3 ms·

The tempers of democracy are dangerous, so we put some things beyond its reach, unless extraordinary consensus is found to change that set of things. McCarthy

The tempers of democracy are dangerous, so we put some things beyond its reach, unless extraordinary consensus is found to change that set of things. McCarthy and his ilk could shame people all he wanted, but they weren't able to get people thrown in prison for allegedly believing in communism, because the Constitution doesn't allow it. At various times in history you could have gotten bills through Congress declaring people guilty and authorizing their punishment without trial. Thankfully, the Constitution doesn't allow such things.

coldtea 9y ago
>The tempers of democracy are dangerous, so we put some things beyond its reach, unless extraordinary consensus is found to change that set of things I understand the notion, but who determines what those things are though? And who judges that/those persons? Who says those things that "need extraordinary consensus" to change are indeed good and should be kept difficult to change? Slavery took a civil war to change, and it could just as well have been noted down as one of those "things beyond its reach". Would that be ok? Or, for an recent example, that some consider a bad thing but still requires "extraordinary consensus": private gun ownership. >McCarthy and his ilk could shame people all he wanted, but they weren't able to get people thrown in prison for allegedly believing in communism, because the Constitution doesn't allow it. At various times in history you could have gotten bills through Congress declaring people guilty and authorizing their punishment without trial. Thankfully, the Constitution doesn't allow such things. I'm not so sure. For the communists, for example, if they really wanted that (and merely FUD wasn't enough to thwart them) that could be achieved with some trivial technical re-definitions (e.g. from "believers in communism" to "traitors" and "collaborators with the enemy"), and few would bat an eye. Like with the Japanese-Americans during WWII. But being able to declare people guilty without trial is usually not necessary except in the direst of dark rules -- if the decisions of trials fit the intents and prejudices of the ruling elites that's just as well. Most dictatorships for example also have trials. It's just that they make the laws and have the support of the judges.

coldtea 9y ago

>The tempers of democracy are dangerous, so we put some things beyond its reach, unless extraordinary consensus is found to change that set of things I understand the notion, but who determines what those things are though? And who judges that/those persons? Who says those things that "need extraordinary consensus" to change are indeed good and should be kept difficult to change? Slavery took a civil war to change, and it could just as well have been noted down as one of those "things beyond its reach". Would that be ok? Or, for an recent example, that some consider a bad thing but still requires "extraordinary consensus": private gun ownership. >McCarthy and his ilk could shame people all he wanted, but they weren't able to get people thrown in prison for allegedly believing in communism, because the Constitution doesn't allow it. At various times in history you could have gotten bills through Congress declaring people guilty and authorizing their punishment without trial. Thankfully, the Constitution doesn't allow such things. I'm not so sure. For the communists, for example, if they really wanted that (and merely FUD wasn't enough to thwart them) that could be achieved with some trivial technical re-definitions (e.g. from "believers in communism" to "traitors" and "collaborators with the enemy"), and few would bat an eye. Like with the Japanese-Americans during WWII. But being able to declare people guilty without trial is usually not necessary except in the direst of dark rules -- if the decisions of trials fit the intents and prejudices of the ruling elites that's just as well. Most dictatorships for example also have trials. It's just that they make the laws and have the support of the judges.