Thanks. Those are all good examples.

This is a powerful sentence. It rings true in a few different contexts. Free speech scrubs out disdainful ideas better than speech codes. Free traders don’t go to war with each other. No terrorist commits violence to avenge the green card and work VISA issued to his uncle. Witnesses don’t avoid talking with police they trust.

It could just be me. You know, always looking for that silver lining…

I read quite a different meaning into Nidefatt’s post. I didn’t think he was arguing that the Tyranny of the Majority should trump the Constitution, only that it would. Regardless of what the Constitution says, or what any of us think it means, as a practical matter, it only really has the meaning that we as a society are willing to give it, and therefore my appeal to the meaning of the First Amendment was naive at best.

It’s similar to arguing that black people should be allowed to attend traditionally all-white schools because the Civil Rights Act says so. The weakness is that Congress could repeal the Act in a busy afternoon, so a more comprehensive argument needs to make the point that the Civil Rights Act is a good idea.

I felt Nidefatt was telling me that any particular interpretation of the constitution could be overturned or ignored, so it wasn’t enough just to appeal to the authority of the Bill of Rights as I interpreted it. I also had to argue why my interpretation was a good idea if I wanted that interpretation to have some power. And that’s what I tried to do in this post.

When I cross their line, they call me mean names. There is nothing worse than a traitor to the cause to an angry young man. They are resolute in the certainty of their politics. There are worse things one can be, so I try not to be overly critical of the zealous but misguided views of angry young men.

Nidefatt’s view is that certain issues are so overwhelmingly important that they take precedence over liberty, and they should. I understand his view, as I shared it for a long time. What finally cured me of it was the Supreme Court’s Heller decision, where I was forced to come to grips with the 2d Amendment. I am not a fan of guns, but I cannot demand fealty to the amendments I like while calling for the demise of the one I don’t. I chose not to be a hypocrite, despite my feelings toward guns.

The flaw in Nidefatt’s rationalization is that he fails to recognize the problem with the Tyranny of the Majority. He assumes, as do all righteous people, that his views are shared by most people, and so they, democracy, trump all else. Whether his views are the majority is unclear, but if the majority’s views trump the Constitution, we would have no rights at all. The majority tends to be strong on order, short on law, and really doesn’t give a rat’s ass about liberty or freedom, and really hates the accused, who are by definition all criminals anyway.

Perhaps in time Nidefatt will come to realize the virtue of the Constitution over whatever transient interests are the sacred cows of the day, as views shift and rights disappear. I’ve seen plenty of shifts in my time, and given time, he may too. Maybe then he won’t be so angry at those of us who defend the Constitution.