UConn James Posted December 10, 2006 Share Posted December 10, 2006 This isn't an argument. It's a fact. The elected officials who put these laws into place were put into office by the people of Virginia so they would do the bidding of the majority of the state's residents. The majority rules. It's just that simple. Personally I think the laws are a crock of schitt, but this is clearly what a majority of Virginia wanted. If it is not, then they need to replace their elected officials with people who have opposing views. 861253[/snapback] Wasn't arguing about the concept of majority rules. A majority in elections that are decided on the margins does not mean it is morally or even legally right. It simply codifies descrimination. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bungee Jumper Posted December 10, 2006 Share Posted December 10, 2006 Wasn't arguing about the concept of majority rules. A majority in elections that are decided on the margins does not mean it is morally or even legally right. It simply codifies descrimination. 861680[/snapback] Actually, in a democracy it does mean it's legally right. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
UConn James Posted December 10, 2006 Share Posted December 10, 2006 Actually, in a democracy it does mean it's legally right. 861851[/snapback] Constitutionally? The wheel's still in spin on that. Just how segregation and Jim Crow was 'legally right' in the South for so long... it was 'legally right' in one sense that enough people voted to allow descrimination, winked at lynch mobs, etc. But in quite a different sense, it wasn't legally right, b/c subsequent SC rulings said what those states were doing was legally wrong. It's just going to take time. And then, maybe we can get a govt that can concentrate on governing rather than delving into peoples' sex lives. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
/dev/null Posted December 11, 2006 Share Posted December 11, 2006 Actually, in a democracy it does mean it's legally right. 861851[/snapback] its only democracy when their candidate/initiative wins. when they lose they're forced to suffer to the tyranny of the majority Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bungee Jumper Posted December 11, 2006 Share Posted December 11, 2006 Just how segregation and Jim Crow was 'legally right' in the South for so long... it was 'legally right' in one sense that enough people voted to allow descrimination, winked at lynch mobs, etc. But in quite a different sense, it wasn't legally right, b/c subsequent SC rulings said what those states were doing was legally wrong. It's just going to take time. 861864[/snapback] And the SC rulings didn't apply retroactively. Things are legal until they aren't. If the population of a state democratically votes in favor of a given law via the process outlined in their state's articles of statehood (Charter, Constitution, whatever), it's legal. If the SC strikes it down later, or the US Congress enacts federal law contradicting it...then it becomes illegal. In the intervening time, it's legal. But something can't become illegal retroactively, nor can it realistically be called "illegal" in a time frame in which it is legal based on some future expectation of it being overturned. Just like segregation and Jim Crow - both of which were legal until they weren't. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IDBillzFan Posted December 12, 2006 Share Posted December 12, 2006 A majority in elections that are decided on the margins does not mean it is morally or even legally right. It simply codifies descrimination.861680[/snapback] Says you. And your opinion -- and that's what it is, an opinion -- legally means nothing in Virginia unless you have a special way to overturn their laws. And you know why? Because that's what the people of Virginia wanted, voted for, and got. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
/dev/null Posted December 13, 2006 Share Posted December 13, 2006 Says you. And your opinion -- and that's what it is, an opinion -- legally means nothing in Virginia unless you have a special way to overturn their laws. And you know why? Because that's what the people of Virginia wanted, voted for, and got. 864809[/snapback] Not to mention someone named "Uconn James" probably isn't even a registered voter in the Commonwealth of Virginia As a registered voter in Virginia (voted no on the ballot measure) I don't have a problem with it passing because I know that is the will of the majority of Virginians Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chilly Posted December 13, 2006 Share Posted December 13, 2006 Not to mention someone named "Uconn James" probably isn't even a registered voter in the Commonwealth of Virginia As a registered voter in Virginia (voted no on the ballot measure) I don't have a problem with it passing because I know that is the will of the majority of Virginians 864838[/snapback] Majority of (voting) Virginians. Though it doesn't change anything with the principal of Democracy and being ok with the law, I think that it is still important to make that distinction. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
/dev/null Posted December 13, 2006 Share Posted December 13, 2006 Majority of (voting) Virginians. 864845[/snapback] If the non voters are too lazy to make their voice heard on Election Day what they say afterwards is irrellevant. Just as irrellevant as people from outside Virginia Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chilly Posted December 13, 2006 Share Posted December 13, 2006 If the non voters are too lazy to make their voice heard on Election Day what they say afterwards is irrellevant. Just as irrellevant as people from outside Virginia 864867[/snapback] While that is true, and is why I put that qualification in my statement, it doesn't make them any less virginian. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
/dev/null Posted December 13, 2006 Share Posted December 13, 2006 While that is true, and is why I put that qualification in my statement, it doesn't make them any less virginian. 864873[/snapback] and unless they choose to make their voice heard on election day how do you propose including them in the system? take the election results and regress towards the mean Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chilly Posted December 13, 2006 Share Posted December 13, 2006 and unless they choose to make their voice heard on election day how do you propose including them in the system? take the election results and regress towards the mean 864903[/snapback] No damnit, I've been saying this whole time that it doesn't change anything as far as democracy/the law is concerned. I was just qualifying this statement: because I know that is the will of the majority of Virginians Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts