I found the first case particularly interesting because it involves the distinction
between a Democracy and the American constitutional Republic.
As a form of government, a representative Democracy is essentially omnipotent
mob rule through surrogates - individuals have no rights except as part of
the majority, and must submit
absolutely to the will of the majority and their
representatives. We see some of that in state initiatives and recalls.
The Founding Fathers were especially
sensitive to the "excesses of democracy" and built
the American
system to
protect the
"unalienable
rights" of citizens. The resulting Republic elects representatives
based on a majority (of one form or another), but these representatives
must then operate within the constraints of the constitution as a protection
of individuals
from the
democratic
"tyranny of the mob."
Let's hope the Supremes understand the difference.
Article comments