Originally Posted by Blart
Wow great point, but you left out that James Madison was an aristocratic a-hole who was terribly afraid of people who didn't own land.
Whenever Madison talks about "the minority" it's obvious the minority he has in mind: wealthy landowners.
"the Constitution was intrinsically an aristocratic document designed to check the democratic tendencies of the period." - Gordon Wood
That's not really in dispute among Madison scholars.
Gee wiz. A group of guys who built a whole system of government around the idea that purely-democratic tendencies needed to be checked believed democratic tendencies needed to be checked. Who wouldda thunk?
But I've gotten where we needed to go. This is the dead end, where there is no room for agreement.
The Constitution is imperfect, maybe. So therefore, some people think a few of it's more inconvenient restrictions should be ignored.
The problem is, imperfect or not, this is the one document to rule them all. The one that binds. If you want to change it 'democratically' you need to work within the provided democratic constructs and amend it. Do it the right way.
But that's too hard to do (democratically) for many people so instead, they'll settle for a little judicial or legislative fiat when it suits them. Unfortunately, however noble their intentions that day, once you start playing that game, everyone else gets to play it too. The Bill of Rights becomes subject to a 51/49 vote. And all hell breaks loose. Just as Madison predicted.