This blog studies several current issues from a legal and moral perspective. Additionally, this blog evaluates various technologies and how they have impacted modern culture.
Sunday, April 12, 2020
Eight Values of Free Expression: The Value of Dissent
Justice John McLean
As Americans, many of us take pride in our democratic ideals, but what does it mean for a government to be truly democratic? We can look to the words of Abraham Lincoln; we want a "government of the people, by the people, for the people". If a democracy is a government of the people and by the people, does that mean that all people should have a say in the ruling of a nation, or should the final decision always be determined by the majority? In other words, can a government truly be ruled by the people, if some people have no say in the governing? In a situation where the majority is overwhelming in number, it may be easier to agree that the majority should always have the final say. If 75 percent of citizens agree with a bill, many would say that passing the bill would be democratic. However, if only 51 percent of citizens agree with a bill (so 49 percent disagree), would passing the bill still be considered democratic? The situation becomes even more complicated when some people are constantly in the minority. Is it democratic to let some citizens consistently have a louder voice than others? I'll admit that it is difficult to think of a solution to this problem. It seems more democratic to frequently side with the majority, but we need to ensure that the voice of the minority is still heard. This is why it is important to protect the dissenting opinions.
The views of the minority, though they may be unpopular for a time, may prove to be valuable in the future. Throughout history, we have seen former minority opinions turn into the opinions of the majority. This is especially true in Supreme Court cases. In Dread Scott v. Sandford (1857), the Supreme Court's decision is considered a failure of the American judicial system. The Court essentially ruled that African Americans do not qualify as citizens. The dissenting opinion from the case is now the opinion of the majority. Justice John McLean wrote in his dissent, "Being born under our Constitution and laws, no naturalization is required, as one of foreign birth, to make him a citizen... A slave is not a mere chattel. He bears the impress of his Maker, and is amenable to the laws of God and man." With his dissent, Justice McLean helped pave the way for African Americans to be given citizenship and be recognized as human beings.
An Article on Famous Supreme Court Dissents
More Information on Justice McLean
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment