Faith writes:
The checks and balancers are intended to control the GOVERNING INSTITUTIONS that tend to usurp power over the people, not the people themselves.
Yes, exactly correct. The
Bill of Rights and some of the Amendments to the Constitution say some very specific things about what the government can and cannot do to citizens.
For example, it is unconstitutional for me and a bunch of people I convince to vote to take away religious people’s bibles and to stop all sales of bibles. If we won the election, we could not force the police or any other governmental agency to enforce the new law. It would be unconstitutional.
I cannot enforce a law that takes away the rights of law abiding citizens, just because I don't like them, or that bestows
special rights on myself or my favorite bunch of people. The Supreme Court is the final arbiter in the United States of which laws enforceable under the constitution. They have many laws to consider each session and there are often large contentious groups supporters arguing for various positions regarding the law.
The framers and amenders of the U. S. Constitution have not always got things right and over the course of our history the court has been politicized.
When the court renders a decision, people being employed by GOVERNING INSTITUTIONS, in other words PUBLIC EMPLOYEES are required to perform the function of their position. PUBLIC EMPLOYEES are paid from taxes collected from everyone so they have no right to discriminate against law abiding citizens requesting service from PUBLIC EMPLOYEES.
You’re also wrong about this being
treating other people decently and not being an asshole run amok
What if Eleanor Roosevelt had wings? -- Monty Python
One important characteristic of a theory is that is has survived repeated attempts to falsify it. Contrary to your understanding, all available evidence confirms it. --Subbie
If evolution is shown to be false, it will be at the hands of things that are true, not made up. --percy