I believe today there is a great misunderstanding of just what the founders meant by protecting the minority from the majority. The misunderstanding consists of the definition of minority. Today, and in particularly the Democratic Party would have us believe that to mean Blacks, Mexicans, Asians, Homosexuals, etc. when in essence factions is a better word: a realistic view of human nature, that men in society tended to form factions, defined as groups that promoted their own interest at the expense of the rest. Therefore the separation of powers within the central government and a division of power between the national and state governments was instituted i.e. federalism.

Thought or comments?

DC

At the risk of sounding like Noam Chomsky ;I think the founders meant the minority that needed protection was themselves ;what Madison called in the constitutional debates the' minority of the opulent ';the land owners ,against the mob majority .

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tomder55

DC

At the risk of sounding like Noam Chomsky ;I think the founders meant the minority that needed protection was themselves ;what Madison called in the constitutional debates the' minority of the opulent ';the land owners ,against the mob majority .

---

I agree, are you sure you didn’t lift all of that from Noam Chomsky’s web site; ;) he should be granted the George Orwell Doublespeak Award for that.

Madison also argued in the Federalist Paper No. 51 power must be set against power, “ambition must be made to counteract ambition.” Madison wasn’t talking about the ' minority of the opulent ' but rather about a division of power between the national and state governments.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tomder55

DC

At the risk of sounding like Noam Chomsky ;I think the founders meant the minority that needed protection was themselves ;what Madison called in the constitutional debates the' minority of the opulent ';the land owners ,against the mob majority .

---

Next time you run into Chomsky, Tom, :) explain his error: let me give you the entire real quote: They [House and Senate] ought to be so constituted as to protect the minority of the opulent against the majority. The senate, therefore, ought to be this body; and to answer these purposes, they ought to have permanency and stability.

It seems to me that "minority" did not mean specifically "racial" or "ethnic" minority to the Founding Fathers, but rather those in the minority opinion on an issue. The Constitution was written so as to protect those who were in the minority opinion, and therefore not in power, from the actions of government. People could not be jailed for having and publicly speaking opinions that differed from the popular or "official" view, or even from what the mainstream would call "moral" or "ethical". Those are the "minority protections" that I believe the Founders built into the Constitution.

Elliot

I don't know anything about this, so my opinion is that minority viewpoints must be protected against majority viewpoints.

The last reading I did on the constitution pointed out that the Electoral College and the Supreme Court were instituted to protect the well-to-do Americans from the riff raff, of which there were legion.

The explanation about the role of the Supreme Court was specially convincing. Do you know it?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ETWolverine

It seems to me that "minority" did not mean specifically "racial" or "ethnic" minority to the Founding Fathers, but rather those in the minority opinion on an issue. The Constitution was written so as to protect those who were in the minority opinion, and therefore not in power, from the actions of government. People could not be jailed for having and publicly speaking opinions that differed from the popular or "official" view, or even from what the mainstream would call "moral" or "ethical". Those are the "minority protections" that I believe the Founders built into the Constitution.

Elliot

---

My theory as to how it has come about that minority is applied to race, gender, homosexuals and the like has to do with the first discrimination laws. Since there was no constitutional authority under the enforcement provisions (Section 1, 5) of the Fourteenth Amendment to outlaw racial discrimination [regulate private behavior] by private individuals and organizations. So how to get around the Black problem of discrimination; notice that "Whites Only" signs are a thing of the past? It turns out that interstate commerce was the key conceived to help African Americans. Article I, Section 8, Clause 3 of the United States Constitution, known as the Commerce Clause, reads as follows: "The Congress shall have Power ...To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes."

It was at that time minority rights began to be convoluted with discrimination law.

Hey dark crow... I'd like to point out the the quote by James Madison, as you have understood it, is grossly a misinterpretation... the entire quote reads as follows :

The man who is possessed of wealth, who lolls on his sofa or rolls in his carriage, cannot judge the wants or feelings of the day-laborer. The government we mean to erect is intended to last for ages. The landed interest, at present, is prevalent; but in process of time, when we approximate to the states and kingdoms of Europe, — when the number of landholders shall be comparatively small, through the various means of trade and manufactures, will not the landed interest be overbalanced in future elections, and unless wisely provided against, what will become of your government? In England, at this day, if elections were open to all classes of people, the property of landed proprietors would be insecure. An agrarian law would soon take place. If these observations be just, our government ought to secure the permanent interests of the country against innovation. Landholders ought to have a share in the government, to support these invaluable interests, and to balance and check the other. They ought to be so constituted as to protect the minority of the opulent against the majority. The senate, therefore, ought to be this body; and to answer these purposes, they ought to have permanency and stability.

Statement (1787-06-26) as quoted in Notes of the Secret Debates of the Federal Convention of 1787 by Robert Yates

Chomsky nailed it right when he said that Madison's intention from this statement clearly spells out his contempt for the vast majority of the population, and his favor towards to opulent minorities like himself... it should be noted that though we have great figures like Jefferson and Washington among our Founding Fathers, not all of them had the godly qualities as we would envision them to possess.. they were all human beings, after all, each with their own moral fallacies.. Deifying men is often the first step to idolatry...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Heartgold92

Chomsky nailed it right when he said that Madison's intention from this statement clearly spells out his contempt for the vast majority of the population, and his favor towards to opulent minorities like himself...it should be noted that though we have great figures like Jefferson and Washington among our Founding Fathers, not all of them had the godly qualities as we would envision them to possess..they were all human beings, after all, each with their own moral fallacies..Deifying men is often the first step to idolatry...

---

And now you have this constitution which enshrined privilege being intrepreted as providing liberal freedoms. Who's kidding who?

Your definition of liberal being of the classic interpretation or the more grotesque 21st century model ?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tomder55

your definition of liberal being of the classic interpretation or the more grotesque 21st century model ?

---

I suppose you might say it's classic, certainly not the american intrepretation which makes it synomonous with socialist. To me a liberal is a person who is not an ultra conservative but open to change and fresh ideas, a person who doesn't seek to rule by regulation but by reason and persuasion, neither is this person a leftist radical seeking to overturn society and make it into some sort of socialist utopia

Something Chomsky clearly doesn't recognize .