Power of Majority Rule
The utilitarianism approach encircling the power of the majority is a subject that has prevailed over the years. It is believed that the decisions and choices made by the majority in any given location or situation are appropriate and advantageous for the rest of the population. One formidable example regarding the power of the majority is the effect of the rule in democracy. Democracy in its own definition includes majority rule as a fundamental element of its distinct nature when compared with other styles of leadership. It refers to the vesting of supreme power in the hands of the people. However, in order for democracy to be exercised, there has to be unification of a sole alternative arising from majority of the decision makers through voting. As De Tocqueville asserts, “A majority taken collectively is only an individual, whose opinions, and frequently whose interests, are opposed to those of another individual, who is styled a minority” (142). The voting system influences people to assume that permitting the majority to rule and make decisions is the perfect method to indemnify governance for the people and by the people. According to De Tocqueville “I do not think that, for the sake of preserving liberty, it is possible to combine several principles in the same government so as really to oppose them to one another” (143). However, the exaggerated use of the majority rule leads to the creation of a tyrannical atmosphere that oppresses and silences the minority among the population whose views and choices are not recognized by the majority. According to de Tocqueville “I am therefore of the opinion that social power superior to all others must always be placed somewhere; but I think that liberty is endangered when this power finds no obstacle which can retard its course and give it time to moderate its own vehemence” (144). Therefore, in a democracy, the opinions of the majority, which are heavily weighted against the opinions of the minority, have been provided with too much power that enables them to rule over minority.
Immigration in the United States is a factor that does not stray from the tyranny of the majority. Most of the immigrants in the United States are usually termed as minorities based on the different, diverse and sparse ethnic groups they define. The danger of the majority autocracy does not only encompass the infringements of personal rights or the marginalization of a minority but also the oppression of minority groups based on skin color and ethnicity which is characteristic of the immigrant community. “Unlimited power is in itself a bad and dangerous thing. Human beings are not competent to exercise it with discretion” (De Tocqueville 142) The United States policies on immigration have always been amended without regarding the opinions of the immigrants who are directly affected by the laws. For instance, the legal position of immigrants in the 19th century advocated for the inclusion of the minorities as immigrants. A few years after, the immigrants were subjected as contracted laborers in order to limit their legal rights such as the right to vote and the right to become citizens. “For my own part, I cannot believe it; the power to do everything, which I should refuse to one of my equals, I will never grant to any number of them” (De Tocqueville 144). Onwards, the number of immigrants to the United States has always been on the increase hence subjecting majority of them to low living standards, discrimination from the whites who are the majority and prevalence in crime attributed to unemployment. The majority rule does not only affect the legal or judicial side of the people but also the social and cultural aspect of every person. According to De Tocqueville “In my opinion, the main evil of the present democratic institutions of the United States does not arise, as is often asserted in Europe, from their weakness, but from their irresistible strength” (143). Recently, President Obama enacted a law that would see less deportation of immigrants from the country. However, such a rule did not relate well with the majority of the American citizens who based the dissents on loss of culture and unemployment attributed to the growing number of immigrants.
Same sex marriage is a factor that has initiated controversy in all American states. Despite various states acknowledging and approving same sex marriages in their by-laws, other jurisdictions have not accepted it under their statutes and under their constitutions. The Tenth Amendment of the United States Constitution asserts that the powers not provided by the Constitution to the Federal Government and undeterred by the States are set aside for the people or the States. Therefore, the creation and implementation of such an amendment only serves as an incentive for the repressive feature of the majority rule against the minorities, particularly those engaging in same sex relations. As Olson notes, “When we refuse to accord this status to gays and lesbians, we discourage them from forming the same relationships we encourage for others” (15). The Constitution defends the majority as well as the majority’s right to enact laws that do not possess the approval of the minority. Apparently, the Constitution guards the minority against the majority’s tyranny but does not protect every particular right. A variety of state and federal decrees accord certain rights and privileges to the homosexual minority. “No matter what you think of homosexuality, it is a fact that gays and lesbians are members of our families, clubs, and workplaces” (Olson 17). However, the protections provided for by the laws vary considerably at the level of the state and deny exact equality to the lesbians and gays seeking to engage in marriage. Moreover, it is correct to assert that same sex marriage is a right not recognized by the Constitution and in order for it to be amended; it requires the majority in the House of Representatives and Senate to bear and pass a bill on same sex marriage and send it for ratification among the states. Moreover, for the amendment to become law, it will have to be approved by majority of the states. “The simple fact is that there is no good reason why we should deny marriage to same-sex partners” (Olson 23)
Abortion is one of the most controversial factors that affect the United States legal and social system as a whole. In the recent past, abortion was not permissible in every American state but after the decision on the case of Roe versus Wade in 1973 by the Supreme Court, abortion became legal throughout America. Just as controversial as same sex marriage, abortion has been the epitome of controversy between the conservatives and the anti-conservatives. According to Olson, “We do not inquire whether heterosexual couples intend to bear children, or have the capacity to have children, before we allow them to marry” (15). The conservatives believe that abortion is an unjustifiable action and murder of an unborn child. Before 1973, conservatism played a major role in deciding the rights of Americans. For instance, same sex marriages up to date have always been met with harsh criticism by the traditionalists who assert that the essence of marriage is the union of man and a woman. The debate on abortion does not avoid the incorporation of women. Since time immemorial, women have been the subject of discrimination and have been termed as minorities despite them being majority of most global populations. The constitutional rights did not favor the women in terms of abortion since both the woman and practitioner found engaging in abortion were guilty regardless of the danger imposed on the woman. As is noted by Olson “Even those whose religious convictions preclude endorsement of what they may perceive as an unacceptable “lifestyle” should recognize that disapproval should not warrant stigmatization and unequal treatment” (18). In this case, the majority rule by the Supreme Court regarding the case of Roe versus Wilde legalized abortion, which also influenced the recognition of women despite them being termed as the minority. The impact of legalized abortion has led to the loss of the number of deaths among women due to unsafe abortions. Moreover, health concerns have also been necessarily addressed. For instance, abortion has been used to protect the life of the mother who is at risk of severe health complications attributed to the birth of the unborn baby. “Conservatives and liberals alike need to come together on principles that surely unite us” (Olson 25).
The Constitution of the United States, through the Bill of Rights protects the minority from the tyrannical power of the majority. However, with the subjectivity of the Constitution to the ideals, customs and opinions of a democracy, the power of the Constitution lessens while the majority rule solidifies. The majority is able to make choices and decisions that suit its own needs and requirements and at the same time neglecting and ignoring the rights and privileges of minority groups. Through democracy and the exercise of power by the majority, the disapproved minority group is intentionally penalized due to the decisions advocated for by the majority regarding laws and legislations that limit the minorities. As De Tocqueville asserts, “When I refuse to obey an unjust law, I do not contest the right of the majority to command, but I simply appeal from the sovereignty of the people to the sovereignty of mankind” (144). This is exemplified in the case of immigration in the United States. Immigrants in the United States have been the subject of exploitation and discrimination up to date. The legislations incorporated by the American democracy sought to adapt immigrant labor and at the same time exploit them by providing them with inadequate shelters, low wages and null education. Additionally, after a certain period, most immigrants were deported to their native countries despite contributing to the rise of the American economy. Same sex marriage is also another subject that addresses excessive majority rule as tyrannical. Despite some states advocating for the legalization of such marriages, the majority rule enforced through the law has disregarded the implementation of the marriages even with the support of the Tenth Amendment, which rallies behind the reason for legalizing sane sex marriages. “Americans who believe in the words of the Declaration of Independence, in Lincoln’s Gettysburg Address, in the 14th Amendment, and in the Constitution’s guarantees of equal protection and equal dignity before the law cannot sit by while this wrong continues” (Olson 21). Abortion is also another issue that has been overshadowed by the power of the majority. Without the implementation of legalized abortion through the case of Roe versus Wade, abortion would still be illegal under the constitution and women would have continued suffering as minorities. Despite the dangers involved in illegalizing abortion, the majority rule based on conservatism principles ruled against it forcing women to suffer due to health complications and unsafe abortions. “This is not a conservative or liberal issue; it is an American one, and it is time that we, as Americans, embraced it” (Olson 35).
Works Cited
Cahill, Sean. Same-sex Marriage in the United States: Focus on the Facts. Lanham: Lexington Books, 2004. Print.
De Tocqueville, Alexis. “Tyranny of the Majority” Democracy in America. New York: Signet Classic, 2001. Print.
Durbin, Richard, and Jeff Sessions. The Dream Act: Immigrant Access to Higher Education – Should Congress Pass the Development, Relief, and Education of Alien Minors (dream) Act? Bethesda: Congressional Digest Corp, 2010. Print.
Dvorak, William. Immigration in the United States. New York: H.W. Wilson Co, 2009. Print.
Olson, Theodore. “The Conservative Case for Gay Marriage Why same-sex marriage is an American value.” Newsweek Magazine. 8 Jan. 2010. Web. 28 Nov. 2012.
Orr, Tamra. The Tenth Amendment: Limiting Federal Powers. New York: Rosen Pub. Group, 2011. Print.
Palmer, Louis J. Encyclopedia of Abortion in the United States. Jefferson: McFarland, 2002. Print.
Payment, Simone. Roe V. Wade: The Right to Choose. New York: Rosen Pub. Group, 2004. Print.
Safford, John L. Democracy Is Dangerous: Resisting the Tyranny of the Majority. Lanham: University Press of America, 2002. Print.
Spaeth, Harold J, and Jeffrey A. Segal. Majority Rule or Minority Will: Adherence to Precedent on the U.S. Supreme Court. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2001. Print.
Use the order calculator below and get started! Contact our live support team for any assistance or inquiry.
[order_calculator]