Which constitution gives greater protection to the right of the majority to govern and explain why?

Running Head: Which constitution gives greater protection to the right of the majority to govern and explain why?
Which constitution gives greater protection to the right of the majority to govern and explain why?
Author`s Name
Institution`s Name
Constitution giving greater protection to the right of the majority to govern: An Introduction
It has been long time practice for democratic majorities to dictate minorities. In the United States today, legal scholars believe that there is a critical safeguard against tyrannizing majorities in political arena. Moreover, theoretical studies by economists hold the same opinion (See For example, Kurland, 1969; Bickel, 1962; Ely, 1980; Friedman, 2002). Klarman, 1996; Waldron, 2006).
As noted, the constitution of the USA delineates a government of strongly overlapping with concurrent power. Accordingly a US government is governed various checks and balances clauses. In a complex constitution small alterations can bring about major changes. For example, there is a "three-fifths rule in the US political history, aimed to change the number of votes to approve a bill.
Professors McGinnis and Rappaport argued that "the Constitution permits each house to decide how many members are necessary to pass a bill (See McGinnis & Rappaport, 1995). Each house is said to have this power under Article I, Section 5, which authorizes each chamber to determine the rules of its proceedings.
The Centrality of Majority Rule in Constitution
Critics of the three-fifths rule have given emphasis to the significance of majority rule in the modern democracy (Lieber & Brown, 1995). They have cited the rule from the American founding period of the constitution, which implied the right of majority to modify the law vital to democratic authority and the wellbeing of democratic countries. On the other hand, supporters of the rule cite "bicameralism" and "the separation of powers" as counter-instances to the rule of majority rule (See McGinnis & Rappaport, 1995). The supporters claim the requirements of the supermajority can promote "the cause of democratic self-governance" by asserting that vital decisions can be taken only when endorsed forcefully by wide variety of "the electorate as a whole"(See McGinnis & Rappaport, 1995). They also asserted that the three-fifths rule as a judicious check on the tendency of legislatures towards financial unpredictability (See McGinnis & Rappaport, 1995).
Moreover, majority rule is not a constant and inflexible aspect of democracy. Constitutionalism itself is the proper counter-example. As well, it does not make any sense whether the three-fifths rule is suitable fiscal policy or an obstacle to American Congress's capacity to react to various situations encountered.
Silence & Original Intent
There are various clauses in US Constitution which require supermajority votes both in House and the Senate. Nevertheless, it does not require it in the initial passage of the bills in Congress and the Senate. This silence in the constitution has various inferences regarding the founders of the American intention. Yet, the legislators can draw two different inferences.
The critics of the three-fifths bill claimed that the founders of the US Constitution were well aware of supermajority votes as and when the legislators wanted to, as such it implied that non-existing of a supermajority clause dealing with the initial passage of bill meant that majority rule was aimed (See Delker, 1996). Moreover, the founders of the constitution were aware of how to realize a definite number of votes when they desired, hence with no clear votes requirement for the initial passage of bill meant no explicit number of votes were required (See McGinnis & Rappaport, 1995).
The Federalist, explanations hold many accounts which only support majority vote in the House and Senate, arguably with the aim to pass the bills not that they be required.
The Plain Meaning of the Text
The opponents of the three-fifths rule assert on account of the plain meaning of the constitutional text, which implied that it would have been plain to framers of the Constitution.
Regrettably, the case for the three-fifths rule could be interpreted as the basis of the plain meaning of the text. To pass, in the lawmaking perspective, implied to get the number of affirmative votes essential for a positive result, regardless of the number of votes. This perception was similar today what was understood by the framers in 1789.
The US Constitution applies "pass" in this sense in Article I, Section 7, when it suggested that Congress can "pass" a disallowed bill by a two-thirds vote in both houses. Accordingly, the precise implication of "passed" in Article I, Section 7 is "ratified no matter how many votes were casted, or the types of vote, is required in the function of proceedings," and those who framed the Constitution would definitely have so interpreted it.
Interpretation OF Article I, Section 7
The correct interpretation of Article I, Section 7 is that "passed by the House" implied passed by majority vote of the House.
The Section 7 of the US constitution has the legislative clauses. It thus holds one of the most critical prerequisites- perhaps the core provisions of the whole US Constitution as originally written by its founders. In fact constitution delineates the process by which law of a country is to be made and recognized, recognizing the different governmental departments whose acquiescence must be needed when the overwhelming power to legislate of a country is carried out.
The legislative Clauses and the pertinent issues to deal with, had significant importance to the framers of the Constitution. It was quite significant and essential for them to influence the different states in the passage of law and role the Presidential role in legislating. As well, these and other equally critical issues were resolved by: 1) the "great compromise" that resulted in the various configurations of the House and Senate; and 2) the Lawmaking Clauses of Article I, Section 7. Superficially, the Lawmaking Clauses actually symbolize "a distinct, finely created and thoroughly considered, process" for legislation where the various structural issues experiencing the framers of the Constitution were decided.
Section 7 realizes a balance between various states, between state and federal government, between various government functionaries, and between Congress and President. This balance of powers would be entirely disengaged if it were correct that each legislative body could interpret what it meant for that legislative body to "pass" a bill. The following would explain clearly.
In 1997, the delegates from California, Texas, and New York, the representatives from the 10 largest states convened the first session of the 105th Congress. They passed the "Big-Ten Rule," which...