A Quote by Gavin Newsom

If, in this country, a simple majority of people can start stripping away the rights of a protected class in the minority, that's a pretty alarming thing. — © Gavin Newsom
If, in this country, a simple majority of people can start stripping away the rights of a protected class in the minority, that's a pretty alarming thing.
Individual rights are not subject to a public vote; a majority has no right to vote away the rights of a minority; the political function of rights is precisely to protect minorities from oppression by majorities (and the smallest minority on earth is the individual).
We believe that human rights always applies to the majority, who should have its rights protected. When people demonstrate and go to the streets, they deprive the majority from earning a living.
In the South, prior to the Civil Rights movement and the 1964 Civil Rights Act, democracy was the rule. The majority of people were white, and the white majority had little or no respect for any rights which the black minority had relative to property, or even to their own lives. The majority - the mob and occasionally the lynch mob - ruled.
Individual rights are not subject to a public vote; a majority has no right to vote away the rights of a minority.
The very purpose of the Bill of Rights and the Constitution is to protect minority rights against majority voters. Every court decision that strikes down discriminatory legislation, including past Supreme Court decisions, affirming the fundamental rights to marry the person you love, overrules a majority decision.
When an unpopular minority is denied the right to marry, it is indeed the role of the courts to protect the rights of that minority, especially when a majority would deny them.
Constitutions are checks upon the hasty action of the majority. They are the self-imposed restraints of a whole people upon a majority of them to secure sober action and a respect for the rights of the minority.
Its minority rule and majority limited rights. In fact it's set up that way. If you read the framers of the constitution, including James Madison, he was pretty clear about it.
What about the majority? I'm so tired of protecting the rights of the minority. What about the rest of the country?
Shall we then judge a country by the majority, or by the minority? By the minority, surely.
Demographically speaking, young white people are not in the majority in this country; they're in the minority. My question is, if they're not the majority anymore, then what happens? How do things change? Or do they change at all?
The majority of the people in this country love America, do not dislike it, do not distrust it. The majority of people in this country do not want our culture further attacked and rotted away. The people of this country are sick and tired of not having any good-paying jobs anymore. The people of this country are sick and tired of being told that America's best days have already happened.
Rules of Order state that ... No minority has a right to block a majority from conducting the legal business of the organisation .... but No majority has a right to prevent a minority from peacefully attempting to become the majority.
If a country doesn't recognize minority rights and human rights, including women's rights, you will not have the kind of stability and prosperity that is possible.
There's an effort on the part of many people to attack women's rights, women's health, and the ability to control our own lives. No doubt about it. And it is not a majority of the country, in any way, shape, or form. I know on the contraceptive issue, 70 percent of the country agrees with me. Will that stop my opponents? No. Because they are so radical. They chip away and chip away.
Nobody needs to justify why they "need" a right: the burden of justification falls on the one seeking to infringe upon the right. But even if they did, you can't give away the rights of others because they're not useful to you. More simply, the majority cannot vote away the natural rights of the minority. Arguing that you don't care about the right to privacy because you have nothing to hide is no different than saying you don't care about free speech because you have nothing to say.
This site uses cookies to ensure you get the best experience. More info...
Got it!