What is more important? Democracy or protected constitutional rights?

The Bill of Rights is part of the Constitution, they are amendments to, and thus inextricably part of, the foundation of our government.

 

Neither.

First off, the Constitution doesn't grant rights. We all have unlimited rights by our nature. Those unlimited rights are limited by how we're brought up to be a part of society. The Constitution is supposed to place limits on government to ensure that we don't give up too many of our rights in order to have a functioning society. In short, I don't agree with the term "Constitutional Rights". "Constitutional Limitations", on the other hand, I'd agree with.

As for Democracy, we don't have anything near a Democracy, and thankfully so! If we had Democracy, people would be voting for stupid **** like who the sexiest woman in the nation is, and then, in a groupthink induced episode of stupidity, we'd all vote to make her the queen (or some stupid **** like that). Even in our form of "Democracy", it essentially boils down to a Plutocracy of those who proclaim to be well-informed and are controlling who we're able to vote for, such that we really don't have any say...

If I had it my way, I'd have a government with very strict Constitutional limitations such that most governing was done at a local level -- so the people who have power can be held accountable by non-governmental forces (think societal stigma/pressure not to be a dick), and we wouldn't vote for anybody -- all of our government officials would be chosen at random from the adult population (with certain restrictions and processes by which the morons can be removed from government).

 

Democracy without stability equals Africa, because at some point the magical "non-governmental forces" - which have no history or tendency at all to formulate along tribal, racial, religious or gender lines; will just start killing until they're in power. Stability comes from checks, balances, rules and protocol; all of which can come from a well written and earnestly followed Constitution. But no sense pretending just and meaningful rights don't in some part come from incorporating or adhering to public sentiment.

 

I live in a democracy with no constitution. It makes it easy for legislators to pass laws that would be unthinkable in the US. The Constitution is imperfect but I'm glad it's there.

 

Israel doesn't have a Constitution?

 

No. You don't. Rights are determined by society, which is thus influenced by the society's culture. Rights...and obligations, which we have completely forgotten in modern political discourse. If rights are unlimited by our nature, than explain how our definition of rights has evolved over the centuries.

 

Go read John Locke. That's the political philosophy the US founding was based on.

Otherwise rights are determined by whatever the "king" also known as the "state" allows you to have. Which of course means they aren't rights at all but rather indulgences.

But hell, if you want to think of yourself as a slave, knock yourself out.

 

Is that intended to be ironic? At the time of this country's founding, owning a black person was legal property with inherent rights. Many Southerners in the Civil War felt their rights were being violated. I know some believe in Natural law and rights, but there are other philosophers besides Locke whose works you should read. We humans are interdependent on others as do our rights and duties toward them. Many shockingly don't recognize this. I assume you lean libertarian?

Also, America has radically changed every decade since its founding. Freedom of contract was something considered 'self-evident', but Lochner struck it down. Wickard also shocked many when it came out, but it only showed the myth of private economic decisions. The ideas of other thinkers influenced the leaders, politicians, and judges who brought up these changes. Start with Nietzsche, Heidegger, and Burke.

 

I think if you read my post again, you'd find that we're pretty much on the same page. I say that we have unlimited rights by nature because, without societal contraints, there is nothing stopping you from acting any any manner you see fit. Hence, why I say it is the individual's nature to have unlimited rights. In my first post, I laid that out and then said basically that society, culture, religion and government are all put in place for valid reasons, but all of these institutions serve to diminish the unlimited rights of the individual.

The individual comes before society, not vice versa.