True Freedom for the minority is not with Democracy

Hmm, I for one am glad that we do not live in a pure democracy. Just think about it. In a pure democracy, 51% of the people can directly set the agenda, laws, and status of the remaining 49%. I think that the founding fathers, in setting up our country as a Constitutional republic was a very wise, and shrewed idea, in protecting the minority. Think about it, slavery could be reinstated, Jews could be cast out of the country, just by a majority vote of the people. And the numbers are there. It doesn’t need to be 51%, just the majority vote.

A Constitutional republic truly does serve it’s purpose. If it didn’t, a presidential election could be decided by as little as five of the most populous states, in being the majority of the national population. The rest of the country, mostly rural, would have no voice. Now there are times where it’s not perfect, like the 2000 residential election. Although Al Gore won the populous vote, the minority "won" the white house. That case was not exactly beneficial for the country, but the premise of a Constitutional republic where the minority can have equal footing and representation is a very wise idea.

Constitutional republic – Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia A constitutional republic is a state where the head of state and other officials are elected as representatives of the people and must govern according to existing constitutional law that limits the government’s power over citizens. In a constitutional republic, executive, legislative, and judicial powers are separated into distinct branches and the will of the majority of the population is tempered by protections for minority rights so that no individual or group has absolute power. The fact that a constitution exists that limits the government’s power, makes the state constitutional. That the head(s) of state and other officials are chosen by election, rather than inheriting their positions, and that their decisions are subject to judicial review makes a state republican. Unlike a pure democracy, in a constitutional republic, citizens are not governed by the majority of the people but by the rule of law.[1] Constitutional Republics are a deliberate attempt to diminish the threat of mobocracy thereby protecting minority groups from the tyranny of the majority by placing checks on the power of the majority of the population.[2] The power of the majority of the people is checked by limiting that power to electing representatives who govern within limits of overarching constitutional law rather than the popular vote having legislative power itself. John Adams defined a constitutional republic as "a government of laws, and not of men."[3] Also, the power of government officials is checked by allowing no single individual to hold executive, legislative and judicial powers. Instead these powers are separated into distinct branches that serve as a check and balance on each other. A constitutional republic is designed so that "no person or group [can] rise to absolute power."[4] The notion of constitutional republic originates with Aristotle’s Politics and his notion of the polity. He Contrasts the polity or republican government with democracy and oligarchy in book 3, chapter 6 of the Politics.