Reply #28: It's not a red herring...

[confrontationclaws]

ulTrax,

Why do you assume that once your "reforms" of the Constitution are in place, that the changes that would be enacted in your new democracy would be "progressive?" You refer to the "red herring" of democratic mob rule, but why is it a red herring??

The Bill of Rights wouldn't serve as a shield against abuse in a "true" democracy, because, even though in your system a super majority of sorts might be required to amend, a simple majority could (would?) elect members of the executive and legislative branches that promise to ignore it. I believe it was Andrew Jackson who noted the fact that the Supreme Court's army is rather puny. The Bill of Rights only limits the government (and private citizens by one amendment) because the "government" obeys the Supreme Court. (I suppose a lot of DUers aren't old enough to remember the suspense that existed in the time between the Supreme Court's ruling on the Nixon tapes and Nixon's response. Just what would have happened if he had refused? Even Nixon knew better...I'm not so sure the present crop of fascists would be so deferential.)

Bottom line--in your system, the majority would CONTROL the manner and degree to which the rights of the minority are protected. Which means they really wouldn't be "rights" at all would they?