Majority Rules: How Politicians Do Not Understand Democracy

Today's Kojo Nnamdi show on NPR debated three bills pending in Maryland that affect marriage. The show's title was "Government and the Meaning of Marriage."

What most struck me about the debate was Maryland State Senator Janet Greenip's incorrect definition of a democracy as she pushed her referendum bill. I have employed my best memory recall as I did not want to pay the $30 transcript bill to get the actual dialog but here is my best effort:

Kojo: Many people think that a simple majority vote results in the tyranny of the minority. How do you respond to that?

Greenip: Well, we live in a republic, and that means that the majority absolutely should make the decisions.

Actually, Ms Greenip, you have no understanding about either a republic or democracy. Neither is a simple majoritarian vote. We have first of all a Constitution, which gives every individual rights that cannot be negated on a majority vote. Next, we have the balance of powers that include the judiciary. No matter what anyone thinks about marriage this women ought to be thrown out of elected office.

Happiness: The Newest Constitutional Right

Via Instapundit, the NYT Editors mistake the Declaration of Independence with the Constitution:

It is an eminently good thing that the anti-suicide measure would require medical specialists to keep track of veterans found to be high risks for suicide. But that’s to care for them as human beings, under that other constitutional right — to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

Look, I understand mistakes. Really I do. One time I thought I was with a pregnant tranny. Turns out it was a mall Santa Clause. Looking back on it, that was a really stupid mistake; but in my defense Santa sure did know how to swallow a cock. Boy did he....Now, maybe these editors thought they were looking at a pregnant post-op tranny, when in fact they were looking at a mall Santa Clause. Always possible. But they are the editors of the New York Times. It might not mean anything to me, but it certainly does to a large segment of the reading world.

Judge Does His Job

Occasionally a judge somewhere reminds us all that yes, the 4th Amendment to the United States Constitution does still exist.

WAUSAU — A state appeals court Tuesday reversed the drug conviction of a man who dropped a bag of marijuana in front of a police officer, saying the officer didn't have enough reason to detain him.

[...]

Circuit Judge Dennis Mleziva had ruled the officer had a "reasonable suspicion" for stopping Konkol because he remembered seeing his name on an active warrant list, although he couldn't remember when or what for.


In overturning the conviction Tuesday, 3rd District Court of Appeals Judge Michael Hoover said police need more than a "mere hunch" to suspect someone of a crime. "Reasonable suspicion" requires specific facts and reasonable inferences from them, he wrote.

More than a 'mere hunch'. Bravo! Full article here.

4th Amendment Looks Around Says, "Hey, I'm Still Here!"

Maryland's highest court threw out the drug conviction of a 27-year-old Northwest Baltimore man today, saying that city police did not have proper cause to stop the man's car and subsequently find marijuana.

In a 4-to-3 decision, the Court of Appeals ruled that "police did not have an articulable reasonable suspicion to stop [Lamont Anthony] Lewis based upon the fact that he 'almost' hit a police car."

Read the whole thing here; it just might brighten your day.

E.J. Dionne Would Let Hitler Become U.S. President

Washington Post columnist E.J. Dionne makes a good, but not great, case for electing U.S. presidents by popular vote instead of through the electoral college. Given the rising support among voters and politicians for such a sweeping change to the U.S. Constitution I think it's only a matter of time before it happens. I find this mass ignorance of the difference between majority rule and democracy startling. Democracy is a system of government in which the people rule. All people. Not just 51% of the population. As such, something can be democratic even if it's anti-majoritarian. Like the Bill of Rights. And the electoral college, which serves two functions crucial to protecting both liberty and democracy.

1) The electoral college ensures that presidents at least try to represent all Americans, no matter where they live. Eliminate the electoral college and presidential candidates will skip campaigning in Iowa, New Hampshire, Kansas, New Mexico, Indiana and pretty much any state with a small population. Once elected, a president would care less about how a particular policy affects people in Nevada, Kentucky, Wyoming, etc. It's the electoral college that makes small states relevant politically. It keeps America democratic. Without it Californians, New Yorkers, and Floridians would rule over the rest of the country, at least when it comes to the presidency. People can cry all they want about how Gore won the majority vote in 2000, but his support was based in only 20% of U.S. counties. Bush won a majority of the vote in 80% of America. Look at this map and decide for yourself who represented most of America.

2) The electoral college is the last line of defense protecting minorities from the tyranny of the majority. If the day ever comes when the American people are so stupid that they vote for a Presidential candidate who pledges to suspend the constitution, put Muslims in concentration camps, and rule by decree - all in order to better fight the war on terror - members of the electoral college could - and should - ignore their votes and elect somebody else. In E.J. Dionne's world view, the majority should be able to elect whoever they want - including Hitler. That's not democracy.

Constitution: Older then the Dead Sea Scrolls and Written by Idiots

I will never tire of paraphrasing people completely out of context in post titles. Never gets old.

I'm not usually into taking on post from other bloggers. I'm more of a, "point out the post to readers" type of guy. But in this case I couldn't help myself. From the bottom half of a Matt Yglesias post:[emphasis mine]

Like much of the constitution, the second amendment turns out, upon examination, to be an ambiguously worded political compromise written hundreds and hundreds of years ago. Obviously, if you were going to start over from scratch nobody would write it that way.

I'm not missing his intented sarcasm, right? I mean Yglesias is a smart guy, I'm sure of it. He does, in fact, wear glasses and a beard -- no way you can be dumb with glasses and a beard -- I should know, I have both as of this very minute. Thern how does he manage to miss the obvious?

He's right of course, if we re-wrote the Constitution today, we certainly wouldn't be fortunate enough to come close to what we currently have. We agree on that point. If you left the job to whatever modern-day elitists that would do it; we would end up with a document that if anything, could not be describe as ambiguous. Rather it would be 750 pages long, with asterisks and citations, footnotes and exemptions. All the power would be vested with the state, because we trust them to take care of us and give/protect our rights. Hey, it's like trickle-down governing!

Freedom of Assembly? Pshaw...

Example number.....Well I've lost track of how many examples why I don't believe in any rights that you don't claim for yourself as a right. The Constitution is nice and all...but it would be even better if we actually abided by it as a country. From the Examiner: [emphasis mine: what group wouldn't fall under those specifications?]

This bill “allows prosecution of gangs as a unit,” said Attorney General Doug Gansler, who would gain additional authority to prosecute gangs operating across county lines. Gansler denied that the bill infringed on freedom of association.

The bill prohibits a person from participating in a criminal gang knowing that the other members engage in crime, and willfully promoting or assisting in the commission of a long list of violent crimes. To be a gang, it must have some kind of identifying sign, symbol, name, leader or purpose.

Funny. I wasn't aware they (Baltimore cops at least) needed more reasons to arrest people. They do a pretty good job as of now arresting 1 out of every 6 city residents. Especially those darn dark people. Full article here. Via Baltimore Crime.