As I often say, our Constitution sets up a system where there are some things no majority can do and some rights that no majority can abridge. The Founders wrote the document listing specific powers held by the federal government, with everything else left to the states and individuals. In turn, states could only regulate in areas of health, safety, and welfare, and where they justified the regulation as necessary for the goal.
Of course, we've drifted from that original meaning. One new school of thought is that federal and state governments can regulate anything, so long as it doesn't violate a specific right listed in the Bill of Rights. Hence rulings like today's in Gonzales v. Raich (see my LJ for more).
Oh, and I forgot to throw in the fun line that democracy is just two wolves and a sheep deciding what to have for dinner. Actual democracy - majority rule without reflection or rights - has historically led to a subjugated minority and dictatorship.
With regard to the Constitution, you are correct. The Constitution created a government with certain powers, and, through amendments, placed limits on its powers. But what you are talking about doesn't really have anything to do with the Constitution per se, but the overall role and purpose of government in any society
( ... )
I was all ready to post one of my trademark several paragraph responses to this, but I see that someone else has beaten me to it. Well put, by the way.
We still have a constitution? I do not believe that we actually do. Also, we are NOT a true democracy to begin with. "America". It certainly was a nice dream.
The 10th federalist paper by Madison speaks directly about this subject, I think: how political factions or majority rule should not be allowed - from what I can remember.
True - although Madison says they should be allowed. He compares factions to fire -- and freedom to oxygen. To ban factions would be to ban freedom. So the prescription is not to do so, but rather to establish a separation of powers within government to minimize the risk of tyranny.
That's what I meant, thanks he also said that the power of these factions can only be kept in check if the nation is large enough and also diverse enough so that each faction counters the other!
Comments 17
Of course, we've drifted from that original meaning. One new school of thought is that federal and state governments can regulate anything, so long as it doesn't violate a specific right listed in the Bill of Rights. Hence rulings like today's in Gonzales v. Raich (see my LJ for more).
Very good question. :-)
Reply
Reply
Reply
"Democracy is the worst form of government ever conceived of by mankind. Except for all the others."
Reply
Reply
Reply
Reply
Reply
Reply
Reply
Reply
he also said that the power of these factions can only be kept in check if the nation is large enough and also diverse enough so that each faction counters the other!
Reply
Leave a comment