Quote Originally Posted by Rideron View Post
OK Elganned:

If and when your ass is ever hauled into a criminal court due to a law that you find offensive and violates YOUR rights, will you be happy to have a jury of 12 that have the same temporary, situational, fluid, ever-changing, 'majority rules' view of the transitory nature of YOUR rights that YOU do?..
And you don't think juries are already made up of such people? Or do you think that there's some uniform code that most adhere to but from which my view deviates? If so, why do you think there's all that sparring during jury selection? Trial lawyers, at least, understand that different people interpret the law, guilt, and innocence differently, even if you don't understand that.

Oh, wait a minute....

If the majority supports it, I guess you wouldn't think that law violates your rights at all...

Cuz' you don't have any rights other than what a majority says you do, do ya?
You misunderstand, or are being deliberately obtuse [[taking lessons from Cc?). A simple majority is not all that is needed; indeed, the Constitution was implemented specifically to guard against "the tyranny of the majority", among other things. But the fact remains that there is an ammendment process, which requires a certain super-majority in congress or a certain super-majority of the states to ratify, and so the rights enumerated in the Constitution to a very real degree ARE in fact subject to change by a majority. The process is long, involved, and difficult--for a reason--but is in place.

Your implication that a simple majority can throw their weight around with impugnity, and your further implication that that is what I meant and endorse, is specious. The fact however remains a fact that your rights under the Constitution can be changed by a majority of the people through the ammendment process.