Pages

Friday, September 11, 2015

Republican Opposition To Majority Rule

Dear Elaine,

Thanks for your email.

Sen. Reed is wrong.

The constitution was written -- to some limited extent -- to prevent tyranny of the majority.

The constitution was not written -- "in large part" (as Sen. Reed says) -- to prevent majority rule.

1.) Electoral process, 2.) legislative process and 3.) Supreme Court process are all governed by majority rule. 

Yes, there are exceptions.

In recent decades I have noticed (and the epistemological error cannot be over-emphasized) that many conservatives now dedicate themselves to ferreting out "exceptions to rules," and then -- presto change-o! -- they convert the exceptions themselves into New Rules!?!

Exceptions to Rules are not New Rules.

They are Exceptions to Rules.

"The Death Of Epistemolgy"


The Annenberg Classroom passage you sent goes to the heart of the matter: "Majority Rule Is Limited." 

However, Majority Rule is not eliminated.

Majority Rule is The Rule.
***

Concerning your comment on a hypothetical decision by "the majority" to steal your wallet... 

 Consider Thomas Aquinas' definition of Law:


***

Here are data portraying the current state of the Constitution's most significant constraint on Majority Rule, i.e., the allocation of 2 senators to each state regardless its population.

The Population of the 10 Least Populous States:
Maine: 1,330,000
New Hampshire: 1,327,000
Rhode Island: 1,055,000
Montana: 1,024,000
Delaware: 936,000
South Dakota: 853,000
North Dakota: 739,000
Alaska: 737,000
Vermont: 627,000
Wyoming: 584,000
Total Population of the 10 Least Populous States: 9,885,000

3.1% of the population controls 20% of the Senate vote.

At the other end of the demographic spectrum, the ten most populous states -- California, Texas, Florida, New York, Illinois, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Georgia, North Carolina, and Michigan -- have a total population of 172,609,000. 

The upshot?

Each citizen in the least populous ten states has 17.46 times more legislative clout than each citizen in the ten most populous states. 

Does "special wisdom" justify voters in the least populous states having nearly 8 times as much "say so" in the world's most powerful legislative body as citizens in other states? 

 And 17.46 times the senatorial clout of citizens in the most populous states?

If "contribution to the economy" is a measure of political worth (and I understand that this is a dubious proposition) we see that industrial, post-industrial, agricultural and sci-tech production is disproportionately greater - and greater by a wide measure - in those states with greater population.

 Does it make good sense that we grossly undervalue voters in states that contribute most to The Common Weal? 

This offensive disparity has worsened over time so that the egregious discrepancy between most and least populous states - while understandable in origin - now degrades anything like democratic representation.

In 1789 when The Constitution took effect the total population The United States was 3 and a half million and the population discrepancy between the seven most -- and seven least -- most popular states was much less than now. 

In 1789, residents of the least populous states had 5.7 times the senatorial clout of citizens in the most populous states, three times less voting advantage than residents in the least populous states currently wield.

Is there no valid argument to be made about Tyranny of the Minority?

Pax On Both Houses: Compendium Of Voter Fraud And Voter Suppression Posts

The Daily Show Interviews Republican Official Who Spills Beans On Deliberate Voter Suppression 
Masquerading As Prevention Of Voter Fraud
http://paxonbothhouses.blogspot.com/2013/10/jon-stewart-asif-mandvi-investigates.html


Lindsay Graham defines the motivation behind such tyranny.


Among the most populous states, California, New York, Illinois, Pennsylvania and Michigan are solidly blue, while Texas, Florida, Georgia and North Carolina are clearly shifting from red to "purple."

Ohio is an exception to this demographic rule. 

The Buckeye State has supplied the United States with more presidents than any other; one of them a Whig, the remaining seven were all Republicans... but "back in the day" when bible-belters would not be caught dead voting for The Party of Lincoln. 

 What contemporary conservative would vote for this guy? http://paxonbothhouses.blogspot.com/2012/08/the-gop-is-not-party-of-lincoln-its.html

8 U.S. Presidents Came From Ohio: 90-Second-Know-It-All video clips on each.


On Thu, Sep 10, 2015 at 3:41 PM, EK wrote:

But the Constitution puts limits on majority rule. Sen. James A. Reed, Missouri: “ … This is not a country of majority rule. The Constitution of the United States was written, in large part, to prevent majority rule. The Declaration of Independence was an announcement that there are limitations upon majority rule.
The rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness were declared in the Declaration to be inalienable rights. They could not be given away by the citizen himself. Much less could they be taken away by temporary agents, sitting in legislative bodies, holding a limited authority of brief duration.
The Constitution itself is a direct limitation upon majority rule. "You shall not take property without due process of law," says the Constitution, and before we can take that safeguard away what must we do? …”
I’ve always been taught that if the majority decided to take away your wallet, it is not a legal decision. Or something like that! 
From Annenberg Classroom: “ … Majority rule is limited in order to protect minority rights, because if it were unchecked it probably would be used to oppress persons holding unpopular views. Unlimited majority rule in a democracy is potentially just as despotic as the unchecked rule of an autocrat or an elitist minority political party. … “
:)


From: Alan Archibaldo <alanarchibaldo@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 10 Sep 2015 14:23:33 -0400
To: EK
Cc: Fred Owens <froghospital911@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Quaker Official Refuses To Issue Gun License



Dear E,

Thanks for your email.

How about a trade?

I'll go along with "charges against the mayor of San Francisco" (who, in keeping with The American Way, will be acquitted by a jury of his peers) in exchange for your recognition that Kim Davis' appeal to "freedom of religion" as grounds for carving out special "workplace exemptions" -- constitutes unacceptable appeal by public employees charged with providing all citizens equal treatment before The Law. 

This is not to say that The Law cannot be changed.

However, legal change depends on minute adherence to procedure and process, not instantaneous proclamation. (The Supreme Court -- currently a conservative body with a majority of Catholics-- has already refused to hear Ms. Davis' grievance.)

Surely "America" is about "something more" than re-litigation. 

 What's to re-litigate? 

 This morning I learned that fully half of American Evangelicals approve same-sex marriage as do 80% of Americans under 30. 

 The situation is akin to usury which in the Middle Ages was a particularly nefarious sin. 

 Today, there is not a single American nun or priest -- including bishops and cardinals -- without a pocketful of credit cards that charge usurious rates of interest.

The fact that Ms. Davis' "job description changed after she was employed" is a red herring. 

Job descriptions change all the time. 

If an employee doesn't like a revised job description, s/he quits.

It seems to me that Ms. Davis (and much of conservative America) is playing the victim card. 

Personally, I am happy for victims to play this "card."

However, it is ironic that conservatives now embody the very attitude which used to be grounds for summary dismissal of "victims'" grievances. 

As I see it, much of conservative America is slowly realizing it doesn't really like The American Way -- at least insofar as our system of governance depends on Majority Rule, a governmental method rooted in The Founding Fathers ferocious opposition to theocracy (and interlinked monarchy).

Pax tecum

Alan

On Thu, Sep 10, 2015 at 1:17 PM, EK wrote:
Possibly … but I don’t know that slavery was preached from the pulpit after slavery was abolished?

Anyway, an argument could be that the mayor of San Francisco should be arrested for refusing to enforce the laws on immigration? Also, the job description for Kim’s position changed after she accepted the job … 

Either way, it’s been interesting … :)
From: Alan Archibaldo <alanarchibaldo@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 10 Sep 2015 11:53:21 -0400
To: Fred Owens <froghospital911@gmail.com>
Cc: LM
Subject: Quaker Official Refuses To Issue Gun License


Alan: If Kim Davis' refusal to perform her job -- while insisting she keep it -- has legal standing, Quaker officials could refuse to issue gun permits and Muslim officials could refuse to issue driver's licenses to women.

It is a historical fact that slavery was preached from the pulpit so that practitioners of "old time Religion" could, in conscience, refuse marriage licenses to biracial couples. 
2009 Louisiana Interracial Marriage License Incident
Wikipedia
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2009_Louisiana_interracial_marriage_incident

Christian Defence Of Slavery Preached From The Pulpit

But beyond this predictable debate lies a more fundamental issue, now conveniently scotomized.

From the Christian point of view, the linchpin degradation of marriage took place when Christians themselves began to divorce in numbers essentially equivalent to secular society.

Once "the Christian rank-and-file" "broke rank," The Party of Family Values elected, and thus normalized, the nation's first (and only) divorced president, Ronald Reagan.

People and societies accommodate "water under the bridge," even devout Christians formerly aghast at hint of heterodoxy. 

Such accommodation often occurs when a family member embodies a previously verboten behavior - divorce, same-sex relationship, usury, working on The Lord's Day.

Greed Is Good:: A Dangerous 300 Year History Of The Idea That Greed Is Good
(The Role Of Usury)
http://paxonbothhouses.blogspot.com/2014/04/greed-is-good-300-year-history-of.html 


Is there one American Christian in a million who would agree with Jesus' teaching in The Gospel of Mark, the oldest of the four canonical gospels?

"What God has joined together, man must never separate... Whoever divorces his wife and marries another woman commits adultery against her. And if a woman divorces her husband and marries another man, she commits adultery.”

Before quitting her post (the only honorable thing to do), Kim Davis should express Christian opposition to issuing marriage licenses to divorced applicants.

Gospel Of Mark: Why Doesn't Kim Davis Deny Marriage Licenses To The Previously Divorced?


Amish Insight Into Kim Davis Uncivil Disobedience
http://paxonbothhouses.blogspot.com/2015/09/amish-insight-into-kim-davis-uncivil.html

Kim Davis: If Christians Want Government Jobs, They Must Discharge The Government's Job Description


Posted by at

No comments:

Post a Comment

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)