(July 1, 2014 at 5:22 pm)blackout94 Wrote:(July 1, 2014 at 5:16 pm)Cthulhu Dreaming Wrote: Please explain how protecting a minority's civil and individual rights can be construed as "tyranny".
It is not, but if the minority dictates the rights as they see fit while harming the majority's rights it should not be allowed. I'm just saying neither should the majority dictate public life, but minorities shouldn't have privileges or dictate the majority's rights/benefits
(July 1, 2014 at 5:10 pm)blackout94 Wrote: I really can't answer. But you made a good point, gay rights shouldn't be on referendum, I was just giving an example. If I vote for a conservative party let's say, I'm already voting intrinsically against abortion, if I vote for a liberal one, I'm voting to support legalization, and I'm a man.
Yep, and in places where rights are subject to statutory law, that might fly. Here, where such rights are protected under the nation's Constitution, statutory law cannot override Constitutional law.
Yes one of our professors told us the USA has a constitution per federation and the federal state has the main constitution, the later being supreme
(July 1, 2014 at 5:17 pm)Losty Wrote: Wtf? No one should be voting on rights. They're called rights for a reason.
Tell that to our government, abortion was brought on referendum, and gay adoption WAS about to be brought too but the constitutional court decided it was against the constitution to ask the people if a certain class should have fundamental rights.
[/quote]
I don't see anywhere in this conversation that suggests the majority's rights would be harmed. All this is about is women having the right to control their own bodies
No idea why you brought up a 'tyranny of the minority'
In every country and every age, the priest had been hostile to Liberty.
- Thomas Jefferson
- Thomas Jefferson