[ncmncm]

There really was at the time the concept of "the tyranny of the majority". The whole notion of "rights" is specifically to limit the power of the majority.

The majority normally never needs to have its rights protected. The majority serves itself. Minorities are who need protection.

[stevenwoo]

Yes, but we have in the USA somehow created a perverse system where we have minority rule that has the ability to take decisions that are not about minority rights away from the majority or stripping minority rights from even smaller minorities, for one example historical suppressed voting rights of African Americans and other groups, where only the African Americans have legal standing because we could only manage to pass a few constitutional amendments and laws after 200 years of injustice, other majority/minority groups it's still perfectly constitutional to suppress their votes. Mormons (that did not recognize dark skinned people as human beings as policy until recently) who are tiny percentage of USA population have pivotal role in US senate with decisive control of 1-2 states, and Roman Catholics make up a unbeatable majority of the Supreme Court that decides rules so we have this endless cycle feeding more power into those with capital.

[ncmncm]

Yes. The world has learned a great deal about governance in the past 200+ years that the US has mostly failed to apply. Its Constitution was supposed to be more adaptable, but each hint of flexibility has threatened to make things radically worse, instead, so we are afraid to try improving it.

Instead, we have the Supreme Court just make shit up.