The way Brettschneider sees it, democratic theory has been stuck between a rock and a hard place.  Say that we believe, as most advocates of democracy do, that "democracy is the fundamental basis for legitimate polities." [8] Proceduralists about democracy certainly endorse this claim, but then confront an embarrassing problem, that democratic procedures can result in repugnant outcomes.  What if the majority votes to strip some minority of their free speech rights, or their right to vote?  What if the majority votes to do away with democracy?  Have these seemingly illegitimate outcomes thus been legitimated?  Embarrassing.  Others appeal to substantive individual rights [8] to resolve this problem.  If democratic procedures lead to outcomes that violate substantive rights, then they are not legitimate (e.g. are voided).  But this introduces what Brettschneider characterizes as the "problem of constraint": "How to reconcile external constraints on democratic procedures with the belief that democracy is the fundamental basis for legitimate politics." [8]  What legitimates these constraints that are independent of democracy?  What are they, and who interprets them?  Doesn't the appeal to such constraints on democracy invariably have anti-democratic implications?  Many of those who appeal to such substantive rights that are independent of democracy view democracy as merely the most useful means to enforce and safeguard such rights.  But this is an empirical claim, and seems to allow that if we found a more effective way of safeguarding substantive rights, it would then be appropriate to do away with democracy entirely.  Brettschneider believes that there is a path between this rock of proceduralism and the hard place of independent rights that constrain democracy, and argues for it in the excerpt we are discussing on tomorrow.  His path, the value theory of democracy, avoids the shortcomings of purely procedural approaches, while also avoiding the problem of constraint.  What this view is, and how he thinks it preserves the strengths of each approach while avoiding their weaknesses, is something that we want to talk about tomorrow.  See you then!