Kept out: School discourages gay, transgender enrollment

[CHRISTINE77]

But you **are **represented, whether or not you choose to vote.

If you don’t like how certain laws are passed, find out how your representatives voted, and in the next cycle, vote accordingly.

ICXC NIKA

I’m sorry but our country is run by lobbyists. the only reason this LGBT junk is happening is because of the very very strong LGBT lobbyists. Don’t kid yourself.

 

[Thorolfr]

But you **are **represented, whether or not you choose to vote.

If you don’t like how certain laws are passed, find out how your representatives voted, and in the next cycle, vote accordingly.

ICXC NIKA

Of course it’s not as simple as you make it sound. Sometimes the deck is stacked in one way or another. For example, you might live in a gerrymandered congressional district where your vote is almost meaningless.

 

[JonNC]

Of course it’s not as simple as you make it sound. Sometimes the deck is stacked in one way or another. For example, you might live in a gerrymandered congressional district where your vote is almost meaningless.

Part do the problem with having the same number of representatives since 1913, when the population was 1/3 the size it is today

Jon

 

[jtauke]

I do, yes. Why should homosexual behaviour get a pass?

You probably just expelled half the student body by the time they hit graduation.

P.S. How does a school obtain proof of sexual acts between students?

 

[jtauke]

I’m sorry but our country is run by lobbyists. the only reason this LGBT junk is happening is because of the very very strong LGBT lobbyists. Don’t kid yourself.

Do you or do you not get to vote for your representatives? If one believes what you say, why even bother voting? Maybe try voting for someone with a backbone that doesn’t bow to lobbyists?

If you reps are in the pockets of lobbyists, and you voted for them…that’s on you and everyone else that cast a vote for that representative.

 

[Thorolfr]

No. The constitution provides the central government the mandate to conduct war. There is no constitutional enumerated mandate for food stamps, etc. nor is there an enumeration for the central government to interfere regarding state actions that protect the civil rights of people to expect that public restroom, locker and shower facilities are appropriately designated male and female .

Jon

But the constitution requires Congress to declare wars, something that has rarely happened in modern military actions authorized by the president. So isn’t it a tyranny for my taxes to be used to pay for wars that Congress has not declared?

 

[GEddie]

Part do the problem with having the same number of representatives since 1913, when the population was 1/3 the size it is today

Jon

Gerrymandering existed long before 1913, in fact, all the way to the Founders. (Named for Founder Elbridge Gerry)

Raising the size of the HR from its current level of 435 would not help with gerrymandering. By creating more openings for representative districts, it could make that issue worse.

ICXC NIKA

 

[GEddie]

But the constitution requires Congress to declare wars, something that has rarely happened in modern military actions authorized by the president. So isn’t it a tyranny for my taxes to be used to pay for wars that Congress has not declared?

Not really. The USCON provides that the President is CIC of the military, meaning he can send them out as he sees fit, as he did to Tripoli in 1805 without a declared war.

ICXC NIKA.

 

[JonNC]

But the constitution requires Congress to declare wars, something that has rarely happened in modern military actions authorized by the president. So isn’t it a tyranny for my taxes to be used to pay for wars that Congress has not declared?

I agree with you. But the War Powers Act is used by both parties, sadly

Jon

 

[Darryl1958]

What about having your taxes pay for wars that you don’t believe in? Is that tyranny, too?

Is it?

Does your own personal beliefs take precedence over governments elected through the popular will of the people take precedence over what constitutes tyranny, or not?

It didn’t make much sense to me that the President would unilaterally bomb Libya without a discussion in Congress, but there was no strong movement among the electorate in the way of objection.

I think that before something is called tyranny, people have to actually care about the issue.

 

[at9009]

Is it?

Does your own personal beliefs take precedence over governments elected through the popular will of the people take precedence over what constitutes tyranny, or not?

It didn’t make much sense to me that the President would unilaterally bomb Libya without a discussion in Congress, but there was no strong movement among the electorate in the way of objection.

I think that before something is called tyranny, people have to actually care about the issue.

I’d be careful of popular will of the people mentality. That could easily lead to mob rule which is also a very dangerous thing. There is a reason why the U.S. government was set up as a constitutional republic.

The idea also that if only a minority of people care about an issue then it’s not tyranny isn’t really a valid point. Since one could argue that the colonists where only a small subset of British citizens at the time. However, I get the point you are trying to make, just playing a little bit of alternative perspective advocate.

 

[Darryl1958]

I’d be careful of popular will of the people mentality. That could easily lead to mob rule which is also a very dangerous thing. There is a reason why the U.S. government was set up as a constitutional republic

.
The genius of the American constitution is that even mob rule, or the tyranny of the majority of you will. is kept in check.
But the question was more about the ‘tyranny of the individual’, if you will. If I am not okay with Bush going into Iraq, or Obama going into Libya, does that give me personally the right to revolt against being included in those kinds of decisions?
To the extent that Congress is not conferred with, and the limits constitutionally set upon all branches of government are not adhered to, maybe it does. Certainly though, to the extent that all branches of government are brought into the decision, the UN is consulted, and the decision is ratified by the people in subsequent elections, it would be very difficult to believe that the individual or group of individuals revolting would be acting either in accordance with the constitution or with God in such instances.

The idea also that if only a minority of people care about an issue then it’s not tyranny isn’t really a valid point. Since one could argue that the colonists where only a small subset of British citizens at the time. However, I get the point you are trying to make, just playing a little bit of alternative perspective advocate.

Rights given by God do not come from the majority either. I certainly don’t think I have been making that point anywhere.
It might be well a minority of people who, say, believe the age of the Universe to be 5K years old. Nevertheless, they have the right to believe that, and it is tyranny for government to withhold lunch money from the poor children in their schools on account of such a belief.

It is not the government money. They are not the government’s property. People are entitled to even having silly or idiotic opinions without being punished for it.

That is what defines the tyranny, not majority or minority or the value of the opinion that people adhere to.

Tyranny can come in the form of a minority too, such as what might happen when states secede rather than accept that they were on the losing side of a valid election.