On Tue, 10 Aug 2004, andie nachgeborenen wrote:
> You'll take democracy over constitutional rights?
> What is your view of Brown v. Board of Education? Or on the other side,
> US v. Debs (upholding the convictions of the CP leadership for
> conspiracy to advocate the overthrow of the US govt)?
> The thing is, mere majority rule can be oppressive when the majority is
> prejudiced. I'm not saying there is not a deep problem about democracy
> involved in constitutional democracy, but do you really think that
> democracy is equivalent to unconstrained majority rule?
I wondered when and if I'd get Justin's trademarked lawyerly smackdown on this. Rule of law, checks and balances, yeah, yeah, I agree we need a court system to interpret the legal statutes. However, I'll stick with what I said: if I had to cede political power to some noble, unelected elite or live with the decisions of the people, I'd go with the mob every time. Sure, people can be prejudiced; their consensus can challenge or contradict the existing laws; the majority decision is not necessarily the most rational or "best" decision. --But this is the fundamental (moral) point: people should have a say about the things that affect their lives.
Take gay marriage. I support political candidates in favor or gay marriage, I would enthusiastically support a ballot measure to unambiguously legalize gay marriage. (And it would probably pass in my more liberal neck o' the woods.) Well and good. However, if most people in East Texas do not support gay marriage, it's a pretty clear "fuck you" to democratic principles if we say, gay marriage is a constitutional right, and most East Texans' deeply held beliefs and opinions don't mean shit.
I'm not sure how to resolve this; I guess I'm just trying to point out the moral, political and philosophical brambles here.
Miles