Oh. That's certainly not what I understood from the quote. How is the government the majority? And then, what's the oppressed minority? The other members of congress?
I always understood that quote to mean the majority, as in, the majority of the population. Otherwise it's mixing majorities and minorities of different things, which makes no sense.
> That's certainly not what I understood from the quote. How is the government the majority?
In the U.S. the law making branch of the government is comprised of representatives elected by the people. These representatives necessarily draft laws to suit the majority who elected them. Ergo, the legislative branch wields power at the behest of the majority, analogous to the wolves in the quote. Governance by mob rule, i.e. pure democracy, entails no inherent constraints on what the government (comprised of law makers elected by the majority) could do to or take from the rest of the populace. We are, instead, a constitutional republic, which constrains the majority-elected government to a narrow set of powers enumerated in the constitution.
The quote was written in 1992 in reference to two lawsuits in the state of California, itself a constitutional republic. One resulted in the quashing of a state law which was supported by the majority but nonetheless violated the state and federal constitutions. The other resulted in the removal of a cross from a popular public landmark. Much outcry was made at the time that the will of the majority was being thwarted.
I'll leave here the entirety of Simkin's posting that contained the quote:
The ACLU's cross lawsuit and the Libertarians' tax lawsuit share an interesting theme. We have been treated to the spectacle of politicians pleading for permission to continue breaking the law. In the case of the jail tax, it is particularly ironic that the lawbreakers say they need the illegal money so they can lock up the lawbreakers. Ask not for whom the lock clicks.
Democracy is not freedom. Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to eat for lunch. Freedom comes from the recognition of certain rights which may not be taken, not even by a 99% vote. Those rights are spelled out in the Bill of Rights and in our California Constitution. Voters and politicians alike would do well to take a look at the rights we each hold, which must never be chipped away by the whim of the majority.
The constitution only "protected" the minority - by limiting government action - because the majority shares a democratic consensus that those rules should be followed, even if they go against some particular law they support. Otherwise, they could have simply forced the issue, even in violation of the constitution. Besides, the constitutions themselves have ways for the majority to amend them.
The constitution is just a mechanism for the citizens to have a better defined set of shared democratic beliefs. It doesn't have magical protection powers.
The quote was indeed referring to the government acting as the agent of the majority, if that's the misunderstanding you are referring to.
Yes, of course the Constitution is simply a piece of paper. It has no special powers. You can find plenty of people, perhaps even a majority, who are in favor of incremental abuses of the government such as this latest NSA scandal. You would find very few who would support wholesale dissolution of the constitution. The government could try absent consent of the people, but would face certain rebellion.
The Constitution can of course be amended, but requires more than a simple majority - a super-majority of the federal legislature to pass and ratification by 3/4 of the states. This of course does not happen often.
But fundamentally, of course the Constitution and the government exist at the behest of the people. It does not have magical protection powers. It does, however, have the protection of an armed populace willing to fight to defend it, even though some of those same people support laws that infringe on other's rights.
Oh. That's certainly not what I understood from the quote. How is the government the majority? And then, what's the oppressed minority? The other members of congress?
I always understood that quote to mean the majority, as in, the majority of the population. Otherwise it's mixing majorities and minorities of different things, which makes no sense.