<DIV>You'll take democracy over constitutional rights? </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>What is your view of Brown v. Board of Education? Or on the other side, US v. Debs (upholding the convictions of the CP leadership for conspiracy to advocate the overthrow of the US govt)? </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>The thing is, mere majority rule can be oppressive when the majority is prejudiced. I'm not saying there is not a deep problem about democracy involved in constitutional democracy, but do you really think that democracy is equivalent to unconstrained majority rule?</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>Here's the famous footnote 4 from US v. Carolene Products, which states the expanded scope for judicial review in cases involving constitutional rights and racial and religious minorities:</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE>There may be narrower scope for operation of the presumption of constitutionality when legislation appears on its face to be within a </BLOCKQUOTE><A name=SDU_33></A>
<BLOCKQUOTE>specific prohibition of the Constitution, such as those of the first ten Amendments, which are deemed equally specific when held to be embraced within the Fourteenth. See <A title=http://web2.westlaw.com/find/default.wl?DB=708&SerialNum=1931123958&FindType=Y&ReferencePositionType=S&ReferencePosition=535&AP=&RS=WLW4.07&VR=2.0&FN=_top&SV=Split&MT=Westlaw target=_top>Stromberg v. California, 283 U.S. 359, 369, 370, 51 S.Ct. 532, 535, 536, 75 L.Ed. 1117, 73 A.L.R. 1484;</A> <A title=http://web2.westlaw.com/find/default.wl?DB=708&SerialNum=1938122404&FindType=Y&AP=&RS=WLW4.07&VR=2.0&FN=_top&SV=Split&MT=Westlaw target=_top>Lovell v. Griffin, 303 U.S. 444, 58 S.Ct. 666, 82 L.Ed. 949,</A> decided March 28, 1938. </BLOCKQUOTE><BR>
<BLOCKQUOTE>It is unnecessary to consider now whether legislation which restricts those political processes which can ordinarily be expected to bring about repeal of undesirable legislation, is to be subjected to more exacting judicial scrutiny under the general prohibitions of the Fourteenth Amendment than are most other types of legislation. On restrictions upon the right to vote, see <A title=http://web2.westlaw.com/find/default.wl?DB=708&SerialNum=1927124195&FindType=Y&AP=&RS=WLW4.07&VR=2.0&FN=_top&SV=Split&MT=Westlaw target=_top>Nixon v. Herndon, 273 U.S. 536, 47 S.Ct. 446, 71 L.Ed. 759;</A> <A title=http://web2.westlaw.com/find/default.wl?DB=708&SerialNum=1932123414&FindType=Y&AP=&RS=WLW4.07&VR=2.0&FN=_top&SV=Split&MT=Westlaw target=_top>Nixon v. Condon, 286 U.S. 73, 52 S.Ct. 484, 76 L.Ed. 984, 88 A.L.R. 458;</A> on restraints upon the dissemination of information, see <A
title=http://web2.westlaw.com/find/default.wl?DB=708&SerialNum=1931123793&FindType=Y&ReferencePositionType=S&ReferencePosition=630&AP=&RS=WLW4.07&VR=2.0&FN=_top&SV=Split&MT=Westlaw target=_top>Near v. Minnesota, 283 U.S. 697, 713--714, 718--720, 722, 51 S.Ct. 625, 630, 632, 633, 75 L.Ed. 1357;</A> <A title=http://web2.westlaw.com/find/default.wl?DB=708&SerialNum=1936123910&FindType=Y&AP=&RS=WLW4.07&VR=2.0&FN=_top&SV=Split&MT=Westlaw target=_top>Grosjean v. American Press Co., 297 U.S. 233, 56 S.Ct. 444, 80 L.Ed. 660;</A> Lovell v. Griffin, supra; on interferences with political organizations, see <A title=http://web2.westlaw.com/find/default.wl?DB=708&SerialNum=1931123958&FindType=Y&ReferencePositionType=S&ReferencePosition=535&AP=&RS=WLW4.07&VR=2.0&FN=_top&SV=Split&MT=Westlaw target=_top>Stromberg v. California, supra, 283 U.S. 359, 369, 51 S.Ct. 532, 535, 75 L.Ed. 1117,
73 A.L.R. 1484;</A> <A title=http://web2.westlaw.com/find/default.wl?DB=708&SerialNum=1927123853&FindType=Y&AP=&RS=WLW4.07&VR=2.0&FN=_top&SV=Split&MT=Westlaw target=_top>Fiske v. Kansas, 274 U.S. 380, 47 S.Ct. 655, 71 L.Ed. 1108;</A> <A title=http://web2.westlaw.com/find/default.wl?DB=708&SerialNum=1927124508&FindType=Y&ReferencePositionType=S&ReferencePosition=647&AP=&RS=WLW4.07&VR=2.0&FN=_top&SV=Split&MT=Westlaw target=_top>Whitney v. California, 274 U.S. 357, 373--378, 47 S.Ct. 641, 647, 649, 71 L.Ed. 1095;</A> <A title=http://web2.westlaw.com/find/default.wl?DB=708&SerialNum=1937122781&FindType=Y&AP=&RS=WLW4.07&VR=2.0&FN=_top&SV=Split&MT=Westlaw target=_top>Herndon v. Lowry, 301 U.S. 242, 57 S.Ct. 732, 81 L.Ed. 1066;</A> and see </BLOCKQUOTE><A name=SDU_34></A>
<BLOCKQUOTE>Holmes, J., in <A title=http://web2.westlaw.com/find/default.wl?DB=708&SerialNum=1925121882&FindType=Y&AP=&RS=WLW4.07&VR=2.0&FN=_top&SV=Split&MT=Westlaw target=_top>Gitlow v. New York, 268 U.S. 652, 673, 45 S.Ct. 625, 69 L.Ed. 1138;</A> as to prohibition of peaceable assembly, see <A title=http://web2.westlaw.com/find/default.wl?DB=708&SerialNum=1937122556&FindType=Y&ReferencePositionType=S&ReferencePosition=260&AP=&RS=WLW4.07&VR=2.0&FN=_top&SV=Split&MT=Westlaw target=_top>De Jonge v. Oregon, 299 U.S. 353, 365, 57 S.Ct. 255, 260, 81 L.Ed. 278</A>. </BLOCKQUOTE><BR>
<BLOCKQUOTE>Nor need we enquire whether similar considerations enter into the review of statutes directed at particular religious, <A title=http://web2.westlaw.com/find/default.wl?DB=708&SerialNum=1925122126&FindType=Y&AP=&RS=WLW4.07&VR=2.0&FN=_top&SV=Split&MT=Westlaw target=_top>Pierce v. Society of Sisters, 268 U.S. 510, 45 S.Ct. 571, 69 L.Ed. 1070, 39 A.L.R. 468,</A> or national, <A title=http://web2.westlaw.com/find/default.wl?DB=708&SerialNum=1923120440&FindType=Y&AP=&RS=WLW4.07&VR=2.0&FN=_top&SV=Split&MT=Westlaw target=_top>Meyer v. Nebraska, 262 U.S. 390, 43 S.Ct. 625, 67 L.Ed. 1042, 29 A.L.R. 1446;</A> <A title=http://web2.westlaw.com/find/default.wl?DB=708&SerialNum=1923120321&FindType=Y&AP=&RS=WLW4.07&VR=2.0&FN=_top&SV=Split&MT=Westlaw target=_top>Bartels v. Iowa, 262 U.S. 404, 43 S.Ct. 628, 67 L.Ed. 1047;</A> <A
title=http://web2.westlaw.com/find/default.wl?DB=708&SerialNum=1927123833&FindType=Y&AP=&RS=WLW4.07&VR=2.0&FN=_top&SV=Split&MT=Westlaw target=_top>Farrington v. Tokushige, 273 U.S. 284, 47 S.Ct. 406, 71 L.Ed. 646,</A> or racial minorities. Nixon v. Herndon, supra; Nixon v. Condon, supra; whether prejudice against discrete and <A class=SearchTerm title=SearchTerm name=SearchTerm></A><SPAN class=SearchTerm title=SearchTerm name="SearchTerm">insular minorities</SPAN> may be a special condition, which tends seriously to curtail the operation of those political processes ordinarily to be relied upon to protect <A class=SearchTerm title=SearchTerm name=SearchTerm></A><SPAN class=SearchTerm title=SearchTerm name="SearchTerm">minorities,</SPAN> and which may call for a correspondingly more searching judicial inquiry. Compare <A
title=http://web2.westlaw.com/find/default.wl?DB=780&SerialNum=1800123335&FindType=Y&ReferencePositionType=S&ReferencePosition=428&AP=&RS=WLW4.07&VR=2.0&FN=_top&SV=Split&MT=Westlaw target=_top>McCulloch v. Maryland, 4 Wheat. 316, 428, 4 L.Ed. 579;</A> <A title=http://web2.westlaw.com/find/default.wl?DB=708&SerialNum=1938196100&FindType=Y&AP=&RS=WLW4.07&VR=2.0&FN=_top&SV=Split&MT=Westlaw target=_top>South Carolina State Highway Department v. Barnwell Bros., 303 U.S. 177, 58 S.Ct. 510, 82 L.Ed. 734,</A> decided February 14, 1938, note 2, and cases cited.</BLOCKQUOTE><BR><BR><BR>U.S. v. Carolene Products Co. 304 U.S. 144, *153, 58 S.Ct. 778, **784 (U.S. 1938)<BR><BR><BR><B><I>Miles Jackson <cqmv@pdx.edu></I></B> wrote:</DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE class=replbq style="PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-LEFT: #1010ff 2px solid"><BR><BR>On Sun, 1 Aug 2004, Brian Charles Dauth wrote:<BR><BR>> Democratic decisions need to be overriden when they are homophobic/sexphobic<BR>> and oppressive.<BR><BR>Whaaaa? So who gets to make this determination? A noble philosopher<BR>king? Marxist college professors? The Supremes? Britney Spears?<BR>Call me naive, but if I have to choose between democracy and rule by<BR>the noble elite, I'll pick democracy every time.<BR><BR>Miles<BR><BR>___________________________________<BR>http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk<BR></BLOCKQUOTE><p>
<hr size=1>Do you Yahoo!?<br>
<a href="http://us.rd.yahoo.com/mail_us/taglines/aac/*http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail/static/ease.html">Yahoo! Mail Address AutoComplete</a> - You start. We finish.