Leftwing Newspaper Gone Too Far?

[SkyMutt]

These seem like overly broad statements. Are you willing to supply some context?

Yes. Might = right.
Right...as in the majority has the collective the right to do whatever it wants. So the context is anthropology.

Anthropology is still a very broad category. We are not talking of some sort of Hobbesian "state of nature" here, but rather of a Western civilization in the early 21st century. Your simplistic "might=right" equation is completely inadequate to describe its workings. The majority in the United States does not have "the collective the right to do whatever it wants," and if you believe that it does, I suggest you try reading up on the laws of that country.

If you're speaking of the United States, this statement is incorrect. In the Constitution of the United States, there are specific safeguards (however imperfect) in place to prevent the tyranny of the majority.

Well, you see, the Constitution arose from the Declaration of Independence.

No, it did not. The Constitution of the United States was written later, and was originally described as being a reworking of the Articles of Confederation. The convention produced a completely new document, however, and reformed the country under different principles.

The sentiments in the Declaration of Independence may resonate with some people to this day, but they remain only that--sentiments. They have absolutely no legal standing in the United States or elsewhere.

The majority in the USA can make a new Constitution anytime they like and who is going to stop them? The King of England?

Again, this is incorrect. I don't know where you learned about the political history and workings of the United States, but it appears you've been misinformed. The process by which the Constitution of the United States might be revised is not so simple as "the majority wills it."

You've ignored my point about the inherent protections in the Constitution of the United States against a tyranny of the majority. I would reinforce that by stating that well established legal precedent in the U. S. also thwarts a tyranny of the majority. I'd hate to think you're ignoring my point simply because it refutes your position. Are you perhaps taking the time to study up on those protections? There's no rush--get back to me when you have a cogent argument as to why they are not relevant to this discussion.