> You secure them through actual instiutional measures.
Partially correct, you secure them by law which is policed by the states monopoly on violence. And any institution is forced to follow that to the letter. Otherwise you have a right to legal compensation in any constitutional state.
> The english wikipedia entry is quite good.
It states exactly what I said. Maybe substitute universal human rights, which was admittedly optimistic, with constitutional rights and you have exactly the same statements.
Otherwise, since people do vote, they could indeed strip any anyone from rights, minority or not, protective institutions or not. So some rights are off limits to change by the sovereign.
To rule a people, you need either force or consent. So better make those constitutional rights generic and accepted by everyone. Otherwise you do not have consent and are not a democracy. Autocracy and its derivations are on the other side of the pole.
It is not a better way to secure minority rights, it is the only way.
> In a democracy people are the sovereign. End of story and definition.
Out of context quote and I was not denying mob rule. The tyranny of the majority is restricted by human rights by the way (may they be universal or constitutional, doesn't matter).
Partially correct, you secure them by law which is policed by the states monopoly on violence. And any institution is forced to follow that to the letter. Otherwise you have a right to legal compensation in any constitutional state.
> The english wikipedia entry is quite good.
It states exactly what I said. Maybe substitute universal human rights, which was admittedly optimistic, with constitutional rights and you have exactly the same statements.
Otherwise, since people do vote, they could indeed strip any anyone from rights, minority or not, protective institutions or not. So some rights are off limits to change by the sovereign.
To rule a people, you need either force or consent. So better make those constitutional rights generic and accepted by everyone. Otherwise you do not have consent and are not a democracy. Autocracy and its derivations are on the other side of the pole.
It is not a better way to secure minority rights, it is the only way.
> In a democracy people are the sovereign. End of story and definition.
Out of context quote and I was not denying mob rule. The tyranny of the majority is restricted by human rights by the way (may they be universal or constitutional, doesn't matter).