Replies

Actually, BoT, you make my point for me.

As I stated, a real tyranny is not of the majority but of the minority ruling the majority.

I agree our representatives (and judiciary, who are appointed by representatives voted in by a majority) are not correctly following the will of the people and are running roughshod over the Constitution. But this is NOT the fault of the EC or our electoral process. And this does not prove the need for overthrowing the will of the majority in favor of a will of the minority.

The constitution is quite clear about the percentage of our representatives required to pass a law. Your example of the 'majority' voting to kill African Americans is argumentum ad absurdum because the Constitution and criminal law forbids it.

Your paraphrase of Franklin's quote is a bit inaccurate (the wolves and sheep). In Franklin's quote it is a well-armed sheep contesting the vote. A minority in this country (led by Barbara Boxer and her ilk) would love to institute a national ban on firearms and begin the door-to-door confiscation.

But your use of his quote explaining democracy proves my point. Because if Democracy is three wolves and two sheep voting on what to have for lunch, in our system (a democratic republic), the minority is protected from the majority because the two sheep and the three wolves EACH get ONE representative. No changes can be made until there is a majority of representatives in agreement. Since it is 1-1, the wolves will not be able to vote to have the sheep for lunch, thus the minority is protected from the majority.

But I do entirely agree with you that we are being financially bled to death by the nicks of a thousand taxes. What we need to do is thump those representatives out of office fast and hard using the electoral process and get people in there who are not going to run as moderate, tax-cutting representatives (as Clinton did) and then tax the hell out of the people once in office.

Essentially my point is this, I understand your argument and your frustration, but I think you're blurring the line between the electoral process (the majority electing representatives) and those representatives not doing what they are supposed to do (represent the majority but in accordance with Constitutional precepts). Let's face it, the majority in this country are for tax cuts across the board. NO politician gets elected promising higher taxes. Yes, these politicians are morally degenerate who promise one thing and then do another. But it's not the system or the majority who is doing what is wrong, it is the representatives individually and collectively. This, in fact, is further proof of the implicit 'tyranny of the minority' in this country. It is those representatives that appeal to the majority by promising tax cuts but then betray their constituents by raising taxes who appeal to the tyranny of the minority, for they raise those taxes in order to buy votes by redistributing the money to select minority groups.

As you correctly stated, we are a Constitutional Republic. The will of the majority is restrained by the Constitution and our laws. We need to put the fear of G-- into anyone who is thinking about running for office that violating the Constitution or the will of the majority will be dealt with swiftly. Should we implement a system of civil and criminal liability for our politicians? That is, jail time for representatives who violate the Constitution or who betray their constituents? I don't know. Maybe. Regardless, the system is fine. We just need to abide by it and to use it to our (the majority's) advantage.

Thanks for the replies. I appreciate the discussion.