Nope. It’s just simple logic. If you DON’T have majority rule, what is left? Don’t confuse the generic term “minority” with the way it is often used to mean “ethnic minority”. Saddam Hussein and his cronies were a “minority” ruling Iraq. So were the politburo in the USSR. I’m using the term “minority” here to mean any subset of the population which is not in the majority.
Note to rjung: If you want to address a particular point of mine, please do. I’ll be happy to debate on you on those terms. As it is, I can’t really think of any response to what you posted-- it stands alone, existing outside the debate we’re having here.
rjung, have you read any posts from me beofre that define what I mean by “judicial activism?” And specifically, that I offer a definition that applies to a METHOD OF ANALYSIS. Have you read posts from me that describe judicial decisions where I agree with the outcome, but still decry them as “activist?” And have you read posts from me in which I disapprove of the ruling, but do not call it “activist?”
In all modern democratic societies (and in some other societies which are neither modern nor democratic) there is a recognition of some individual rights which are essential to the working of society. So almost everyone supports freedom of speech, freedom of religion, personal property rights, etc. (Of course, there is disagreement about the limits of these rights, but almost everyone agrees that everyone has the right to say things that the majority thinks are wrong, belong to religions that the majority think will lead to eternal damnation, and own propoerty that the majority would rather they had the use of.)
These rights can be recognised by constitutions, ordinary legislation and by the courts; but the important thing is that they are recognised by politicians and by almost all ordinary people. If there wasn’t that recognition, then having them in constitutions, etc., would become meaningless just ike they were in the constitutions of the old Soviet Union.
So in these democratic societies, there is majority rule, but it is tempered by the majority always recognising that there is a minority, and that the minority has rights which must always be respected.
And the opposition to “majority rule” is not “minority rule”, but is “individual rights” or “minority rights” (for those rights which are collective, and not individual in nature).
But those individual rights will only work as long as the majority supports them, which includes supporting the constitutional rules and the courts which protect indivisual or minority rights. For example, if a majority of people in the US stopped believing in freedom of speech or in freedom of religion, it would not be very long before those First Amendment rights withered away and became meaningless, regardless of what was written in the Constitution, because all three branches of government would treat them as meaningless.
I’m not sure if you are agreeing with me or disagreeing with me.
I can certainly agree with what you posted. It’s true that individual rights are set up in “opposition to” majority rule as per the constitution. But the process of setting up that constitution in the first place is done by majority rule, and the concept of majority rule continues wrt the constitution since the majority can change it. And there is no limit to how much the majority can change that constitution, except
in that the populace might rise up and revolt if the majority goes too far.
I think I’m agreeing with you. My point is that minority rights are only effective if they are recognised by the majority. In a way it’s a paradox, but it’s one found in every democratic society: the majority deliberately limits its rights to rule, because it recognises individual rights and minority rights which ought to be protected by the government.
Allow me to try again. If we insist on a majoritarian process for any and all governmental processes, then it’s misleading to say that individual rights are in opposition to majority rule, since the majority can overrule those rights whenever it wants to. In effect, that’s just saying that the majority must respect minority rights unless it doesn’t want to. Now, if the question is “Can the majority overrule individual rights?” then surely the answer is yes, at least given our current societal structure. In other societal structures the majority is powerless. However, the OP is not asking after who has the power in our society, but is rather asking whether endowing the majority with all the power is more important than respect for individual rights. Or, alternatively, which is morally worse? The majority trampling on minority rights? Or preventing the majority from doing so?
Yes, but that is exactly where we get into trouble. Let’s look at the math. Maybe you can correct my misperception.
The perclivities that consenting adults get up to in the privacy of their bedrooms are not subject to majority rule. Now according to you such things are subject to minority rule. If by that you mean individual rule, then I agree with you. However, the local board of bishops is also a “subset of the population”. Surely you do not mean that they can rule on such issues? For others besides themselves individually, that is. I’m afraid that “minority rule” means too many other things to be exactly opposed to majority rule. The problem is not with the term minority, the problem is with the term “rule”. Not everything is applicable to someone outside of the individual’s “rule”.
Now if by minority rule you mean something closer to individual rule, then we have an agreement. rjung, in my experience “minority rule” has only been used by leftists wanting to abolish the ellectoral college, the constitution, or some other institution which seems to stand in their way. I am not familiar with any conotation of “minority rule” which is used this way by conservatives. Not that you should let that stand in the way of a good mindless jab.
True for majority statutory rule (now, per Lawrence), but not true for constutional rule. Note that in my very first post I pointed out this distinction. Suppose for example that the SCOTUS ruled that the US Constitution required the federal government to recognize SSM. We could, of course, pass an amendment specifically banning the federal gov’t from recognizing SSM. In fact, I think that would probably happen.
Gorsnak: I’m still confused, especially since your post includes my reply to Giles, not my reply to you. Was that a mistake, or is that supposed to be part of the explanation?
My understanding of what John Mace is saying is that as a society, the majority that created/enacted/modified/maintains the constitution delineated what was and was not subject to its authority, to majority rule. If that decision were reached by a group that did not constitute an effective majority or supermajority than that would be minority rule. I think he is approaching it from a pragmatic point of view rather than an idealistic point of view
My feeling is that the advantage of majority rule is that it allows the government to be responsive to the citizenry and also for the citizenry to be responsible for their government. The major disadvantage is too much of the former and not enough of the latter. That is why constitutional protections and required supermajorities for certain types of rules changes are important.
If this is the case then I have profoundly misunderstood. I took his first statement to mean that if the decision was not made at all it could be said to have been prevented by minority rule. This seems an odd usage of the word “rule” to me.
You mean that there is no freedom of sexual congress in the contitution, correct?
Let’s take another example becaus I think that one confuses the point I was trying to make.
There is a freedom of speech contained in the constitution. Allow me to assume for the sake of this point that this means that everyone is free to speak as he wishes. The means that the majority may not rule as to the content of some paper I wish to publish. However, it does not follow that the minority can rule as to such content. Just because the majority is not allowed to restrict my content does not mean that my neigbhors are. What I am saying is that a lack of majority rule does not logically mean a minority rule. Unless, of course, by minority rule you mean individual rule.
I agree that the super majority still has power to change this state of affairs. We could, for instance, pass an amendment subjecting newpapers to some sort of majority vote. What I am saying is that since the supermajority has not done this, is not the same as saying that such issues are ruled by minorities.
Doesn’t matter. If there isn’t, there could be if the majority so desired.
Well, how did that freedom of speech get into the constitution in the first place? It got there by majority rule. It wasn’t handed down from above, or put in place by a benign dictator. One might argue that because only white male property owners could vote at that time that it WAS minority rule, but there are always some sort of restrictions on voting, so that’s really just a nit-pick. It isn’t practical to scrap the constitution and re-write it every time the franchise for voting is expanded, or to re-write it everytime another person turns 18.
No it’s not. I didn’t mean to say it did, and if my posts indicated that, then I wasn’t being clear.
I didn’t think so. You confused me with that post for a while. For a bit there, I thought you were agreeing with 2sense that a supermajority is equivilant to a tyranny of the minority.
