Rog:

You are talking about a micro-view of majority rule.

Rick and USMC are talking about the Macro view. The view where the formalized, legal-rules of conduct for the nation (Laws) are indeed created by the majority. In a Representative Democracy such as ours, then the views and/or beliefs of the majority are supposed to be reflected by the votes of our representatives.

What Rick and USMC are saying---and I agree--is that too often in the last 20 years, votes have been cast by those representatives that do not represent the intent of the constituents. Rather, they often reflect a (noisy) numerical minority that has a majority of political power and influence. Usually, that political power is due to money (ie, campaign contributions; promise of lucrative contracts in their district, follow-on jobs), or troublesome groups that will employ highly-paid lawyers. Political Action Committees, Special-Interest Groups, you name it. The Squeaky-wheels keep getting the grease.

The lawyers can often get the courts to agree with their petition from a purely Constituional perspective, but if examined from a "Did the Founding Fathers really intend this when they created the Constitution?" perspective, the answer would be a resounding "no."

The Constitution is a surprisingly well-written document and has palpable modern-day connectivity and relevance, even nearly 250 years after it was written. But it is not air-tight; it has some loopholes.

And they are exploited.

In theory, the majority should be able to add to the Constitution through Amendments.

So yes...majority should rule. But right now, I think we are ruled by the 1%.