12. THE MAJORITY - LIMITED FOR LIBERTY
"... this sacred principle ..." [Majority must respect Minority's rights] - (President Jefferson's First
Inaugural Address)
The Principle
1. The traditional American philosophy teaches that The
Majority must be strictly limited in power, and in the operation
of government, for the protection of The Individual's God-given,
unalienable rights proclaimed in the Declaration of Independence
and, therefore, of the rights of The Minority - of all
minorities.
A Restricted Mechanic of Government
2. Self-government's system of rule by majority vote is based
on necessity. Rule by majority vote is a necessary mechanic of
any government of the popular type, featuring rule by the people
through free, periodic elections such as, for example, those held
in the United States. Under this philosophy, rule by majority
vote is always subject to the "sacred principle" defined in
President Jefferson's First Inaugural Address, quoted
below.
"All, too, will bear in mind this sacred
principle, that though the will of the majority is in all cases
to prevail, that will to be rightful must be reasonable; that the
minority possess their equal rights, which equal law must
protect, and to violate would be oppression."
A Minority of One Protected
3. The protection provided by this principle applies
fundamentally, of course, in favor of a minority of one: The
Individual. No majority, however great, even all of the people but
one Individual--may properly infringe, or possess the power to
infringe, the rights of any minority, however small--even a
minority of a lone Individual.
America a Republic - Not a Democracy - In Form of Government - So As to Limit Effectively The Majority To Protect the Individual
4. Therein lies the reason why the American leaders who
framed and ratified the United States Constitution in 1787-1788
chose, for America's form of government, that of a Republic and
not a Democracy. (The then existing Confederation was merely a
treaty arrangement between completely independent and separate
State governments, by agreement of their legislatures only and
not by consent of the people, with no real central
government--with only a legislative body--and with no power over
those governments or over individual citizens; so it provided no
protection for the rights of The Individual or The Minority
against tyranny by The Majority in any State--later remedied, as
to certain rights, by prohibitions in the original Constitution
expressly made applicable against the States.) A Republic is a
constitutionally limited government of the representative type,
created by a written Constitution--adopted by the people and
changeable (from its original meaning) by them only by its
amendment--with its powers divided between three separate
Branches: Executive, Legislative and Judicial. In a Republic,
the whole system is designed primarily to protect The
Individual's unalienable rights--therefore The Minority, all
minorities--against any violation by government or by others. As
the Declaration of Independence expresses this American goal of
safeguarding these rights, the people form their governments "to
secure these rights"--to make and keep them secure.
The Majority Omnipotent in Any Democracy
5. This is not the case under a Democracy, speaking of it as
a form of government and not merely in the more general sense of
its meaning a popular type of government. In a Democracy, The
Majority is omnipotent, whether it be a Representative Democracy
or a Direct Democracy. In the Representative type, the people
function governmentally through an elected legislature, which
selects and controls the head of the Executive Department, as in
Great Britain where "the authority of the parliament is
transcendent and uncontrollable" (as stated in The Federalist
number 53, by Madison)--where in fact the House of Commons alone
has by law become supreme. In the Direct type, all of the
electorate (those entitled to vote) assemble as a single group to
debate and decide directly and conclusively all governmental
questions. This is suitable only for a very small number of
people--as in a New England town with a town-meeting system of
government, or in a situation like that of the small city-states
of ancient Greece. (Decisions of a New England town-meeting are,
of course, subject to the State and United States Constitutions
which protect the rights of The Individual and The Minority, so
such a town-meeting government is not a true Democracy featuring
The Majority Omnipotent.)
In a Democracy, The Individual Is Subservient and
Must Be Submissive to The Omnipotent Majority
6. Any Democracy, either
Representative or Direct, does not even recognize the existence
of any unqualified rights of The Individual, much less his
possessing God-given, unalienable rights as conceived by the
American philosophy. A Democracy in America, as a form of
government, would therefore provide no protection for these
rights. Under a Democracy, Man is considered to have only
qualified privileges permitted by The Majority in control of
government and revocable by it at any time. This spells Rule by
Omnipotent Majority, with The Individual and The Minority as well
as all minorities victimized at the pleasure of The Majority,
without limit and without any legal basis for objection or
practical remedy. The idea of such unlimited rule, as if by
"divine right of The Majority," is as abhorrent in the eyes of
the traditional American philosophy as is the idea of rule by
"divine right of kings."
The Uniquely American Principle Was Thoroughly Understood in 1776
7. The traditional American philosophy requires a Republic's
constitutionally limited form of government for the security of
Man's unalienable rights against violation by The Majority, by
government, as well as by others. This philosophy was well
understood in America in 1776 but was imperfectly practiced by
the States in the post-1776 period, during which rights were
violated. This correct understanding was exemplified by the
previously noted (Par. 8, Principle 2) town-meeting petition of
Pittsfield, Massachusetts, addressed to the legislature of
Massachusetts in May, 1776. It urged the adoption by the
people--as "the fountain of power"--of a Constitution as their
fundamental law, to fill the void created by the end of royal
rule, as "the first step to be taken" by the people in order to
guard against despotism--against "the wanton exercise of
power"--and it asserted, that the only safeguard is "the formation
of a fundamental constitution" by the people. Their aim was to
safeguard their liberties. This was accomplished by the people of
Massachusetts in 1780, by their creating the first true
Constitution and Republic in the world. They utilized
successfully, for the first time in history, a constitutional
convention--which is America's great, if not greatest,
contribution to the mechanics of self-government through
constitutional government. (Earlier Acts of Legislatures of other
States were erroneously classified as "constitutions," while some
countries' governments throughout history had generally been
erroneously classified as "republics"--a much-misunderstood and
loosely used term. See the correct definition of a Republic in
Paragraph 4, above.)
Principle Violated by "Elective Despotism" after 1776
8. The post-1776 period witnessed gross violations by State
Legislatures of the unalienable rights of victimized Individuals.
In Virginia, for example, Jefferson protested vigorously against
the Legislature's acts of tyranny by The Majority, stating: "An
elective despotism was not the government we fought for ("Notes
on The State of Virginia," 1782; emphasis Jefferson's).
Misconduct in this period by The Omnipotent Majority in the
legislatures of a number of the States was in reaction against
the earlier oppressive rule by the king and his royal governors
and judges. At that time, except in Massachusetts under its
Constitution of 1780, there were no real State Constitutions to
restrain the legislatures, which made sure that the governors and
judges were without power to prohibit legislative enactments (by
which the violations of unalienable rights were effected). The
New Hampshire Constitution, based on this pattern, was not
adopted until 1784 after a Constitutional Convention was
successful in framing one acceptable to the people--several
earlier conventions having been unsuccessful. Other States did
not follow suit for a number of years, some not for
decades.
"The Excesses of Democracy"
9. This type of tyranny, by Omnipotent Majority, is always
possible under any Democracy as a form of government. This is
what The Framers and Ratifiers of the Constitution and their
fellow American leaders meant when, in the 1787-1788 debates with
regard to the framing and adoption of the Constitution, they
denounced the 11 excesses of democracy. They were, of course,
not criticizing popular government as such--for instance as it
exists under the Republic of the United States featuring
constitutionally limited government, as limited by the
Constitution. They were, therefore, not condemning democracy in
the general sense of the term--meaning merely a popular type of
government. They were speaking in support of America's being a
Republic, not a Democracy, as a form of government. The more
general meaning of Democracy--popular government--also applies to
America; but this use of the term is only confusing in any
discussion, as here, of the characteristics of different forms of
popular government: a Republic in contrast to a
Democracy.
Federal and State Republics
10. The foregoing explains why the traditional American
philosophy requires that the central (Federal) government and the
State governments be Republics. (See Pars. 6-7 of Principle 5.)
Each State is guaranteed the form of government of a Republic by
the United States Constitution (Art. IV, Sec. 4). The foregoing
also makes clear why this philosophy requires that The Majority,
at any time in temporary charge of government, administer its
affairs in keeping with the Constitution's limitations and for
the benefit of all Individuals composing the people as a whole,
meaning The Minority and all minorities as well as The
Majority--not merely for the benefit of those constituting only The
Majority of the moment.
The Conclusion
11. The traditional American philosophy demands that the
power of The Majority be limited for the protection of The
Individual's unalienable rights, for the security of Man's
Liberty against Government-over-Man, in keeping with the American
formula: The Majority - Limited for Liberty.
Some Historical Quotes
"[As to Bill of Rights] Repeated violations of these
parchment barriers have been committed by overbearing majorities
in every State. In Virginia I have seen the bill of rights
violated in every instance where it has been opposed to a popular
current . . . In our Governments the real power lies in the
majority of the Community, and the invasion of private rights is
chiefly to be apprehended, not from acts of Government contrary
to the sense of its constituents, but from acts in which the
Government is the mere instrument of the major number of the
Constituents." (Emphasis per original.) - James Madison (Letter
to Jefferson, in Paris, 1788)
"Since the general civilization of mankind, I believe there
are more instances of the abridgment of the freedom of the
people, by gradual and silent encroachments of those in power,
than by violent and sudden usurpations: but, on a candid
examination of history, we shall find that turbulence, violence,
and abuse of power, by the majority trampling on the rights of
the minority have produced factions and commotions, which, in
republics, have more frequently than any other cause, produced
despotism. If we go over the whole history of ancient and modern
republics, we shall find their destruction to have generally
resulted from those causes. If we consider the peculiar
situation of the United States, and what are the sources of that
diversity of sentiment which pervades its inhabitants, we shall
find great danger to fear, that the same causes may terminate
here, in the same fatal effects, which they produced in those
republics. This danger ought to be wisely guarded against." -
James Madison (Va. Ratifying Convention, 1788)
"It is of great importance in a republic, not only to guard
the society against the oppression of its rulers; but to guard
one part of the society against the injustice of the other part.
Different interests necessarily exist in different classes of
citizens. If a majority be united by a common interest, the
rights of the minority will be insecure. There are but two
methods of providing against this evil . . . [The existence of
"an hereditary or self-appointed authority" superior to the
majority, to the people; or, in the alternative, the existence of
so many conflicting interests among the citizens as to constitute
a safeguard against any dominant majority likely to become
oppressive] . . . The second method will be exemplified in the
federal republic of the United States. Whilst all authority in
it will be derived from, and dependent on the society, the
society itself will be broken into so many parts, interests and
classes of citizens, that the rights of individuals or of the
minority, will be in little danger from interested combinations
of the majority." - The Federalist (No. 51, by Madison)
Richard Jewell, HERO - Saved a hundred people at the site of the Atlanta bombing, clearing people from the area where the bomb was about to explode. Falsely and miliciously accused of being the bomber by the Atlanta Journal and Constitution. Subsequently investigated and harrased by the FBI for months before the investigation was ended. Get it folks? Richard Jewell, HERO. That's spelled H-E-R-O. Let me say it again: Richard Jewell, HERO! And, SHAME on the Atlanta Journal and Constitution for their continued refusal to admit they were wrong. That was very unethical reporting, folks, and maliciously done. And, three cheers for 20/20 for publicising the story and for making it clear that Richard Jewell, HERO, is indeed still a HERO. Richard Jewell: HERO! ... Richard Jewell: December 17, 1962 – August 29, 2007
"There are actions--justified only by faith--which can lift us into another sphere, where the battle is with 'Principalities, Dominions and Powers.' Actions upon which--out of mercy--everything is staked." --- Dag Hammarsjold, Markings
|
