Then to which minority do you give such powers?
>>It is an absurdity that the will of the majority is omnipotent and omniscient.
>
>Then to which minority do you give such powers?
And there is the problem: it should not be based on a minority/majority outlook, but upon an Constitutional/contra-Constitutional one.
As example, in New Mexico there is a law which prohibits firearms on university campuses (the wording makes even possession w/i student housing prohibited), NMSA 30-7-2.4
( http://www.conwaygreene.com/nmsu/lpext.dll/nmsa1978/4cf/f1eb/f3a3/f3cb?fn=document-frame.htm&f=templates&2.0 )
The State Constitution however prohibits such law with Art II, Sec 6:
“No law shall abridge the right of the citizen to keep and bear arms for security and defense, for lawful hunting and recreational use and for other lawful purposes, but nothing herein shall be held to permit the carrying of concealed weapons. No municipality or county shall regulate, in any way, an incident of the right to keep and bear arms.”
Now, it is obvious that the statute violates the Constitution, if it is indeed a valid prohibition (college-grounds) then the exception should be amended into the Constitution, just as it is for concealed weapons; any prohibition of arms within a person’s home by the state, is by the sited section, illegitimate regardless of the existence of laws or even legal precedence precisely because it is contrary to the State’s own Constitution.
How do you infer I made such an argument? The illegitimate assertion of authority by a minority is not legitimized by virtue of being a minority either.
You argue we must absolutely obey the law no matter how awful it is and if we can not convince a majority to change it we must blame only ourselves for failing. You implied the very existence of civilization requires such blind obedience.
I find fault in your argument as we must accept at least one absurdity, the absurdity being a majority is automatically omnipotent and omniscient by virtue of majority. If the majority passed a law tomorrow declaring you an outlaw and required you be shot on sight, would that obligate you to submit? Would it even obligate anyone to shoot you on sight? You may assert this case too extreme, but you would be splitting hairs.
Our form of government is consensual, not absolutist. If the people operating the government feel otherwise, they're on the road to tyranny. I may be forced by circumstance to obey the law but that is the limit of my respect. If the government uses the law to threaten me into silence, my silence does not constitute acquiescence because it is based on the threat, whether explicit or implicit. A threat implies malice and malice makes my silence something other than acquiescence. In any case infringement of my natural rights are not legitimized by good intentions of a majority or minority.
What's wrong with defending your point? Do you need some help constructing an actual rebuttal? Is there anyone following this thread who will help MindBender26 defend his point?