On 4/26/05, Tom Reese <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: <snip> In a democracy, the > majority rules. The minority has no rights under the law. The United > States of America is not a democracy. It is a republic. <snip>
With the greatest of respect, Tom, it seems to me that you (or those who share your viewpoint) are making up definitions to suit their agenda. The thought that the "minority" has "no rights under the law" is simply wrong. By minority, I assume that you mean "those who did not vote for the ruling party"? If it's not them, then who exactly are the "majority" and "minority" to which you refer? But here's the thing. In a secret ballot, who knows who the majority and the minority are? So how can you say that the minority "has no rights"? They have the same rights as everyone else. No matter who votes for the lawmakers, their laws apply to everyone. The laws made by those lawmakers must be in accordance with the Constitution; if they aren't, then they're of no force and effect. The Constitution is, in effect, the great equalizer; it protects the everyone from the "will of the majority" (whoever they may be). Problem is, that a country doesn't have to be a republic to have a constitution, a bill of rights, a charter of rights, etc. For instance Canada has a written constitution, but we're not a republic, as we recognize the Queen of England as our head of state (I find that humiliating, but that one's for another time). England has a constitution, but it's not a single document, but rather a collection of documents, laws, and conventions starting from the Magna Carta and continuing to today. But if England and Canada aren't democracies by your definition (since their constitutions prevent the majority from oppressing the minority), and they aren't republics (having a non-elected monarch), then what are they? cheers, frank -- "Sharpness is a bourgeois concept." -Henri Cartier-Bresson
