|
|
======================================================
Rather than being "McCarthy like," Majority Rule is the only protection a free society has against the McCarthy's and the Hitler's and the other anti-majority forces that would dictate government policy to everyone else. Majority Rule is not mentioned in the Constitution because it is the very principle upon which constitutional government is based. It is that principle which the Constitution was designed to protect and make effective. The Constitution ASSUMES the principle of Majority Rule, because without it, that document is completely meaningless. Where the so-called "Constitution Believers" erred was in confusing the principles of right and wrong with the republican principle of government organization by which the will of a people is expressed. In other words, they confused MORAL JUDGMENTS with the MECHANISM by which the moral judgment of a whole people is expressed. Let me explain this further and make it perfectly clear, if I may. No vote of the majority EVER determines the morality of an issue. Whether something is right or wrong is determined by moral principle, and one single person in any given society may be morally correct, even if that person is opposed by every other person in that society. That is the way moral principles functions. But the question for ANY society comes down to this: By what mechanism shall we as a society collectively decide moral questions? Simply stated, WHO DECIDES? Shall those decisions be made by a single person, such as a dictator? Shall they be made by a small group of citizens, such as an aristocracy? Or shall they be made by the people as a whole? Bear this in mind: NONE OF THOSE METHODS, NONE OF THOSE MECHANISMS ARE PERFECT FOR MAKING DECISIONS! But we in a free society have chosen the people themselves as the safest and surest way to make decisions for the whole society. AND THE ONLY WAY THE PEOPLE THEMSELVES CAN COLLECTIVE DECIDE ANY ISSUE IS THROUGH THEIR MAJORITY! They will sometimes decide wrongly. But as Jefferson wrote, "We are sensible of the duty and expediency of submitting our opinions to the will of the majority, and can wait with patience till they get right if they happen to be at any time wrong." --Thomas Jefferson to James Breckenridge, 1800. Nevertheless, the American society does not decide issues by a simple majority vote of all the people. The Constitution established a form of government which gives expression to the will of the people, but at the same time includes protections against a "pure democracy" which, as James Madison explained in Federalist No. 10, often leads to factions and the downfall of society. We elect representatives, and the whole system is designed to avoid the destructive effects of "pure democracy" and to favor decision making that is for the best interest of the WHOLE SOCIETY. But those representatives are chosen by majorities, and decisions are made at every step in the whole process of government by majorities or by persons elected by majorities. Changes in the fundamental form of government can only be made by SUPER majorities, but Majority Rule is always and everywhere the fundamental governing principle. Those who argue against Majority Rule are never able to answer the question, "If the majority does not rule, THEN WHO DECIDES???" They fail to realize that if we discredit majority rule as a MECHANISM for making decisions, we thereby undermine the very principle of republican government and the very foundation of a free society. For as Jefferson wrote again: "The first principle of republicanism is that the lex majoris partis [law by the greater part, i.e., majority] is the fundamental law of every society of individuals of equal rights; to consider the will of the society enounced by the majority of a single vote as sacred as if unanimous is the first of all lessons in importance, yet the last which is thoroughly learnt. This law once disregarded, no other remains but that of force, which ends necessarily in military despotism." --Thomas Jefferson to Alexander von Humboldt, 1817. The so-called "Constitution Believers" apparently have not learned this "first of all lessons in importance." They cite cases where certain individuals have stood up against the majority. Of course they have! But they did this on MORAL PRINCIPLE! Their effort was to convince the majority that it was wrong! Only in the communist, fascist, and nazi dictatorships did there arise individuals and small groups who seized power and instituted government that put an end to genuine Majority Rule. And they did this by the very methods that these so-called "Constitution Believers" are pursuing: attempting to destroy the MECHANISM for making decisions by claiming that they know what are the CORRECT decisions that should be made. These kinds of people are the most destructive forces that can ever attack a free society, because they would, in the name of what is "right," destroy the very means by which a free society decides what is right. So, the only question you can ask these people is to repeat over and over again: IF THE MAJORITY DOES NOT DECIDE, WHO DOES?? WHO DOES?? "The will of the people... is the only legitimate foundation of any government, and to protect its free expression should be our first object." --Thomas Jefferson to Benjamin Waring, 1801. > The foundation for our country is > at stake, and the letter published by the "Constitutional Believers" is an > example of how the truth can be "clouded" by emotional rhetoric Indeed, the very foundations of this country are threatened by some people who pass themselves off as "patriots." Believe me: there is a direct line from those who oppose Majority Rule to the anti-government sentiment that is so prevalent in our society and from there to the bombing of federal buildings. This objection to Majority Rule fosters factionalism, as each group claims to be the "true" interpreters of the Constitution and tries to de-legitimize decisions of the majority. We are in a > society where tolerance has become the catch word of American society. If you > disagree with someone, you are not being tolerant. Therefore I have no right > to express even the truth about how our government works because the majority > may not be respectful of minority opinions. Not once did I ever state that > the minority did not have the right to express their views or opinions. That is the way the anti-government groups confuse issues in order to make their points. The > issue of moral judgment is the key. Thanks for helping me understand this and > as fellow admirer of Jefferson and his great intellect...I appreciate your > writings and quotations . You are quite welcome. It is an extremely important matter, and I am only too glad to do what I can to help clarify these issues.