Posted on 11/04/2002 6:15:08 AM PST by Free Fire Zone
Most People Agree...
by Lady Liberty
Published 11. 3. 02 at 18:09 Sierra Time
As we consider the issues and candidates in this year's elections, it seems an appropriate time to remember one salient detail about the political system in our country: we do NOT live in a democracy. As simple as that fact may be, many people tend to forget it. A lot of them are politicians. In recent years, politicians - up to and including the President - have developed the habit of peppering their speeches with the phrase, "the American people believe" or "the American people want" as they propose a program or explain their stance on an issue. This, of course, serves to justify their position at the same time it gives the illusion that they're doing their job of representing their constituents.
Politicans have polls conducted by their own staffs to back up their assertions that they're only doing what "the American people demand" of them. Other times, they rely on polls conducted by organizations such as Gallup, Zogby, or the network news. Sometimes, as a result, they're even telling the truth: What they're doing really is what most Americans say they want to be done! The problem, however, is that what most Americans want or prefer or demand has absolutely nothing to do with the Constitution or Bill of Rights.
When the Constitution was written, it made provision for amendments, but it didn't have any. As the Constitution was under consideration, however, a heated debate broke out concerning what most believed to be the so-called "inherent" or "God-given" rights of the people. One faction felt that it was so obvious these rights existed there was no need to mention them at all. Another faction maintained that the rights should be enumerated so that the government couldn't possibly overstep its bounds and infringe upon them. But once a decision was made to write a "Bill of Rights", another argument ensued. Some believed that, if rights were listed out, the government might assume it could control or take any that weren't specifically listed. That argument was only settled when the Ninth Amendment was penned.
It's important to note that those who authored the Bill of Rights were very careful to make clear that the rights were individual rights, and that they existed independent of what the government - or anyone else - might think about them. After having had the experience of a government monitoring, controlling, and tampering with their rights, the revolutionaries weren't about to establish another government that could eventually take similar actions against its citizens!
The bottom line is that, even if "most Americans say they think" something should be stopped or controlled, if that something is one of our unalienable rights, what most Americans say is immaterial because the government couldn't do anything about it even if it wanted to. It's prohibited from doing so by law (not, mind you, that that's stopped the government from making attempts, some of them successful, to curtail our rights, but I suppose that's why we have an appeals process in place).
Of course, conservatives will breathe a sigh of relief knowing that, even if the majority of the public thinks warrantless searches or property seizures are okay, it will be tough for government officials to completely subvert the Fourth and Fifth Amendments. And liberals should be delighted because, according to a recent poll conducted by the First Amendment Center, a significant percentage of all Americans think the First Amendment goes too far in its protections, especially those involving freedom of the press, but the government won't be able to take action accordingly.
In a true democracy, the fact that the majority of Americans are Christian could mean a vote denying Jews, Muslims, Hindus, or Buddhists the freedom to worship as their conscience dictates. Worse, it could require them to at least give lip service to the religion of the majority. And the fact that most Americans disapprove of homosexuality could conceivably mean imprisonment or forced "rehabilitation" for gay men and women. In fact, ANY block of "most Americans" could prove detrimental to the rights of those who don't fall into the majority category. And that's almost diametrically opposed to what the Founding Fathers intended, which is why they were careful to establish a representative republic and not a true democracy, and also why they protected certain freedoms from infringement altogether.
When you vote on November 5, keep in mind how the candidates are answering certain questions. Do they promise to do what the voters want them to do? Or do they promise to do what's right and Constitutional? Obviously, there are times when these two viewpoints mesh perfectly. But when they don't, do you want a politician who represents the majority? Or would you prefer one who upholds the rights of all Americans, unpopular or otherwise?
After the election, make it a point to contact your representatives not just about specific issues on which you have an opinion or in which you have an interest, but on Constitutional matters as well (it's to be hoped that, no matter what your personal thoughts on those issues, you'll side with the Bill of Rights and can, with a clear conscience, urge your representative to do the same and for the same reasons).
I will confess that it's tempting to use the "majority wants" argument when it goes along with your own opinion. For example, the same poll showing that many Americans aren't too happy with First Amendment protections also showed a substantial majority of Americans consider the Second Amendment to be either "essential" or "important". As it happens, the Bill of Rights already acknowledges that fact. But maybe some politicans out there could use the poll as a convenient excuse to actually uphold the Constitution for a change. They do swear to do that when they take office, after all. And I'll bet that, when all is said and done - and if they take the time to really think about it - that's what most Americans want.
Lady Liberty is a pro-freedom activist who lives on the coast of a Great Lake with her two cats and a large collection of science fiction books. She has had humorous essays published in the past, but is now concentrating on political activism after seeing the rapid acceleration of the erosion of freedom in America. Though she is in contact with her political representatives regularly, her efforts most days are centered on her website, Lady Liberty's Constitution Clearing House, and on the political commentaries she writes, all with the hope that she can help to educate just a few of the ignorant and inspire some of the educated to political activism.
Our Senators used to be elected by the state legislatures--a practice that was far superior to what we have today--but are now elected democratically as well.
"Direct democracy" is seen frequently in the guise of state referenda which many states utilize.
The ultra-conservative insistence on making "Republic not Democracy" a continuing issue is mostly straining at gnats.
The only time the argument has been pertinent was to refute the Dems' grumping about "popular election" of the President in the wake of Election 2000. Otherwise, it is a distinction without a difference.
No husband is mentioned, though. Hm. Wonder why. </smirk>
I disagree from a philosophical standpoint, however from a practical point, you might be right, since the average American does not understand the difference. I like the following definition of Democracy: Two wolves and a sheep voting on what to eat for dinner.
I think the distinction is important. I think it is also important to note that many things (constitutional amendments) are not strictly "democratic" in that the majority rules, but a Super Majority (66%+) is needed.
Yes, I use that one quite often when discussing this topic.
Our Constitutional Republic: The sheep is protected from being on the menu... and is armed.
Yes, I use that one quite often when discussing this topic.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.