Democracy and Majority Rule

President Barack Obama narrowly defeated Gov. Mitt Romney in the popular vote 51 percent to 48 percent. In the all-important Electoral College, the difference was larger, with Obama winning 303 electoral votes and Romney 206. Let’s not think so much about the election’s outcome but instead ask: What’s so good about democracy and majority rule?

How many decisions in our day-to-day lives would we like to be made through majority rule or the democratic process? How about the decision to watch a football game or “Law and Order”? What about whether to purchase a Chevrolet Volt or a Toyota Prius? Would you like the decision of whether to have turkey or ham for Thanksgiving dinner to be made through the democratic process? Were such decisions made in the political arena, most of us would deem it tyranny.

Democracy and majority rule give an aura of legitimacy and decency to acts that would otherwise be deemed tyranny. Most people would agree that having our decisions on what television shows to watch, what kind of car we’ll purchase and what we’ll eat for Thanksgiving dinner made through the democratic process is tyranny. Why isn’t it also tyranny for the political process to determine decisions such as how much should be put aside out of our paycheck for retirement; whether we purchase health insurance or not; what type of light bulbs we use; or whether we purchase 32- or 16-ounce soda containers?

The founders of our nation held a deep abhorrence for democracy and majority rule. The word democracy appears in neither of our founding documents: our Declaration of Independence and Constitution. In Federalist Paper No. 10, James Madison wrote, “Measures are too often decided, not according to the rules of justice and the rights of the minor party, but by the superior force of an interested and overbearing majority.”

Details

The Chambliss Fix: Nullification of The Supreme Court’s decision on Term Limits

Senator Saxby Chambliss of Georgia is my Senator. On November, 21, 2012, he said that he is considering breaking the Americans For Tax Reform’s Taxpayer Protection Pledge, which says:

Senator Chambliss’ reasoning?

“I care more about my country than I do about a 20-year-old pledge.”

He has been a Senator for 20 years and if we had term limits, he would not be able to break his pledge because he would no longer be in office.

In fact, candidate qualification of term limits were enacted in eight states in the 1990s, but in 1995 with Inc v. Thornton, the Supreme Court ruled that state imposed term limits are unconstitutional. Their reasoning was that the U.S. Constitution imposed some qualifications on Senators: No Person shall be a Senator who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty Years, and been nine Years a Citizen of the United States, and who shall not, when elected, be an Inhabitant of that State for which he shall be chosen (Article I, section 3). Because the Constitution put on some candidate qualifications, The Supreme Court reasoned that the States could not put on additional candidate qualifications, such as term limits.
Clarence Thomas, in dissent, countered this line of reasoning.

Details

UN Warns States not to legalize Marijuana. Say WHAT?!

I am a gunslinger, not a diplomat. My hand naturally went for my piece, as this was a literal slap across our faces.

A diplomat, would smile and try to work something out. Next thing I know, if the diplomat succeeds, there will be a UN rep at a desk next to the governor of Colorado(!) and some UN policy dictating to the state, using coercion and force if necessary to enforce it with ‘troops.’

Not me, not this time. The very idea that UN Warns States not to legalize Marijuana; uh oh, trouble…

I have worked with these dudes. I know their ways and never, ever turn my back to them. I learned to sit with my back to the wall, and sleep with one eye open and my piece under my pillow. These guys are relentless, ruthless, and will take all you have and with impunity, once you let them.

No, no, no. That they dared to openly speak is not good, but definitely worth noting.

I am taking note here, hoping to encourage you to do so too, and take actions, if not now, tomorrow!

Folks, be fearful of this open admonishment, actual attempt to dictate to a sovereign State via the DC gang…

What does this have to do with the UN?

Details