From: tbuckley@s.psych.uiuc.edu (Tim Buckley)
Subject: Re: Another good reason not to vote for Bush
Organization: Dept. of Psychology, Univ. of Illinois, Urbana
Distribution: na
Date: Mon, 17 Aug 1992 07:43:54 GMT

In article <1992Aug16.002117.980@cbnewsj.cb.att.com> decay@cbnewsj.cb.att.com (dean.kaflowitz) writes:
>Rights in the United States are based on the COnstitution of the United
>States.  This was not a democratically arrived at document, but the
>product of rather an elite group of the landed gentry.  Additionally,
>the majority of the rights we have were not merely defined by a group
>of landed gentry, but by a group of white male landed gentry.  Now I
>happen to think they did a fine job in many regards, although I think
>the retention of slavery and the lack of suffrage for black people
>and women was a shame.  Furthermore, you seem to have no idea what the
>Supreme Court is there for.  The Supreme Court is there to interpret
>the law.  It is the province of that corut to say what the law is.

Even in Athens only a small percentage were citizens.  All your points
are correct but in my opinion immaterial.  Only citizens can vote and
there is always some restriction on who is a citizen.  This was true
then and it is true now.  I should have made it clear that a democracy
is basedd on the will of the citizenry not the "people".  Your point is
well taken.  As far as my misunderstanding of the Supreme Court goes I
will only say that Article III, Section 2 states that "The judicial
Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this
Constitution, ..... (it goes on for some time describing further
powers).  I interpret the reference to Equity to mean that it is the
function of the court to make sure that the laws enacted under the
Constitution and the rights guaranteed therein are distributed fairly.
It is apparent that you think I am wrong.  But I think that when one
looks at the actions the court has taken over the years it is clear that
they have tried to enforce equal treatment under the law.

>
>Let me tell you an interesting fact about  the "majority" and their
>notion of rights.  I wish I had the source.  I read this just the
>other day.  Might have been in Life magazine, but I'm not sure.
>Anyway, a school teacher sent her class out with a copy of the
>First Amendment and asked them to run it by people as it were a
>petition for a constitutional amendment.  The majority of people
>were opposed to it, and the majority of people failed to recognize
>that it was the First Amendment to the COnstitution.  In fact, the
>majority of people thought it a very dangerous notion indeed.

I'm not sure that your information is relevant to the discussion but in
any case let me tell you something about conducting a survey.  I
don't know what your background is but I'm a scientist and this type of
survey comes from what is known as an accidental sample.  Sometimes
useful but fraught with dangers.  Whenever possible scientific sampling
techniques are preferred.   

>The Constitution is not built on the Declaration of Independence.  The
>COnstitution is largley based on the philosophy of Locke and others.
>The Declaration of Independence has no force in law whatsoever, and
>was mainly a political document designed to build support for the
>revolution.
>
>I am very disappointed in your  lack of familiarity with American
>history and government.  You are writing from an edu site and I
>presume are a college student.  Ask your one of the American history
>professors if the COnstitution was developed through democratic
>means, and whether rights in general were specified via the democratic
>means you describe.  That is, you spoke of "what most of us in
>society hold."  What most people in society held had very little
>to do with the rights delineated in the COnstitution.

And I am very disappointed in your knowledge of the development of the
Constitution.  It was the outgrowth of theories of natural rights
provided by many previous philosophers (Locke, et al).  These ARE
espoused in the Declaration of Independence.  I never said that they are
each specifically included in the Constitution but the Constitution is
an outgrowth of these "natural rights" and it embodies many of them in
its amendments.
>
>Most of those in society who were of voting age were not even allowed
>to vote until the 20th century.

I dealt with this earlier in this post.

>Finally, I would personally be very reluctant to speak for what
>the majority of us in society hold.  I rather think that those
>who make such assumptions are really saying they think thus and
>so, so they figure everyone else does.

I think that it is quite rational to speak of what the majority holds to
be of value when one is speaking about a democracy (representative or
direct).  It is at the very least fair to speak of what the majority who
vote believe.  And that is what I have done.
>
>"They must have reflected that in all great changes of established
>governments forms ought to give way to substance; that a rigid
>adherence to the former would render nominal and nugatory the
>transcendant right of the people to 'abolish or alter their
>governments as to them shall seem most likely to effect their
>safety and happiness.'"
>-Federalist No. 40 (Madison).
>
>That bit above, were it run past just about any American, would shock
>them as the work of some Commie agitator looking to make a hash
>of Nicaragua again or something.

I would disagree.  The founders believing this gave us a system which
could correct itself (notice the word "alter" which we have done with
each new amendment).  We can even choose to establish a new
Constitution.  All of this can occur without violence.  A wonderful
document indeed.

Tim