Iraqi and American democracy

[Scott Gerber]

Bobby Lipkin beat me to the punch in responding to Mark Graber's post.  
I discuss at length in TO SECURE THESE RIGHTS (NYU Press) how the 
Constitution is better described as anti-majoritarian.

Scott Gerber
Law College
Ohio Northern University


RJLipkin at aol.com wrote:


> 
> 
>In a message dated 6/12/2005 8:30:03 AM Eastern Standard Time,  
>mgraber at gvpt.umd.edu writes:
>
>Like it  or not, the constitution of 1787 was committed to
>majoritarian  democracy.  Thus, it is proper to be majoritarians in the
>United  States, even though new constitutions are best off establishing
>more  consensus institutions. 
>
>        Is Mark endorsing this  inference? If so, why?  The Bill of 
Rights, 
>if not the Fourteenth  Amendment, clearly renders the conclusion to be 
a non  
>sequitur.  Further, even the original 1787 document arguably was  
intended to 
>be a limited feature of American constitutionalism which some  contend 
firmly 
>rests on a thick conception of natural law. Thus, it's difficult  to 
understand 
>how a government constrained by both formal and informal  rights can be 
>correctly described as majoritarian. Of course, one can, I  suppose, 
define 
>"majoritarian" to include at least some rights.  But the  more rights 
one includes 
>the less useful the distinction between "majoritarian"  and 
"non-majoritarian" 
>democracy becomes.
> 
>Bobby
> 
>Robert Justin  Lipkin
>Professor of Law
>Widener University School of  Law
>Delaware


--------------------------------------

Scott Gerber
Law College
Ohio Northern University
Ada, OH 45810
419-772-2219
http://www.law.onu.edu/faculty/gerber/