Democracy vs. Constitutionalism in the U.S.

[El]

My premise is that they are in some way fundamentally opposed.  Obviously, the U.S. government incorporates both ideas.

At its core, the idea of democracy is that the government does what the people tell it to do.  The people, at least a majority of people, are the ultimate power.  A constitution usurps this power and replaces it with itself.  In the United States, if a majority of people want to do something that goes against the Constitution, that majority of people is stuck following the rules that a bunch of dead guys made up 220 years ago.  We could amend the Constitution, but we'd have to follow their rules in order to do so (and it's hard!).  Why should we listen to those dead guys?  Why should their thoughts have any power over us?  Isn't that idea fundamentally undemocratic?  Would you want to live in a country where a bunch of dead guys didn't have that power?*

I thought this might be a nice, non-partisan discussion point.

If you're not from the U.S., or just know something about Constitutional democracies elsewhere, feel free to chime in. I just don't know enough about them to feel comfortable making assertions about the way other countries work.



*I am not in any way claiming any of the above ideas as original to me.  They are not.

[Five In One]

Technically speaking, the government of the United States is a republic. It is, however, a democratic republic, a fusion of two different types of government in the attempt to create a sort of balance between the goods and bads of both types of government. In this system, how well the government works depends largely on who's in charge, the feelings of the community, and several other factors, some more influencial than others.

The people who wrote the Constitution way back over 200 years ago knew that things change all the time. Heck, they were even loyal British colonists at one point, and now they had a new, chaotic nation that needed a strong foundation. They knew that if this could change, so could other things. They included an ammendment process to make sure that people could not simply say, "It's not in there, so it's not legal" and not get a bill supported by the majority passed by this reason. This way, it would still be viable even 200 years from now, as future generations could add things that would apply to them that the framers could not possibly even think of.

While it may not be the brightest time in American history right now, great good came from this process. Slavery was outlawed and women got the right to vote, for two. Just keep in mind that the U.S. is still a young nation when compared to the rest of the world. It still has a long way to go until Americans find out the way that works best for them, but as long as they can learn from the successes and mistakes of other nations, along with their own, it will become closer and closer to political equilibrium.



...that's what I think, anyway.

By the way, I'm no good at history, so correct me if I'm wrong about some historical facts.

[OldTrees]

The biggest failing in true democracy is the tyranny of the majority. (IE the majority rule can oppress the minority)
The constitution was constructed to limit the powers of the government so that the government would not have jurisdiction in any matter that the tyranny of the majority would be worse than the alternative.

Limited republic government ruled though the voices of the people was their 2nd solution to the necessity of governance.

[gourgou]

My premise is that they are in some way fundamentally opposed.  Obviously, the U.S. government incorporates both ideas.

At its core, the idea of democracy is that the government does what the people tell it to do.  The people, at least a majority of people, are the ultimate power.  A constitution usurps this power and replaces it with itself.  In the United States, if a majority of people want to do something that goes against the Constitution, that majority of people is stuck following the rules that a bunch of dead guys made up 220 years ago.  We could amend the Constitution, but we'd have to follow their rules in order to do so (and it's hard!).  Why should we listen to those dead guys?  Why should their thoughts have any power over us?  Isn't that idea fundamentally undemocratic?  Would you want to live in a country where a bunch of dead guys didn't have that power?*

I thought this might be a nice, non-partisan discussion point.

If you're not from the U.S., or just know something about Constitutional democracies elsewhere, feel free to chime in. I just don't know enough about them to feel comfortable making assertions about the way other countries work.



*I am not in any way claiming any of the above ideas as original to me.  They are not.

You are waaaaaay wrong of what democracy is mate...

[Neopergoss]

If you ask me, our Constitution has fundamentally failed to prevent the worst abuses of democracy. Demagoguery, greatly aided by propaganda from the establishment media, has led to the support of only those policies which help the powerful. As a result, although our system is still technically a democracy, for all intents and purposes we are living in an oligarchy. Moreover, the wealthy can influence government through lobbying in ways the common man can only dream of. Corporations can donate unlimited amounts of money to any political campaign anonymously.

It doesn't even matter anymore what it says in the constitution: if the powerful want something done, it gets done. The Bill of Rights has been shredded. The US, "leader of the free world," now features indefinite detention (http://www.aclu.org/indefinitedetention/) and assassination programs targeting its own civilians, (http://www.aclu.org/blog/national-security/aclu-argues-president-does-not-have-unchecked-authority-kill-you) for starters.

[BluePriest]

*snip*

You are waaaaaay wrong of what democracy is mate...

perhaps it would be better to instead point out HOW a person is wrong instead of just stating they are wrong. Anyways....

Lets say hypothetically we went purely democratic rule and completely ignored the constitution. What would stop anyone from saying that *insert random minority here* dont belong in this country and anyone in it should be put to death?

I could give many more extreme points, however, why not instead, you say what you think should be removed from the constitution?

[OldTrees]

If you ask me, our Constitution has fundamentally failed to prevent the worst abuses of democracy. Demagoguery, greatly aided by propaganda from the establishment media, has led to the support of only those policies which help the powerful. As a result, although our system is still technically a democracy, for all intents and purposes we are living in an oligarchy. Moreover, the wealthy can influence government through lobbying in ways the common man can only dream of. Corporations can donate unlimited amounts of money to any political campaign anonymously.

It doesn't even matter anymore what it says in the constitution: if the powerful want something done, it gets done. The Bill of Rights has been shredded. The US, "leader of the free world," now features indefinite detention (http://www.aclu.org/indefinitedetention/) and assassination programs targeting its own civilians, (http://www.aclu.org/blog/national-security/aclu-argues-president-does-not-have-unchecked-authority-kill-you) for starters.

Think about how long it took for indefinite detention and assassination program authorities to be given to this republic.
In a pure democracy they already have those capacities.

I think a general Government necessary for us, and there is no form of Government but what may be a blessing to the people if well administered, and believe farther that this is likely to be well administered for a course of years, and can only end in Despotism, as other forms have done before it, when the people shall become so corrupted as to need despotic Government, being incapable of any other.

TLDR: Governments devolve into despotism eventually.

[Neopergoss]

Actually there have been horrible abuses since very early on. Consider the Alien and Sedition Acts: those were pretty awful. We've been lucky enough to end such abuses after a short period, for the most part. I don't see a lot of the current ones ending anytime soon, though. I wasn't advocating pure democracy -- I was making the point that the constitution isn't strong enough to prevent demagoguery. Pure democracy seems like an abominable idea, if you ask me.

I'm inclined to agree with you about the eventual fate of all governments, OldTrees.