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...