Whenever politicians make a decision we don't like, we're quick to fall back on democracy to insist that they must always, necessarily vote with the majority. We do so assuming the majority have the same interests we do and that the power given by the majority vote won't be abused. But while it sounds good on paper, majority rule is not always the best way to make a decision. That is why we function better as a Republic than as a Democracy.

Let me explain: Assume we ran our country by majority rule. Now, assume 51% of the people wanted you dead. Under a "pure" democracy, you'd be obligated to comply, or to find your way out of the country before the police arrived to enforce the will of the majority. While this may seem to be a ridiculous example, history is full of incidents where certain ethnic groups, religions, or other categories of individuals were not desired by the majority and were subject to persecution. The ghosts of Salem can attest to that fact.

A free society, therefore, must function within certain parameters. Those parameters restrict the power of the government to enforce certain laws, even if the majority of the people demand it. In the United States, those parameters include what we know as the "Bill of Rights". No matter how many people may want to see US Marshalls kicking in my door because they saw me praying in a mosque one day, my Constitutional rights must always be respected in the government's response.

While decisions such as the recent federal judge's decision on the Constitutionality of the NSA wiretaps may infuriate certain individuals, this is our government in action. While we decry "activist judges", and while the evidence may indicate that this federal court judge is, indeed, an activist judge, there are still two levels of appeal left to the federal government before the issue is decided finally and conclusively. And, make no mistake about it, Alberto Gonzalez and company will be quick to use them. In the end, however, we need to either respect the Constitution for what it is or throw it away and start over. While I fear we are dangerously close to doing the latter, it would not be in our best interests, as a Constitutional rewrite will find a country that is sharply divided between globalist and isolationist factions, and a new Constitutional Convention is likely to see the United States divided.

We must, therefore, be forever conscious in the rights of the individuals and the limitations of government imposed on it by the Constitution. While persecuting our favorite minority may be pretty appealing to us at the time, it's a pretty stupid tactic in a Republic as we have it, especially since those sorts of actions have a historical tendency to come back and bite you on the posterior.

The framers of our Constitution were certainly wise men, and they foresaw problems with democracy that, frankly, I don't think I'd have had the wisdom to foresee. They gave us the protections that enabled us to have the benefit of having a voice in our government without the power of oppression that having that voice could bring in the presence of a charismatic leader. As long as we respect the Constitution, we are protected, at least in theory, from the "oppression of the majority" predicted by Alexis de Tocqueville. And while our government may not be perfect, it is, at least, functional.