Apparently, Political Science education in this country is nearly as bad as Science education. Hardly anybody seems to understand even the basics of our form of government. This is not a democracy. Our form of government is a constitutionally limited republic.

For thousands of years, humans were governed by kings, lords, chiefs, popes, ayatollas, etc. With a few historically brief exceptions, freedom was unknown. Government of the people, for the people, and by the people was unheard of.

During the period known as "The Enlightenment," humanity was blessed with some of the greatest minds in human history. A number of these great thinkers set about rethinking the way humans govern and have been governed. Their understanding was illuminated by a careful and thorough understanding of history.

They were fully aware of the abuses and failures that characterized all the forms of government that had been tried up until that time. They were fully aware of torture, cruelty, genocide, ethnic cleansing, repression, and the many other abuses that had plagued mankind for thousands of years. The great enlightenment thinkers were convinced that there must be a better way for humans to govern and they were further convinced that if too much power was given to too small a group (like to the king and his advisors or to the pope and the bishops) that abuses were sure to result.

Enlightenment political philosophers knew that the best form of government that had been devised up until that time was the "benevolent dictator." Countries that had a ruler (king, lord or whatever) who had the best interests of his people in mind and made his decisions based on what would make his country most prosperous and what would do the most to improve the quality of life for the largest number of his subjects had the best living conditions. The problem was that this form of government is highly unstable. When the benevolent dictator dies, there is no guarantee that his successor will be benevolant. In addition, benevolant dictators are pretty rare in human history.

Enlightenment writers believed (partly because of the strong influence of humanistic philosophy at the time) that the people should be able to govern themselves. They believed in the wisdom of the majority. The problem was that they also knew that a democracy could never work. If you let the majority rule, the majority will pass laws to give themselves power, and to make themselves permanent rulers ("one man, one vote, one time"). When the majority becomes convinced that the fact that they were elected is proof that it is God's will that they return the country to the one true belief (theirs), it can lead to passing laws requiring that everyone who disagrees with them renounce their "false" beliefs and afirm their loyalty. When people resist they are imprisoned or excecuted; their property is confiscated, their homes and businesses burned and looted. Massacre and civil war follow. This type of "totalitarian democracy" or "Jacobin democracy" led to the Reign of Terror during the French revolution.

No! A pure democracy is definately not a good idea. We cannot let the majority rule. If we do, they will be burning people at the stake before you know it. That is why the framers of our constitution, the great enlightenment thinkers who worked together to bring forth a more perfect form of government on this continent, rejected democracy in favor of a constitutionally limited republic with built in checks and balances.

The majority can only be given control of the government if somebody is watching them and when they start passing laws that infringe on the rights of the minorities, they can be stopped. In our form of government, one of the ways the checks and balances are implemented is through the supreme court. The supreme court is appointed for life. Once they are appointed they are not subject to politics. When the congress or the executive branch starts doing things that limit or infringe on the rights of the minorities, it is the responsibility of the Supreme court to step in and stop them.

This has happened many times in American history. For example, following the Civil War, the majority in this country beleived that even though the slaves were free, the races should be kept separate. They believed that former slaves should eat in their own resaraunts, drink at their own drinking fountains, ride in separate areas in public transportation, live in their own parts of town, go to their own schools, etc. The majority passed laws to this effect. It finally (after about 100 years of abuse and consequent civil disobedience) became clear to the Supreme Court that the majority was abusing their power here. Through a number of critical court decisions (such as Brown v. Board of Education) the Supreme Court forced the government and the nation to face these inequities. In other words, it is the job of the Supreme Court to tell congress they must legislate to protect minorities.

It is the job of the Supreme Court to overturn legislation and to block executive action when it infringes on the rights of minorities. Without this essential check and balance system, the leaders of the majority become abusive dictators and freedom is lost.

In our system, it is critical that the majority be prevented from "packing" the Supreme Court with individuals who will permit the majority to abuse the rights of minorities. For example, there are those in United States today who wish to return to a system of segregated schools. If they can get enough of their supporters appointed to the Supreme Court, they will quickly pass the School Voucher program and within two years, the schools in the South will be completely segregated at taxpayers expense. It is therefore critical that Supreme court appointments cannot be made with 51% of the vote. Fortunately, the procedures of the Senate are set up so that it requires 2/3 of the Senate to confirm a Supreme Court nominee. Ideally, this requirement should be set in stone in the constitution. Unfortunately, it is not. The founding fathers did the best they could, but in this case the system is not quite tight enough.