Constitutional Rights or Popular Sovereignty?

[lightprocess]

Constitutional Rights or Popular Sovereignty?

[lightprocess]

It would seem that in recent years, certain issues have come to light which beg the question: Which has greater authority- The rights given to each and every citizen by the Constitution, or the decisions of the people by majority vote?

Obviously both of these affect each other, but going back to the mid-19th century we saw the Civil War as the culmination of these different interpretations of the law and rights. Ultimately, as we saw in the Civil War, Constitutional rights, albeit lacking 13-15th amendments, won.

I see a lot of the same parallels being drawn today with, for example, homosexuals. How do you think these current conflicts will be resolved and what does it say about what this country truly stands for?

(Jeez, I feel like I'm writing a History 101 final exam)

[Reflex]

Without a constitution guaranteeing equal rights to all a democracy is nothing more than mob rule.  A constitution is the only way to guarantee equality over the long term and is the basis of a contract between a government and the citizens.  I would not live in a country that did not adhere to a written contract of that nature.

[lightprocess]

But the Constitution isn't a permanent document. Amendments can be repealed. I guess I'm just trying to figure out where the line is drawn between what is "right" and what everyone wants. Also, how do you deal with something like the differing ideologies present in the Civil War? Both sides' views were, at the time, protected under the Constituion, it's just that the Confederacy viewed African Americans as property, and argued that the government, Constitution included, were only empowered by the will of the people and thus could not tell the states and people what to think.

[Babar]

<mumblemumble> declaration...<mumble>created equal...<mumble>endowed by their creator with inalienable human rights<mumble>that to secure these rights, governments are instituted.....</mumble>

[lightprocess]

Believe me, I'm completely on the side of the Constitution. But if that's really the way, how are issues like homosexual marriage and abortion substantiated?

[mikevalla]

The whole thing about marriage being religiously defined, and legally backed, is a total sham to me, and shows what the leaders in power at that time thought of the Constitution (READ: seperation of church and state).  I honestly can't think of how people can sit there and say that it is justified at all.

And, as far as abortion- in my own eyes, that was a good call.  As far as I am concerned, no laws should be set forth in religious tones, unless all of the major religions of the world could be said to agree thatthe was the right thing to do.  In other words, people should have the choice to do it, and the religious background that says whether or not it is a moral thing to do or not.

[Overkill]

Originally posted by: mikevalla

The whole thing about marriage being religiously defined, and legally backed, is a total sham to me, and shows what the leaders in power at that time thought of the Constitution (READ: seperation of church and state).  I honestly can't think of how people can sit there and say that it is justified at all.



And, as far as abortion- in my own eyes, that was a good call.  As far as I am concerned, no laws should be set forth in religious tones, unless all of the major religions of the world could be said to agree thatthe was the right thing to do.

And that will happen right about the time hell freezes over.

[Rocky]

Well there is a reason it isnt easy to change the constitution. We live a far cry from a total democracy, and its because we beleive there are underlying rights that we should all have and shouldn't be toyed with very often. Everyone understands that all of us can be wrong or that certain solcial atsmopheres can cause us to feel ill will towards a group of people that we otherwise wouldnt care about.  I mean do you think there werent abortions happening when the constitution was written?  Do you think there werent gay people when the constitution was written?  Why now do some people feel these issues deserve the right to be written into our constitution one way or the other. They should both be protected under whats currently written.  To steal something from a smart man may I quote:

"<mumblemumble> declaration...<mumble>created equal...<mumble>endowed by their creator with inalienable human rights<mumble>that to secure these rights, governments are instituted.....</mumble> "

[mikevalla]

That was my point.  I didn't say that I beleived the Constitution needed rewriting, just that certain groups tended to 'overlook' the Constitution.  I feel it is an extreme oversight of all branches of government, to contest what flies against the Constitution in legal regards.

[lightprocess]

Originally posted by: mikevalla

That was my point.  I didn't say that I beleived the Constitution needed rewriting, just that certain groups tended to 'overlook' the Constitution.  I feel it is an extreme oversight of all branches of government, to contest what flies against the Constitution in legal regards.

That's exactly what I was getting at. Like, how do we justify drug prohibition under the Constitution? Can't we argue that it's a means of expression? Or abortion, can't that be argued as, since it is opposed by many religious organizations, a freedom of religion? As far as I'm concerned, as long as the Constitution doesn't explicitly say "No", whatever you want to do it fair game.

That said, how can we accept votes that seem to be contrary to the Constitution? How can we weed out "popular opinion" from "different interpretations of the Constitution"?