Prop 8?

A mob once form is a stupid and deadly creature that Napoleon stated should be deal with by using a whiff of grape shot from cannons.

No political truth is certainly of greater intrinsic value, or is stamped with the authority of more enlightened patrons of liberty, than that on which the objection is founded. The accumulation of all powers, legislative, executive, and judiciary, in the same hands, whether of one, a few, or many, and whether hereditary, selfappointed, or elective, may justly be pronounced the very definition of tyranny.

If men were angels, no government would be necessary. If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary. In framing a government which is to be administered by men over men, the great difficulty lies in this: you must first enable the government to control the governed; and in the next place oblige it to control itself. . . .

It is of great importance in a republic not only to guard the society against the oppression of its rulers, but to guard one part of the society against the injustice of the other part. Different interests necessarily exist in different classes of citizens. If a majority be united by a common interest, the rights of the minority will be insecure. . . .

In a free government the security for civil rights must be the same as that for religious rights. . . .

Justice is the end of government. It is the end of civil society. It ever has been and ever will be pursued until it be obtained, or until liberty be lost in the pursuit. In a society under the forms of which the stronger faction can readily unite and oppress the weaker, anarchy may as truly be said to reign as in a state of nature, where the weaker individual is not secured against the violence of the stronger; and as, in the latter state, even the stronger individuals are prompted, by the uncertainty of their condition, to submit to a government which may protect the weak as well as themselves; so, in the former state, will the more powerful factions or parties be gradnally induced, by a like motive, to wish for a government which will protect all parties, the weaker as well as the more powerful.

Your claim that the majority is always wrong/irrational/ stupid is an argument that democracy is impossible, which is offensive and wrong.

The Founders though so much of your theory of individual rights that they did not think that a bill of rights was needed, and did not include one.

This liberal theory has however become one of the main problems with civilization, as is evidenced by the continuing break down of civilization, with societies becoming unmanageable and thus lawless.

Justice is the end of government. It is the end of civil society. It ever has been and ever will be pursued until it be obtained, or until liberty be lost in the pursuit....

You need to get your mind around the fact that the US Constitution supported majority rule for a long time, and can again. we have seen the failure of individual rights based society, and are rapidly moving towards socialism theory as a fix.

But on one point the delegates of the Federal Convention were in near agreement. There was no need to attach a declaration of rights, of the kind found in the state constitutions, to their proposed Constitution.

I just can see going back in a time machine and asking our founding fathers if they had ever dream that a right to same sex marriage could somehow be found in the constitution!

Had those who drew and ratified the Due Process Clauses of the Fifth Amendment or the Fourteenth Amendment known the components of liberty in its manifold possibilities, they might have been more specific. They did not presume to have this insight. They knew times can blind us to certain truths and later generations can see that laws once thought necessary and proper in fact serve only to oppress. As the Constitution endures, persons in every generation can invoke its principles in their own search for greater freedom.

We don't live in the dark ages nor are we frozen in the 18th Century. If we were, women would not have a legal existence separate from their husbands and our men would still be carrying muskets into battle. Our founders understood that societies evolve, science progresses, knowledge is gained, and we become more enlightened as a people.

Hawkeye10 wrote:

The Founders though so much of your theory of individual rights that they did not think that a bill of rights was needed, and did not include one.

You have not demonstrated any knowledge about our history. Many founders did not think a bill of rights was necessary because the people did not surrender any of their rights to the government. They proclaimed that their rights were INABLIENABLE (meaning incapable of being surrendered or transferred to a governing power). They did not grant the government any power to strip them of their rights.

Quote:

But on one point the delegates of the Federal Convention were in near agreement. There was no need to attach a declaration of rights, of the kind found in the state constitutions, to their proposed Constitution.

page 106
http://books.google.com/books?id=knYDMgNcX6EC&pg=PA150&lpg=PA150&dq=constitution+%22majority+rights%22&source=bl&ots=pD3loet2x3&sig=I5_Yu1iU1hY6F-JOhIlNyNbpunk&hl=en&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=10&ct=result#PPA106,M1

Interesting book, which seems to totally refute your claims of what the founders intended.....but then you usually can't back up your assertions

The most considerable of the remaining objections is that the plan of the convention contains no bill of rights. ...

I go further, and affirm that bills of rights, in the sense and to the extent in which they are contended for, are not only unnecessary in the proposed Constitution, but would even be dangerous. They would contain various exceptions to powers not granted; and, on this very account, would afford a colorable pretext to claim more than were granted. For why declare that things shall not be done which there is no power to do? Why, for instance, should it be said that the liberty of the press shall not be restrained, when no power is given by which restrictions may be imposed? I will not contend that such a provision would confer a regulating power; but it is evident that it would furnish, to men disposed to usurp, a plausible pretense for claiming that power. They might urge with a semblance of reason, that the Constitution ought not to be charged with the absurdity of providing against the abuse of an authority which was not given, and that the provision against restraining the liberty of the press afforded a clear implication, that a power to prescribe proper regulations concerning it was intended to be vested in the national government. This may serve as a specimen of the numerous handles which would be given to the doctrine of constructive powers, by the indulgence of an injudicious zeal for bills of rights.

No one found a right for women to vote before the 18 amendtment and yet you are claiming that the 14 allow gay married!!!!!!!!!!!!

You still haven't demonstrated any knowledge about history. You fail to explain WHY some founders did not believe a bill of rights was necessary. It's not because they frowned upon individual rights as you allege

I agree the right for heterosexuals to marry is a fundermental right though out history as it have a direct connection with producing and caring for the next generation.

There is no history or right to call private homosexual relationships marriage however or grant state licenses.

If you wish that right you are just going to need to amendment the constitution.

Some have made the argument, bordering on the frivolous, that only those arms in existence in the 18th century are protected by the Second Amendment. We do not interpret constitutional rights that way. Just as the First Amendment protects modern forms of communications, e.g., Reno v. American Civil Liberties Union, 521 U. S. 844, 849 (1997), and the Fourth Amendment applies to modern forms of search, e.g., Kyllo v. United States, 533 U. S. 27, 35"36 (2001), the Second Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding.

Marriage, while from its very nature a sacred obligation, is nevertheless, in most civilized nations, a civil contract, and usually regulated by law. Upon it society may be said to be built, and out of its fruits spring social relations and social obligations and duties, with which government is necessarily required to deal.

The military hasn't fallen apart since Women have been let in. Ours is not the only military in the world, and for that fact, other armies do enlist women.

How many times must I address your frivolous argument?