In　the　United　States　political　questions　cannot　be　taken　up　in　so　general　and　absolute　a　manner；　and　all　parties　are　willing　to　recognize　the　right　of　the　majority；　because　they　all　hope　to　turn　those　rights　to　their　own　advantage　at　some　future　time。　　The　majority　therefore　in　that　country　exercises　a　prodigious　actual　authority；　and　a　moral　influence　which　is　scarcely　less　preponderant；　no　obstacles　exist　which　can　impede　or　so　much　as　retard　its　progress；　or　which　can　induce　it　to　heed　the　complaints　of　those　whom　it　crushes　upon　its　path。　　This　state　of　things　is　fatal　in　itself　and　dangerous　for　the　future。
  How　The　Unlimited　Power　Of　The　Majority　Increases　In　America　The　Instability　Of　Legislation　And　Administration　Inherent　In　Democracy　The　Americans　increase　the　mutability　of　the　laws　which　is　inherent　in　democracy　by　changing　the　legislature　every　year；　and　by　investing　it　with　unbounded　authority　…　The　same　effect　is　produced　upon　the　administration　…　In　America　social　amelioration　is　conducted　more　energetically　but　less　perseveringly　than　in　Europe。
  I　have　already　spoken　of　the　natural　defects　of　democratic　institutions；　and　they　all　of　them　increase　at　the　exact　ratio　of　the　power　of　the　majority。　To　begin　with　the　most　evident　of　them　all；　the　mutability　of　the　laws　is　an　evil　inherent　in　democratic　government；　because　it　is　natural　to　democracies　to　raise　men　to　power　in　very　rapid　succession。　　But　this　evil　is　more　or　less　sensible　in　proportion　to　the　authority　and　the　means　of　action　which　the　legislature　possesses。
  In　America　the　authority　exercised　by　the　legislative　bodies　is　supreme；　nothing　prevents　them　from　accomplishing　their　wishes　with　celerity；　and　with　irresistible　power；　whilst　they　are　supplied　by　new　representatives　every　year。　　That　is　to　say；　the　circumstances　which　contribute　most　powerfully　to　democratic　instability；　and　which　admit　of　the　free　application　of　caprice　to　every　object　in　the　State；　are　here　in　full　operation。　　In　conformity　with　this　principle；　America　is；　at　the　present　day；　the　country　in　the　world　where　laws　last　the　shortest　time。　　Almost　all　the　American　constitutions　have　been　amended　within　the　course　of　thirty　years：　there　is　therefore　not　a　single　American　State　which　has　not　modified　the　principles　of　its　legislation　in　that　lapse　of　time。　　As　for　the　laws　themselves；　a　single　glance　upon　the　archives　of　the　different　States　of　the　Union　suffices　to　convince　one　that　in　America　the　activity　of　the　legislator　never　slackens。　Not　that　the　American　democracy　is　naturally　less　stable　than　any　other；　but　that　it　is　allowed　to　follow　its　capricious　propensities　in　the　formation　of　the　laws。　*b
  ＇Footnote　b：　The　legislative　acts　promulgated　by　the　State　of　Massachusetts　alone；　from　the　year　1780　to　the　present　time；　already　fill　three　stout　volumes；　and　it　must　not　be　forgotten　that　the　collection　to　which　I　allude　was　published　in　1823；　when　many　old　laws　which　had　fallen　into　disuse　were　omitted。　　The　State　of　Massachusetts；　which　is　not　more　populous　than　a　department　of　France；　may　be　considered　as　the　most　stable；　the　most　consistent；　and　the　most　sagacious　in　its　undertakings　of　the　whole　Union。＇
  The　omnipotence　of　the　majority；　and　the　rapid　as　well　as　absolute　manner　in　which　its　decisions　are　executed　in　the　United　States；　has　not　only　the　effect　of　rendering　the　law　unstable；　but　it　exercises　the　same　influence　upon　the　execution　of　the　law　and　the　conduct　of　the　public　administration。　As　the　majority　is　the　only　power　which　it　is　important　to　court；　all　its　projects　are　taken　up　with　the　greatest　ardor；　but　no　sooner　is　its　attention　distracted　than　all　this　ardor　ceases；　whilst　in　the　free　States　of　Europe　the　administration　is　at　once　independent　and　secure；　so　that　the　projects　of　the　legislature　are　put　into　execution；　although　its　immediate　attention　may　be　directed　to　other　objects。
  In　America　certain　ameliorations　are　undertaken　with　much　more　zeal　and　activity　than　elsewhere；　in　Europe　the　same　ends　are　promoted　by　much　less　social　effort；　more　continuously　applied。
  Some　years　ago　several　pious　individuals　undertook　to　ameliorate　the　condition　of　the　prisons。　　The　public　was　excited　by　the　statements　which　they　put　forward；　and　the　regeneration　of　criminals　became　a　very　popular　undertaking。　　New　prisons　were　built；　and　for　the　first　time　the　idea　of　reforming　as　well　as　of　punishing　the　delinquent　formed　a　part　of　prison　discipline。　　But　this　happy　alteration；　in　which　the　public　had　taken　so　hearty　an　interest；　and　which　the　exertions　of　the　citizens　had　irresistibly　accelerated；　could　not　be　completed　in　a　moment。　　Whilst　the　new　penitentiaries　were　being　erected　（and　it　was　the　pleasure　of　the　majority　that　they　should　be　terminated　with　all　possible　celerity）；　the　old　prisons　existed；　which　still　contained　a　great　number　of　offenders。　　These　jails　became　more　unwholesome　and　more　corrupt　in　proportion　as　the　new　establishments　were　beautified　and　improved；　forming　a　contrast　which　may　readily　be　understood。　　The　majority　was　so　eagerly　employed　in　founding　the　new　prisons　that　those　which　already　existed　were　forgotten；　and　as　the　general　attention　was　diverted　to　a　novel　object；　the　care　which　had　hitherto　been　bestowed　upon　the　others　ceased。　　The　salutary　regulations　of　discipline　were　first　relaxed；　and　afterwards　broken；　so　that　in　the　immediate　neighborhood　of　a　prison　which　bore　witness　to　the　mild　and　enlightened　spirit　of　our　time；　dungeons　might　be　met　with　which　reminded　the　visitor　of　the　barbarity　of　the　Middle　Ages。
  Chapter　XV：　Unlimited　Power　Of　Majority；　And　Its　Consequences　…　Part　II
  Tyranny　Of　The　Majority
  How　the　principle　of　the　sovereignty　of　the　people　is　to　be　understood　…Impossibility　of　conceiving　a　mixed　government　…　The　sovereign　power　must　centre　somewhere　…　Precautions　to　be　taken　to　control　its　action　…　These　precautions　have　not　been　taken　in　the　United　States　…　Consequences。
  I　hold　it　to　be　an　impious　and　an　execrable　maxim　that；　politically　speaking；　a　people　has　a　right　to　do　whatsoever　it　pleases；　and　yet　I　have　asserted　that　all　authority　originates　in　the　will　of　the　majority。　　Am　I　then；　in　contradiction　with　myself？
  A　general　law　…　which　bears　the　name　of　Justice　…　has　been　made　and　sanctioned；　not　only　by　a　majority　of　this　or　that　people；　but　by　a　majority　of　mankind。　　The　rights　of　every　people　are　consequently　confined　within　the　limits　of　what　is　just。　　A　nation　may　be　considered　in　the　light　of　a　jury　which　is　empowered　to　represent　society　at　large；　and　to　apply　the　great　and　general　law　of　justice。　　Ought　such　a　jury；　which　represents　society；　to　have　more　power　than　the　society　in　which　the　laws　it　applies　originate？
  When　I　refuse　to　obey　an　unjust　law；　I　do　not　contest　the　right　which　the　majority　has　of　commanding；　but　I　simply　appeal　from　the　sovereignty　of　the　people　to　the　sovereignty　of　mankind。　　It　has　been　asserted　that　a　people　can　never　entirely　outstep　the　boundaries　of　justice　and　of　reason　in　those　affairs　which　are　more　peculiarly　its　own；　and　that　consequently；　full　power　may　fearlessly　be　given　to　the　majority　by　which　it　is　represented。　　But　this　language　is　that　of　a　slave。
  A　majority　taken　collectively　may　be　regarded　as　a　being　whose　opinions；　and　most　frequently　whose　interests；　are　opposed　to　those　of　another　being；　which　is　styled　a　minority。　　If　it　be　admitted　that　a　man；　possessing　absolute　power；　may　misuse　that　power　by　wronging　his　adversaries；　why　should　a　majority　not　be　liable　to　the　same　reproach？　　Men　are　not　apt　to　change　their　characters　by　agglomeration；　nor　does　their　patience　in　the　presence　of　obstacles　increase　with　the　consciousness　of　their　strength。　*c　And　for　these　reasons　I　can　never　willingly　invest　any　number　of　my　fellow…　creatures　with　that　unlimited　authority　which　I　should　refuse　to　any　one　of　them。
  ＇Footnote　c：　No　one　will　assert　that　a　people　cannot　forcibly　wrong　another　people；　but　parties　may　be　looked　upon　as　lesser　nations　within　a　greater　one；　and　they　are　aliens　to　each　other：　if；　therefore；　it　be　admitted　that　a　nation　can　act　tyrannically　towards　another　nation；　it　cannot　be　denied　that　a　party　may　do　the　same　towards　another　party。＇
  I　do　not　think　that　it　is　possible　to　combine　several　principles　in　the　same　government；　so　as　at　the　same　time　to　maintain　freedom；　and　really　to　oppose　them　to　one　another。　　The　form　of　government　which　is　usually　termed　mixed　has　always　appeared　to　me　to　be　a　mere　chimera。　　Accurately　speaking　there　is　no　such　thing　as　a　mixed　government　（with　the　meaning　usually　given　to　that　word）；　because　in　all　communities　some　one　principle　of　action　may　be　discovered　which　preponderates　over　the　others。　　England　in　the　last　century；　which　has　been　more　especially　cited　as　an　example　of　this　form　of　Government；　was　in　point　of　fact　an　essentially　aristocratic　State；　although　it　comprised　very　powerful　elements　of　democracy；　for　the　laws　and　customs　of　the　country　were　such　that　the　aristocracy　could　not　but　preponderate　in　the　end；　and　subject　the　direction　of　public　affairs　to　its　own　will。　　The　error　arose　from　too　much　attention　being　paid　to　the　actual　struggle　which　was　go