[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Reinterpretation Reprised
> Do you mean that a Majority Happening is the only thing which
> is important in your eyes? That the individual is
> insignificant when s/he is affected by legislation on a
> personal basis? That if only one person feels discomfitted by
> it then it's no big deal because no one else has realized that
> they've been violated? That life, liberty & the pursuit of
> happiness is only important when carried out by large groups?
> That the standard of Good Government is a National Event rather
> than the quality of individual existence? That a Rose by any
> other name or any lesser multiplicand is not a rose?
A person has certain inalienable rights. The rights of teh majority in this
country are DEFINED by the Constitution. If the right or responsibility is not
SPECIFICALY detailed in that document then the Federal govt. does not have
that right, unless it is added as an amendment by the states. I oppose any
move by the majority to remove a possible action or belief system from the
individual that does not directly lead to the damage of a person or their
property without their prior consent.
Is that clear enough as to what I believe? Behind this view is an avowed
As to the rose, call it whatever is convenient...