5 ms·

The Bill of Rights cannot be. This is the fundamental difference between the US and other Western democracies. Consent to be governed rests upon said government

The Bill of Rights cannot be. This is the fundamental difference between the US and other Western democracies. Consent to be governed rests upon said government respecting those inalienable rights that we have. Those rights are not granted us by the government, they are the rights that we created a government to preserve. Any government violating those rights no longer has the consent of the governed and should be abolished.

bananabreakfast 5y ago
That's absurd. The Bill of Rights is literally a list of changes to the constitution. Any one of them can be changed at any time by a majority of states. You're essentially saying that if the majority of the country votes to change one of the rights, then what? You'll no longer recognize the government as real?
- blacktriangle 5y ago
  Take that argument to an extreme. If the majority of the country votes to suspend democracy, would you stick around? If not, then doesn't that imply that there exists a set of underlying principles that you believe are fundamental to a government? That's exactly what the Bill of Rights is, an enumeration of what were viewed as the fundamental rights for which the point of government is to preserve. The mistake so many people make is thinking that government is the lowest level. It is not, government is downstream of culture and is a reflection of that cultures values. Without a unified culture that agrees on certain prerequisits of government, for example from this case elected representation, there can be no functional government.
  - jmeister 5y ago
    Hayek’s “cosmos” and “taxis” dichotomy captures this well.
  - ceejayoz 5y ago
    > If the majority of the country votes to suspend democracy, would you stick around? I mean, the South tried exactly that sort of approach over slavery, which their secession declarations deemed fundamental.
- dirtyoldmick 5y ago
  Good luck getting a majority of states to agree on something....anything really.
- Throwawayaerlei 5y ago
  That's absurd. The Bill of Rights is literally a list of changes to the constitution. Which were the price the Antifederalists demanded to accept the Constitution as a whole. Any one of them can be changed at any time by a majority of states. Supermajority, and only after a supermajority of the Congress starts the process or a supermajority of states calls for a constitutional convention. Even then, abrogating any of the Bill of Rights also abrogates the original deal, making the rest of the Constitution and its additional amendments null and void.
  - AnimalMuppet 5y ago
    Can you justify or defend your argument in your last sentence? Because I think it's not only wrong, but clearly wrong. In particular, other amendments have changed part of the text of the original Constitution. How does that not also "abrogate the original deal, making the Constitution null and void"? That argument should apply even more if we're talking about the body rather than the first 10 amendments, shouldn't it? Why do you single out the Bill of Rights as being unchangeable?
    - Throwawayaerlei 5y ago
      So you can't even begin to fathom why it's called "the Bill of Rights?" Not in the least interested in the historical claims I made?
      - AnimalMuppet 5y ago
        I can fathom why it's called the Bill of Rights. Yes, you made a claim. I'm asking you to substantiate your claim. Dismissive snark about what I'm able to fathom is not the same thing. I also made an argument in my previous post. You completely ignored it. Would you answer it?
jvanderbot 5y ago
Ah, well, you've gone down a philosophical path on the role of government. Strictly mechanically speaking, the constitution can be amended by a certain majority of voting in a national campaign, and those amendments can override any other amendment as the voters see fit.
caymanjim 5y ago
There are no inalienable rights. It's a marketing slogan.
- blacktriangle 5y ago
  So slavery is okay then? Good to know.
ceejayoz 5y ago
> The Bill of Rights cannot be. Sure it can. The "Bill of Rights" is just a term for the first ten amendments. The 21st Amendment reads: "Section 1. The eighteenth article of amendment to the Constitution of the United States is hereby repealed." Nothing in the Constitution forbids doing the same to the First, Second, or any other, should enough Americans agree on the point. The 28th Amendment could read "The President shall be selected by the Prime Minister of Canada, and all redheads shall be put to death" and it'd not only be the law of the land once ratified, but there'd be no legal recourse except another amendment. Even more fun; include a "The Constitution may no longer be amended" as an additional provision. (Of course, you have to get that through the amendment process, which is fairly obviously unlikely.)

bananabreakfast 5y ago

That's absurd. The Bill of Rights is literally a list of changes to the constitution. Any one of them can be changed at any time by a majority of states. You're essentially saying that if the majority of the country votes to change one of the rights, then what? You'll no longer recognize the government as real?

blacktriangle 5y ago
Take that argument to an extreme. If the majority of the country votes to suspend democracy, would you stick around? If not, then doesn't that imply that there exists a set of underlying principles that you believe are fundamental to a government? That's exactly what the Bill of Rights is, an enumeration of what were viewed as the fundamental rights for which the point of government is to preserve. The mistake so many people make is thinking that government is the lowest level. It is not, government is downstream of culture and is a reflection of that cultures values. Without a unified culture that agrees on certain prerequisits of government, for example from this case elected representation, there can be no functional government.
- jmeister 5y ago
  Hayek’s “cosmos” and “taxis” dichotomy captures this well.
- ceejayoz 5y ago
  > If the majority of the country votes to suspend democracy, would you stick around? I mean, the South tried exactly that sort of approach over slavery, which their secession declarations deemed fundamental.
dirtyoldmick 5y ago
Good luck getting a majority of states to agree on something....anything really.
Throwawayaerlei 5y ago
That's absurd. The Bill of Rights is literally a list of changes to the constitution. Which were the price the Antifederalists demanded to accept the Constitution as a whole. Any one of them can be changed at any time by a majority of states. Supermajority, and only after a supermajority of the Congress starts the process or a supermajority of states calls for a constitutional convention. Even then, abrogating any of the Bill of Rights also abrogates the original deal, making the rest of the Constitution and its additional amendments null and void.
- AnimalMuppet 5y ago
  Can you justify or defend your argument in your last sentence? Because I think it's not only wrong, but clearly wrong. In particular, other amendments have changed part of the text of the original Constitution. How does that not also "abrogate the original deal, making the Constitution null and void"? That argument should apply even more if we're talking about the body rather than the first 10 amendments, shouldn't it? Why do you single out the Bill of Rights as being unchangeable?
  - Throwawayaerlei 5y ago
    So you can't even begin to fathom why it's called "the Bill of Rights?" Not in the least interested in the historical claims I made?
    - AnimalMuppet 5y ago
      I can fathom why it's called the Bill of Rights. Yes, you made a claim. I'm asking you to substantiate your claim. Dismissive snark about what I'm able to fathom is not the same thing. I also made an argument in my previous post. You completely ignored it. Would you answer it?

jvanderbot 5y ago

Ah, well, you've gone down a philosophical path on the role of government. Strictly mechanically speaking, the constitution can be amended by a certain majority of voting in a national campaign, and those amendments can override any other amendment as the voters see fit.

caymanjim 5y ago

There are no inalienable rights. It's a marketing slogan.

blacktriangle 5y ago
So slavery is okay then? Good to know.

ceejayoz 5y ago

> The Bill of Rights cannot be. Sure it can. The "Bill of Rights" is just a term for the first ten amendments. The 21st Amendment reads: "Section 1. The eighteenth article of amendment to the Constitution of the United States is hereby repealed." Nothing in the Constitution forbids doing the same to the First, Second, or any other, should enough Americans agree on the point. The 28th Amendment could read "The President shall be selected by the Prime Minister of Canada, and all redheads shall be put to death" and it'd not only be the law of the land once ratified, but there'd be no legal recourse except another amendment. Even more fun; include a "The Constitution may no longer be amended" as an additional provision. (Of course, you have to get that through the amendment process, which is fairly obviously unlikely.)