So apartheid. That’s what you want.
Got it.
It was about how a majority destroying traditions, Culture and heritage through the use of majority. I can’t help it if you’re too stupid to see.
Not wasting anymore time with you.
I get what animates your anger. I do. But I just can’t have a conversation about hunting dogs in a Washington State. That’s not the topic of the thread.
You yourself said that in our Constitutional Republic you can violate or harm others with consent of the majority. I’ll remind you of the statement:
Are you wanting to revise that?
Meaning majority can violate minority.
He majority is and always will be limited in what they can and cannot do. This is a big difference between a republic and a democracy.
How are these actions a threat to the Republic, as you put it?
I know that the Founders contrasted “republics” with “democracies”, but their notion of a republic was about the rule of law, non-existence of nobility, the notion that every citizen had an interest in the governing of the country, and popular sovereignty. They valued self-government, too, but I don’t think they believed it to be inconsistent with popular sovereignty. I don’t think they are incompatible, either. I see popular sovereignty as an extension of self-sovereignty. Each person’s sovereignty over their own respective affairs reaches into the space between all of them and this exercise of will over the space inbetween is what popular sovereignty is, whether the word used for this is “republic” or “democracy”.
Yeah there was an entire culture based upon fox hunting in England too.
Now that barbaric sport is banned.
Allan
Sovereignty is always in the people in a republic, not the government. The people select their representatives and they can ask for that office back in the case of injustice.
It is always the will of the people that counts.
When you say “founders”, think about who you’re actually talking about.
Not in the least.
Revolutionaries. all of them.
sat around 232 years ago and wrote the constitution and the 10 BOR.
Pretty good for Robespierre types.
Of course France’s king was nearby.
Allan
I’ll say that there is no such thing as individual sovereignty in any republic anywhere, nor could there be. There was never any intention of individual sovereignty in this nation by any of the founders. The concept itself is antithecal to any form government and can only really exist in anarchy.
1 Like
Anarchy is impossible.
Probably. Individual sovereignty leads to chaos. That’s the point.
No. It wouldn’t be chaotic because it actually is impossible. I mean that you can’t get ride of the rule of some otlver others because one vision must always come out on top.
That aside, I do have a romantic appreciation for the anarchic ideal.
No it doesn’t.
Great post.
Now this is interesting.
I thought so.
This and Madison’s reaction to Hamilton’s use of the general welfare clause are amazing.
Madison was young and perhaps naive. Mason must have been frustrated.
