Suppose the majority of people of the United State decide that democracy is not an efficient way to go about things. Congress (by more than a two-thirds majority) passes a bill declaring the Constitution of the United States to be null and void, and appointing someone as dictator over the US. This bill is then ratified by more than three-fourths of the states. Two questions:
Does the principle of “majority rules” extend to the allowing the majority to dispose of this principle? Is the right to self-government sacred, or can it be delegated? If you are of the minority that wants to keep democracy, do you have the right to impose you will on the majority? Is the idea of the minority imposing its will on the majority to save democracy paradoxical?
Is question one silly? Does the unlikelihood of the hypothetical makes discussing it pointless?
When the Articles of Confederation were thrown out and the Constitution drafted, it was in direct contravention to the provision in the Articles which outlined the specific process required to amend it. The Philadelphia delegates explicitly were not vested with the power to scrap the Articles and start again from scratch. So, in a sense, our Constitution is unconstitutional.
This happened. Germany. 1939. Hitler became the legally elected chancellor (IIRC) of Germany, ushering the fascists into power. The Nazis were not exactly shy about their plans to institute a dictatorship, yet they were elected anyway.
People, why are you being such blockheads toward this fellow? Argue all you want that we don’t have a democracy, but at lease answer the OP’s question.
Since we are a democratic republic and decide matters (as described in the constitution) with a vote, can we vote to scrap the democratic republic and the constitution which founded it?
Do we have a right to self govern? If so, is it an inalienable right which cannot be taken away by any kind of vote?
What of the paradox of the minority imposing its will on the majority in order to save democracy?
I feel that my post did answer the OP; however, I will answer your points to be more specific.
Not under the Constitution. It does not provide for this type of drastic change.
But as Gadarene pointed out, the Constitution was set up in just this manner, so you could say that it set a precedent that could be followed.
Another Constitutional justification would be to use the Preamble as an amending rationale: We the people… do ordain and establish this Constitution….
Under this argument you could state that we do have the right to radically change the government in spite of the ammendment clause ( article 5 ).
According to democratic theory, yes we do have the right of self-governance. If we accept this theory ( and we do ) then we have this right. But no, this right is not inalienable since there is no such thing as an inalienable right. We have in fact chosen ( under the Constitution ) NOT to govern ourselves but instead to set up a Republic to do it for us.
Do we have the right to vote to be non-democratic?
See my previous post.
This is not truly a paradox.
If a minority somehow subverted the will of the majority that wished to change a democracy to a dictatorship then the action itself would be undemocratic, but the system would remain a democracy. All real world democracies contain undemocratic elements within them so even if the minority somehow prevented the majority from ever making the same choice in the future then this would not invalidate the democratic character of the nation.
This is a common misconception. The broadest definition of a democracy is any form of government which derives its right to govern from the consent of the people rather than through divine right, right of royal blood or some other justification. A constitutional republic, like all republics, is a form of democracy. More specifically, it is a form of representational democracy.
Stating that the US is not a democracy is like stating that you don’t live in New York City, instead you live in the Bronx.
2sense: A Constitutional Republic is a democratic government, yes, but it is not a true democracy, which is what the OP seems (to me at any rate) to be assuming.
Yer pal,
Satan
[sub]I HAVE BEEN SMOKE-FREE FOR:
Four months, one day, 22 hours, 58 minutes and 46 seconds.
4958 cigarettes not smoked, saving $619.78.
Life saved: 2 weeks, 3 days, 5 hours, 10 minutes.[/sub]
I might agree with you if I were certain exactly what you meant by “true democracy”. If you are using this term to refer to what is known as a simple, pure, or direct democracy then I would conclude that you were correct. The US is not a direct democracy.
I do not agree that this is the only type of democracy.
My take on the OP was that it was discussing theoretical democratic principles in a real world example. That’s why my answer was theoretical.
I am jealous of Satan’s sig.
No one other than my wife has ever told me they had an erotic dream about me.
I’m sure it’s happended plenty of times though.
It’s just that the women must have been too bashful to tell me about it.
The checks are balance are simply the manner in which the majority’s will is interpreted. They define, rather than limit, the majority will. There is no such thing as “straight majority rule”. The term “majority” simply means a group that includes more than it excludes. This is not a unique group. Or rather, it is not unique until you have a method of determining how to categorize people. Once you have created the categories, then you can see which is largest.
APB9999
[quite]This happened. Germany. 1939. Hitler became the legally elected chancellor (IIRC) of Germany, ushering the fascists into power.[/quite]
YARC (You almost recall correctly). Hitler was appointed Chancellor.
I must agree with Gadarene, assuming that I correctly understand his point. My understanding has always been that, ultimately, laws mean whatever The Guys With The Guns say they mean. Thus it makes no sense to dwell on whether an action fits to some piece of paper - what matters is only whether it has enough support from The People (and, more importantly, The People That Count) to get done. This is how the important constitutional issues involving the rights of states to secede were settled.
But looking at the OP (by another old friend of mine), it seems that his question is more one of whether it is right in a moral sense, rather than a legal one.
I would suggest a parrallel scenario. There are many third world countries that are not democracies. In some of these, there is a democratic opposition which seeks to overthrow the government and institute a democracy, but which presently does not enjoy the support of the majority of the population. Is it right to support these groups?
