The Principle
1. The traditional American philosophy teaches that The Majority must
be strictly limited in power, and in the operation of government, for
the protection of The Individual’s God-given, unalienable rights
proclaimed in the Declaration of Independence and, therefore, of the
rights of The Minority–of all minorities.
A Restricted Mechanic of Government
2. Self-government’s system of rule by majority vote is based on
necessity. Rule by majority vote is a necessary mechanic of any
government of the popular type, featuring rule by the people through
free, periodic elections such as, for example, those held in the United
States. Under this philosophy, rule by majority vote is always subject
to the “sacred principle” defined in President Jefferson’s First
Inaugural Address, quoted below.
“All, too, will bear in mind this sacred principle, that though
the will of the majority is in all cases to prevail, that will to be
rightful must be reasonable; that the minority possess their equal
rights, which equal law must protect, and to violate would be
oppression.”
A Minority of One Protected
3. The protection provided by this principle applies fundamentally,
of course, in favor of a minority of one: The Individual. No majority,
however great even all of the people but one Individual–may properly
infringe, or possess the power to infringe, the rights of any minority,
however small–even a minority of a lone Individual.
America a Republic–Not a Democracy–In Form of Government–So As to Limit Effectively The Majority To Protect the Individual
4. Therein lies the reason why the American leaders who framed and
ratified the United States Constitution in 1787-1788 chose, for
America’s form of government, that of a Republic and not a Democracy.
(The then existing Confederation was merely a treaty arrangement between
completely independent and separate State governments, by agreement of
their legislatures only and not by consent of the people, with no real
central government–with only a legislative body–and with no power over
those governments or over individual citizens; so it provided no
protection for the rights of The Individual or The Minority against
tyranny by The Majority in any State–later remedied, as to certain
rights, by prohibitions in the original Constitution expressly made
applicable against the States.) A Republic is a constitutionally limited
government of the representative type, created by a written
Constitution–adopted by the people and changeable (from its original
meaning) by them only by its amendment–with its powers divided between
three separate Branches: Executive, Legislative and Judicial. In a
Republic, the whole system is designed primarily to protect The
Individual’s unalienable rights–therefore The Minority, all
minorities–against any violation by government or by others. As the
Declaration of Independence expresses this American goal of safeguarding
these rights, the people form their governments “to secure these
rights”–to make and keep them secure.
The Majority Omnipotent in Any Democracy
5. This is not the case under a Democracy, speaking of it as a form
of government and not merely in the more general sense of its meaning a
popular type of government. In a Democracy, The Majority is omnipotent,
whether it be a Representative Democracy or a Direct Democracy. In the
Representative type, the people function governmentally through an
elected legislature, which selects and controls the head of the
Executive Department, as in Great Britain where “the authority of the
parliament is transcendent and uncontrolable” (as stated in The
Federalist number 53, by Madison)–where in fact the House of Commons
alone has by law become supreme. In the Direct type, all of the
electorate (those entitled to vote) assemble as a single group to debate
and decide directly and conclusively all governmental questions. This
is suitable only for a very small number of people–as in a New England
town with a town-meeting system of government, or in a situation like
that of the small city-states of ancient Greece. (Decisions of a New
England town-meeting are, of course, subject to the State and United
States Constitutions which protect the rights of The Individual and The
Minority, so such a town-meeting government is not a true Democracy
featuring The Majority Omnipotent.)
In a Democracy, The Individual Is Subservient and Must Be Submissive to The Omnipotent Majority
6. Any Democracy, either Representative or Direct, does not even
recognize the existence of any unqualified rights of The Individual,
much less his possessing God-given, unalienable rights as conceived by
the American philosophy. A Democracy in America, as a form of
government, would therefore provide no protection for these rights.
Under a Democracy, Man is considered to have only qualified privileges
permitted by The Majority in control of government and revocable by it
at any time. This spells Rule by Omnipotent Majority, with The
Individual and The Minority as well as all minorities victimized at the
pleasure of The Majority, without limit and without any legal basis for
objection or practical remedy. The idea of such unlimited rule, as if by
“divine right of The Majority,” is as abhorrent in the eyes of the
traditional American philosophy as is the idea of rule by “divine right
of kings.”
The Uniquely American Principle Was Thoroughly Understood in 1776
7. The traditional American philosophy requires a Republic’s
constitutionally limited form of government for the security of Man’s
unalienable rights against violation by The Majority, by government, as
well as by others. This philosophy was well understood in America in
1776 but was imperfectly practiced by the States in the post-1776
period, during which rights were violated. This correct understanding
was exemplified by the previously noted (Par. 8, Principle 2)
town-meeting petition of Pittsfield, Massachusetts, addressed to the
legislature of Massachusetts in May, 1776. It urged the adoption by the
people–as “the fountain of power”–of a Constitution as their fundamental
law, to fill the void created by the end of royal rule, as “the first
step to be taken” by the people in order to guard against
despotism–against “the wanton exercise of power”–and it asserted, that
the only safeguard is “the formation of a fundamental constitution” by
the people. Their aim was to safeguard their liberties. This was
accomplished by the people of Massachusetts in 1780, by their creating
the first true Constitution and Republic in the world. They utilized
successfully, for the first time in history, a constitutional
convention–which is America’s great, if not greatest, contribution to
the mechanics of self-government through constitutional government.
(Earlier Acts of Legislatures of other States were erroneously
classified as “constitutions,” while some countries’ governments
throughout history had generally been erroneously classified as
“republics”–a much-misunderstood and loosely used term. See the correct
definition of a Republic in Paragraph 4, above.)
Principle Violated by “Elective Despotism” after 1776
8. The post-1776 period witnessed gross violations by State
Legislatures of the unalienable rights of victimized Individuals. In
Virginia, for example, Jefferson protested vigorously against the
Legislature’s acts of tyranny by The Majority, stating: “An elective
despotism was not the government we fought for (“Notes on The State of
Virginia,” 1782; emphasis Jefferson’s). Misconduct in this period by The
Omnipotent Majority in the legislatures of a number of the States was
in reaction against the earlier oppressive rule by the king and his
royal governors and judges. At that time, except in Massachusetts under
its Constitution of 1780, there were no real State Constitutions to
restrain the legislatures, which made sure that the governors and judges
were without power to prohibit legislative enactments (by which the
violations of unalienable rights were effected). The New Hampshire
Constitution, based on this pattern, was not adopted until 1784 after a
Constitutional Convention was successful in framing one acceptable to
the people–several earlier conventions having been unsuccessful. Other
States did not follow suit for a number of years, some not for decades.
“The Excesses of Democracy”
9. This type of tyranny, by Omnipotent Majority, is always possible
under any Democracy as a form of government. This is what The Framers
and Ratifiers of the Constitution and their fellow American leaders
meant when, in the 1787-1788 debates with regard to the framing and
adoption of the Constitution, they denounced the 11 excesses of
democracy. They were, of course, not criticizing popular government as
such–for instance as it exists under the Republic of the United States
featuring constitutionally limited government, as limited by the
Constitution. They were, therefore, not condemning democracy in the
general sense of the term–meaning merely a popular type of government.
They were speaking in support of America’s being a Republic, not a
Democracy, as a form of government. The more general meaning of
Democracy–popular government–also applies to America; but this use of
the term is only confusing in any discussion, as here, of the
characteristics of different forms of popular government: a Republic in
contrast to a Democracy.
Federal and State Republics
10. The foregoing explains why the traditional American philosophy
requires that the central (Federal) government and the State governments
be Republics. (See Pars. 6-7 of Principle 5.) Each State is guaranteed
the form of government of a Republic by the United States Constitution
(Art. IV, Sec. 4). The foregoing also makes clear why this philosophy
requires that The Majority, at any time in temporary charge of
government, administer its affairs in keeping with the Constitution’s
limitations and for the benefit of all Individuals composing the people
as a whole, meaning The Minority and all minorities as well as The
Majority–not merely for the benefit of those constituting only The
Majority of the moment.
The Conclusion
11. The traditional American philosophy demands that the power of The
Majority be limited for the protection of The Individual’s unalienable
rights, for the security of Man’s Liberty against Government-over-Man,
in keeping with the American formula: The Majority–Limited for Liberty.
