Thomas Sowell, George Will, and Walter Williams have all explained that the Constitution imposes strict limits on the powers of the federal government. This means, for all intents and purposes, that it is a somewhat anti-democratic document.
More specifically, it doesn’t matter if a majority of people want Obamacare or a Department of Education. We live in a constitutional republic, a system specifically designed to protect individual liberties from tyranny.
The Founding Fathers obviously didn’t want our freedoms to be subject to the whims of a king, but they also wanted to protect us from the tyranny of the majority.
This is one of the reasons why I’m so happy to share this short video from the folks at the Institute of Humane Studies. The Supreme Court may have wimped out in fulfilling its role of protecting us against untrammeled majoritarianism, but at least we can understand why it’s a good idea to protect economic liberty.
I particularly like the fact that the video cites the Supreme Court’s horrific Kelo decision.
By the way, if you want to understand the other side of the debate (or if you want to enjoy a good laugh), you can peruse my post on E.J. Dionne’s failure to understand history and constitutional governance.
P.S. I applied the lessons of this video in my post about why the U.S. government should promote liberty rather than democracy in the Middle East.
P.P.S. They probably don’t realize it, but Republicans actually came out against marjoritarianism in their party platform.
P.P.P.S. There is at least one Republican who is against majoritarianism (and for the right reason). Click here for the answer.