10-23-2020, 12:36 PM
(10-23-2020, 12:27 PM)fredtoast Wrote: It is not that easy to answer because it is not a simple question.
For example I have no problem with elections being based on popular vote, but I would still want a Supreme Court with the power to overturn laws passed by the majority that violate the Constitution.
So would that be a "straight up" democracy?
No it wouldn't, it would be minority rule, in this case by nine people over the will of millions.
Quote:There are no longer a group of lower population states that all share the same interests and concerns like the Southern States when the Constitution was drafted, so the idea of protecting the interests of lower population states is outdated.
Incorrect. Such a statement ignores the S in U.S.A. We are rather unique in that we area collection of semi-autonomous states under a shared overall government. There may be an example I'm missing, but I'm reasonably sure that laws don't vary as widely as they do form state to state in other nations. My girlfriend is from North Carolina, she was shocked that we could buy liquor in the grocery store here in CA. The laws can be radically different from one state to another. This idea is a bedrock principle of the United States. Also, let's please not pretend that the population of different states absolutely have their own flavor and character. Many/most foreign visitors who tour the US comment on how it feels like there are several different countries within out borders.
You never responded to my sourced comments on the tyranny of the majority. The Senate was specifically designed to give every member state an equal voice. In fact in that way it is the ultimate expression of egalitarianism, only applied to member states and not individual citizens. What could be more in keeping with the principles of equal and fair treatment under the law than that?
