Apropos of the ongoing debates in Washington, wondering to what extent can the majority vote to oppress a minority?
Carried to an extreme, can the 99% demand that anyone in the 1% each pay a million dollars to help out with the debt? Or why tax the top 2%, or whatever arbitrary cutoff you choose? Can right handers vote that lefties should pay more taxes?
It seems like a lot of current decisions are being waged in terms of what is politically palatable, rather than anything rational or equitable. As long as something is not explicity prohibited by the Constitution, what is to prevent the so called “tyranny of the majority”?
Anyone familiar enough with Constitional law to comment on how minority rights are protected, when decisions are determined by the majority?
Being in the minority of being in the top 1% is not like being in the minority because you’re Black, or Asian, or Latino, or gay, or Muslim, or left handers. There is no common good that comes from discriminating against a minority based on race, sexuality, or religion, or handedness; in fact, such discrimination causes harm to the societal fabric.
Being in the top 1% wealth-wise is a minority that one can voluntarily leave. Also, the 1% has a disproportionate amount of total wealth. It’s not like they’re making a few grand more than everyone else – they’re making millions more. And the wealth is concentrating in them… they can’t seem to spend it fast enough (another way they can voluntarily leave that minority status). Concentrating wealth in the few creates a plutocracy. Money is power, and speech, and influence. Unchecked, you’d have a fourth branch of government… not because one person is so rich, but because all of them together have so much more than all the rest combined.
The amount of wealth concentrated in them now is unheard of in American history. The history of other countries with such disproportionate distribution of wealth usually winds up in class warfare… literally. Not just with mean words from liberals that upset the delicate sensibilities of the well-to-do, but from the millions of people living and starving in poverty burning the place down.
So, there’s no special protection based on mere human prejudice when the rich are taxed moreso. There are real reasons to have a progressive tax in which those who have so much more than what’s needed to survive pay more than those who need what they have just to survive.
Next you’ll be telling me that incarceration of the minority of the population that are murderers constitutes oppression of a minority.
The constitution is the supreme law of the land. As long as it is a power given to congress and isn’t prohibited by the constitution (or other law) - congress can do whatever they want.
In theory - yes the 99% could try and extract a million dollars each (not everyone in the 1% HAS a million), but that wouldn’t be fair - and generally people are still fair about things. Blacks were in the minority when slavery was ended and in the 60s when civil rights were restored.
It isn’t like the 1% are being persecuted. They pay less in payroll, excise, and state taxes as a percentage of income. State/local taxes make up almost Half of what someone in the middle quintile pays. This isn’t ever brought up by those making the money and complaining.
OK, maybe I should have left out the referral to the rich, as they automatically draw so much criticism, derserved or not.
But back to the broader intent of the question - what keeps a majority from voting down the minority? And “minority” just referring strictly to those who are fewer in number, without any of the associated social connotation of race/religion/sex which colors the debate.
Does the court or Constitution have to specifically deal with each issue, to ensure that minority rights are protected? Or are there standing laws that limit the power of a majority?
One read of any American History textbook should prove that there is absolutely nothing to ensure minority rights. Remember slavery? Or the Jim Crow laws? Or the laws oppressing women, gays, Jews, Catholics, Irish, Chinese, drinkers, nondrinkers, Communists, Socialists, unions, nudists, and on and on and on and on and on?
No political system ever invented can prevent the oppression of minorities if sufficient majorities approve. Laws can be passed stating otherwise, but the reality never catches up until the feeling ripples through enough of the majority.
So I guess I’m not understanding what your question is. Of course, there is nothing in the Constitution about minorities. Of course, specific laws have to be passed. Of course enforcement of these laws is often bypassed. Of course majorities vote down minorities, every day on a zillion issues large and small at every level of government. And this is blatantly obvious to everyone. So what are you asking? Do you have a question with a factual answer or are you just venting?
There is the equal protection clause of the 14th amendment, but that doesn’t apply to just any arbitrary group of people. If you believe in strict construction - there is nothing in the constitution that prohibits laws against gays for example.
The concept of minorities is usually talked about with regards to discrimination - and that has to be a protected class. Gays and rich people are not protected classes (gays are in some states now).
What prevents it is a societies ethics and values.
Here in the US, those values are cited in the Declaration of Independence “… that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights”.
Also, in actual practice, the legislature has some rules and procedures built in to ensure that (numerical) minorities aren’t completely trampled over.
The SCOTUS has designate certain “suspect classes”, and laws targeting those classes must meet a certain level of scrutiny to be considered constitutional. Right or wrong “rich folk” aren’t considered a suspect class.
Here’s some reading that should educate you on this subject:
The 14th Amendment didn’t help Southern blacks during Jim Crow. If the political will is not there to enforce constitutional provisions then they won’t be enforced. There are no guarantees against tyranny. There can be no guarantees. Period.
The result of this reality is that the way to protect your rights is to convince others to see things your way. Thus the popularity of concepts like “tyranny of the majority”. Framing governmental actions in this way supports the status quo.
I’d be interested to learn of a counter-example. There may be some bloke earning $343,000 annually in income who promptly spends it all on things that do not keep value. (Food, vacation trips, or charity.) I’m a bit dubious, though.
A lot of things that are sensible in moderation are stupid when taken to an extreme. Drinking water is good for you. Drinking 12 liters of water a day is stupid.
ISTM that you’re implying that a non-flat tax is ‘oppression to an extent’ for those who must pay the higher rates on part of their income. Maybe that’s not what you mean, but that seems to be the implication.
I don’t know if my step sister’s husband makes that much (very possible - he’s a shrink in La Jolla) but I’m sure they don’t have a million bucks to spare I think I, who are not nearly in the 1%. have more saved than they do.
Come on, man. See Proposition 8, or any of the laws passed against SSM.
I trust you are not saying that increasing takes on the rich by a few percent is oppression, are you?
The constitution isn’t supposed to protect certain classes of people. It’s supposed to protect individual rights. It doesn’t, but that’s the purpose.
One way to protect a minority from the tyranny of the majority is secession. Of course this is not accepted today, but it would work. States could secede from the union, counties from states, neighborhoods from counties, and individuals from neighborhoods.
But if you secede, you are the government and unless you can enforce your morality on others, you are subject to the morality of the lowest common denominator.
Not if they force the interaction. You’ve seceded, right? What are you gonna do, call the cops? They don’t care, you aren’t a member of their society anymore. Every home a castle takes on a literal meaning under your “plan”. If you think the majority can oppress the minority now…
