Democracy and majority rule give an aura of legitimacy to acts that would otherwise be deemed tyranny. Think about it. How many decisions in our day-to-day lives would we like to be made through majority rule or the democratic process? How about the decision whether you should watch a football game on television or "Law and Order"? What about whether you drive a Chevrolet or a Ford, or whether your Easter dinner is turkey or ham? Were such decisions made in the political arena, most of us would deem it tyranny. Why isn't it also tyranny for the democratic process to mandate what type of light bulbs we use, how many gallons of water to flush toilets or whether money should be taken out of our paycheck for retirement?
The founders of our nation held a deep abhorrence for democracy and majority rule. In Federalist Paper No. 10, James Madison wrote, "Measures are too often decided, not according to the rules of justice and the rights of the minor party, but by the superior force of an interested and overbearing majority." John Adams predicted, "Remember, democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts, and murders itself. There was never a democracy yet that did not commit suicide." Our founders intended for us to have a republican form of limited government where the protection of individual God-given rights was the primary job of government.
Alert to the dangers of majoritarian tyranny, the Constitution's framers inserted several anti-majority rules. One such rule is that election of the president is not decided by a majority vote but instead by the Electoral College. Nine states have over 50 percent of the U.S. population. If a simple majority were the rule, conceivably these nine states could determine the presidency. Fortunately, they can't because they have only 225 Electoral College votes when 270 of the 538 total are needed. Were it not for the Electoral College, that some politicians say is antiquated and would like to do away with, presidential candidates could safely ignore the less populous states.
Part of the reason our founders created two houses of Congress was to have another obstacle to majority rule. Fifty-one senators can block the designs of 435 representatives and 49 senators. The Constitution gives the president a veto to weaken the power of 535 members of both houses of Congress. It takes two-thirds of both houses of Congress to override a presidential veto.
To change the constitution requires not a majority but a two-thirds vote of both Houses to propose an amendment, and to be enacted requires ratification by three-fourths of state legislatures. The Constitution's Article V empowers two-thirds of state legislatures to call for a constitutional convention to propose amendments that become law when ratified by three-fourths of state legislatures. I used to be for this option as a means of enacting a spending limitation amendment to the Constitution but have since reconsidered. Unlike the 1787 convention attended by men of high stature such as James Madison, Thomas Jefferson, George Washington and John Adams, today's attendees would be moral midgets: the likes of Barney Frank, Chris Dodd, Olympia Snowe and Nancy Pelosi.
In addition to an abhorrence of democracy, and the recognition that government posed the gravest threat to liberty, our founders harbored a deep distrust and suspicion of Congress. This suspicion and distrust is exemplified by the phraseology used throughout the Constitution, particularly our Bill of Rights, containing phrases such as Congress shall not: abridge, infringe, deny, disparage or violate. Today's Americans think Congress has the constitutional authority to do anything upon which they can get a majority vote. We think whether a particular measure is a good idea or bad idea should determine passage as opposed to whether that measure lies within the enumerated powers granted Congress by the Constitution. Unfortunately, for the future of our nation, Congress has successfully exploited American constitutional ignorance or contempt.
Copyright © 2009 Salem Web Network. All Rights Reserved.
Z: Did you know Walter Williams is a cousin of Dr J, the great JULIUS ERVING!?
z
Z: Did you know Walter Williams is a cousin of Dr J, the great JULIUS ERVING!?
z
22 comments:
Brother Williams is as smart as they come. When it comes to issues like this, he's almost always right. BTW, that electoral college argument sounds familiar... :-)
I loved it when he stood in for Rush Limbaugh and made POWERFUL libertarian arguments. As an economist he made the complex issues easy enough for the layman to understand. Not only does that take a masatery of the subject at hand, it requires a great deal of humility.
Morgan
Walter Williams rocks. The only thing we can do right now is to try to educate the American public in what the constitution is and what it stands for. I just hope they will listen.
i never knew that your founding fathers disliked majority rule and democracy, now i see why. How wise they were.
Yes, wonderful recognition of the need for the Electoral College, that so often even conservatives don't appreciate. If only the safeguards against mob tyranny were even stronger.
Most people don’t understand the Electoral College; they don’t understand the importance of the census, either . . . but this could change when a corrupt ACORN manages to change congressional districting; remember, the size of the House of Representatives is established by law, not by the Constitution.
mks the Founders didsn't dislike majority rule, they wanted to guard against it's excesses via a comprehensive set of checks and balances.
They DESPISED democracy because they were classical scholors for the most part, and understood what happens to a system of government once the majority comprehends the fact that they can use the ballot box as an instrument of plunder against their fellow. That's a death spiral. Not only that, but in it's purest sense, democracy is legitimized mob rule.
Here's a fantastic 10 minute video:
The American Form of Government
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uxdQjOq1U9A
Morgan
I see that Morgan has already posted the link which I was planning to post. I made that video required viewing for my Government class this year.
Why isn't it also tyranny for the democratic process to mandate what type of light bulbs we use ...
------------------------
Because energy policy is critical to the future of the nation and it cannot be trusted to people who are going to make short term decisions based on their own comfort.
The "genius" (LMAO) wasn't able to figure that out?
Walter Williams in indeed a genius, it's a hard choice though between him and Thomas Sowell, I'd say it's a tie. Both of them put together have more of an ability to extpress the liberty cause the rest of the thinkers in the US....
Mustang is correct. I think we'll see a Gerrymandering orgy as this administration progresses towards it's socialists goals.
Yeah, spin it, mustang. There is good reason that a dozen states with a lower population than New York City should not only have a quarter of the Senate representation but they should also be given extra votes in a presidential.
I really enjoy when contemporary America is shoe horned into the internecine state squabbles of the early Republic.
Make it as arcane as possible and don't bother to deal with the idea that two hundred years may require a few changes.
Clearly there is something about a cattle rancher in Wyoming living off subsidized public lands collecting public dole which makes him a disadvantaged minority who deserves extra consideration.
Please.
DUcky, you might want to look into those light bulbs you champion...the disposal of them is ridiculously complicated and toxic. My neighbors who got them on their front door porches a month ago were at a meeting giving them away....."please take these, I'M not using them, I know too much about them..."
Great job, government.
As for the rest of your screed; of course you don't mind what's happening.
You admitted to being a socialist.
That clears things up. And we expect YOU to understand or admire a man of Williams' or Sowell's stature? Na.
Watch CNN and read KOS....check out Olbermann and Maddow, you'll love it. THERE'S your 'truth'!!!
DUcky, you might want to look into those light bulbs you champion...the disposal of them is ridiculously complicated and toxic.
------------------------
Don't put words in my mouth. I'm championing nothing except not calling a ditz who writes a sophomoric article pretending to understand complicated history, a genius.
I don't champion hyperbole and people parading around claiming they know it all about the Constitution because they saw the Adams series on TV.
Besides, z, so what if they are difficult to dispose of? Does that invalidate the central thesis of using energy saving bulbs?
Does the right ever think things through?
Ducky, the Right believes in REALLY solving problems, not throwing trillions at a light bulb that doesn't work, metaphorically or not.
Call Williams names, then go read KOS.
Thanks.
Ducky,
The debate is less about which light bulb is better and more about who should make that decision in each case. That you would delegate the decision-making responsibility to the government shows you to be a very trusting person. I think many here would applaud such faith like a child, but would contend that the government is not the appropriate object of such a faith.
Tio bowser
That you would delegate the decision-making responsibility to the government shows you to be a very trusting person.
------------------------
Any reason I should trust it to you, the consumer who doesn't have the sense to think long term?
Ah, arrogance once again trumps the common sense of the American people. As long as liberals think they are smarter, more informed and have a corner on all knowledge that is vital to our long term existence, they will trust their country to a ruling class that has only its own power at heart.
Of course, when you consider yourself part of that ruling cabal, or at least smarter than others you look down upon, you don't see the wisdom of others.
good points, L&0..did you see my comment at your place about Archbishop Timothy Dolan? Am eager to hear if most people have that opinion?
Z,
I've been preparing for the MS walk that took place in Columbus and other locations today. It is a large undertaking. Thanks for the encouragement.
I'll start my research now on Dolan. He sounds a lot like the priests of my youth. I would like to see him confront Kerry, Kennedy, Pelosi, Biden, Guiliani et.al. Every one of them parading their Christianity as a shield to garner power.
One of my dearest friends has MS, quite badly...thank you for your work, L&O.
I pray for your family..xxx
Ducky,
In a free society, the consumer pays the consequences for his own decision. If energy is so valuable, its price will deter the consumer from choosing options that use a lot of energy. Each citizen making decisions for himself is much less daunting a task than a small cadre of politicians making it for everyone. I assume you think externalities are the biggest cost/benefit involved with such decisions, and therefore an impartial and informed government is the best arbiter to make such a decision. Again, your child-like trust impresses me.
Tio bowser
Post a Comment