President Obama c/o The White House
1600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW
Washington, DC 20500
Dear Mr. President,
I know that you receive 20,000 letters a day and that you actually read 10 of them every day. I really do respect you for trying to get a pulse on what is going on out here.
I think the federal government needs a lot of limitations put on it but it still keeps growing and growing in power.
Majoritarianism Is Not Compatible with Individual Rights
September 9, 2012 by Dan Mitchell
Thomas Sowell, George Will, and Walter Williams have all explained that the Constitution imposes strict limits on the powers of the federal government. This means, for all intents and purposes, that it is a somewhat anti-democratic document.
And by anti-democratic, I mean the Constitution puts restrictions on democracy (not restrictions on the Democratic Party, though in this case…).
More specifically, it doesn’t matter if a majority of people want Obamacare or a Department of Education. We live in a constitutional republic, a system specifically designed to protect individual liberties from tyranny.
The Founding Fathers obviously didn’t want our freedoms to be subject to the whims of a king, but they also wanted to protect us from the tyranny of the majority.
This is one of the reasons why I’m so happy to share this short video from the folks at the Institute of Humane Studies. The Supreme Court may have wimped out in fulfilling its role of protecting us against untrammeled majoritarianism, but at least we can understand why it’s a good idea to protect economic liberty.
Published on Sep 6, 2012 by LearnLiberty
Under a democratic system of government, how is an individual protected from the tyranny of the majority? According to Professor Munger, democratic constitutions consist of two parts: one defining the limits within which decisions can be made democratically, and the other establishing the process by which decisions will be made. In the United States Constitution, the individual is protected from majority decisions. Professor Munger warns, however, that these protections are slowly being stripped away as American courts of law fail to recognize the limits of what can be decided by majority rule. Professor Munger uses the case of Kelo v. New London to illustrate the dangers of confusing majority rule with a democratic system.
_______________
I particularly like the fact that the video cites the Supreme Court’s horrific Kelo decision.
By the way, if you want to understand the other side of the debate (or if you want to enjoy a good laugh), you can peruse my post on E.J. Dionne’s failure to understand history and constitutional governance.
P.S. I applied the lessons of this video in my post about why the U.S. government should promote liberty rather than democracy in the Middle East.
P.P.S. They probably don’t realize it, but Republicans actually came out against marjoritarianism in their party platform.
P.P.P.S. There is at least one Republican who is against majoritarianism (and for the right reason). Click here for the answer.
______________
Thank you so much for your time. I know how valuable it is. I also appreciate the fine family that you have and your commitment as a father and a husband.
Sincerely,
The Daily Hatch 