You mean when the majority opinion does not coincide with the constitution Im sure, and overruns the rights protected by it by the constitution.



And if your wishes are those of the majority and they are still overturned? What then?


Regroup, protest, and try to get more support. Unless the issue tramples the rights of the minority as protected by the constitution.
Sometimes we have to take our lumps and learn to deal with them.

Do you think there is any group of Americans who have never received a few lumps?

Eminent domain and the Patriot Act pretty much killed both of those.

yep

This country was founded as a Democratic Republic.

That can be changed.
If by no other means than by voting out the idiots who imposed it!

the Supreme Court reviews the laws passed by Congress. if they don't overturn it. it must be Constitutional

No. I mean when a special interest group of the minority throws money at the government via lobbying and delays legislation by judicial fiat via the lower courts. I'm not referring to the SCOTUS or its decisions.



If you're already in the majority how is getting more support going to make a difference?



Again, not talking about SCOTUS or its decisions. The government has been influenced by lobbyists for decades. So have the courts.



That's pretty unAmerican. We're all about bucking the system, when its appropriate.



Sure. Most of them are still in office.

We arn't going to go back to only letting white men with land have any rights. (Im not saying thats what you want to do). I mean that as a general statement.

Or, the supreme court may simply care not for the constitution. Which way, do you think, will build the members of the court bigger mansions?

Good luck with that. Eminent domain was the result of a SCOTUS ruling.



We don't vote for the Supreme Court justices. They're appointed.

Good debate wiley, but the quotes are getting longer and longer.
I dont mind answering questions, but how about one at a time.

Eminent domain is usually declared by a State or community. Although the Feds have also declared it a few times in the past, like when The Smokey Mt National Park was formed, but it is usually done for the betterment of the whole!
Sometimes, IMO, it is a good thing!

This was a good thing. Not in that only white men could vote. But in that only those having something to lose, could vote. White/Nonwhite was clearly against the spirit of freedom end equality.

I know, I know, voting on how to split the fruit while done nothing to grow it, seems like a logical thing and a right, these days. While I will surely be trumped by the dumb-witted crowds for saying this, I will still be right in saying that until this is reversed, there will be no economy other than fakeonomy in USA.

Yes. That argument is very popular among communists. Of course, we seem to be heading in that direction more and more every day.

I agree with you. Those who have nothing at stake shouldn't have a say in what happens to other people's. This is how we end up giving tax "refunds" to people who never pay taxes in the first place, among other things.

In the case of the Smokies, it created a very large and important watershed and wildlife conservation area.
Im sure if you had lived in one of the many communities that were there at the time you did not see it that way.
But that is what it did and it made life better for a lot more people than it pissed off!

And for you obviously the ends justified the means. Again, I disagree.

Not just me.
Millions!!!

I thought you could do better than this...


This just falls under "greater good". How many times does it needs to be proven that there is no value in greater good?

Im not sure how that was a good thing only allowing people who own land to vote. There are a variety of reasons why someone would not own property (besides being poor)and our predeccesors had good reasons for overturning that rule. For one thing, it overly favors the wealthy.