One tyranny for another
To the editor:
What is the difference between our political system (Republic) and a Democracy (in the formal, not the street, meaning of that term).
Most authorities claim that the difference is that the “Tyranny of the Majority” of a true Democracy is limited in a true Republic by its properly formulated and applied Constitution. While not all “Constitutions” are actually live, functional constitutions, our Constitution is usually held to meet the generally accepted qualifications. The mechanism of limitation is achieved, supposedly, via the findings of the Supreme Court.
Here is the dangerous and debilitating catch that I see in this mechanism, one currently under quite conspicuous demonstration in our system – The “Citizens United” decision which loosed the Special-Interest-Money Flood upon our Pols. We have traded the “Tyranny of the Majority” of the voters for the “Tyranny of the Few” of the appointees in the Supreme Court. We do have the option to modify our Constitution, but not many want to go there. . What to do ?
Speaking of Tyranny – I would like to see the “Tyranny of the Legislature” become limited. To enable that, we should require that any legislative bill 1) Address ONE and ONLY ONE clearly defined subject, 2) Consist of a text of NOT more than a few pages in length and 3) Be composed in plain English grammar without the flair and density of “lawyer-speak.” These measures would limit the present many glaring and often used dark opportunities for “legislative subterfuge” – provisions irrelevant to the subject – inserted and hidden between the lines of a lengthy and verbose bill. This, of course, will not be popular with the Professional Pols – which disapproval itself is the greatest and the ultimately highly definitive recommendation for the adoption of such requirements.
Allen N Wollscheidt
Cape Coral