Rights, either.” I don’t believe it.

By: Gritsforbreakfast

Gritsforbreakfast — Wed, 04 Nov 2009 18:13:06 +0000

Not surprising. When you ask them about the specifics, most Americans don’t support the Bill of Rights, either. That’s why the Constitution protects the rights of the individual against the tyranny of the majority. Gay marriage absolutely should be a right under the 9th Amendment, irregardless of what voters want.