Explain the ways in which the Constitution seeks to prevent the ‘tyranny of the majority’. (15)

There are various ways in which the Constitution seeks to prevent tyranny of the majority. One such way is through the principle of 'checks and balances', which is one of the core principles upon which the Constitution was written.
At the time of writing, the Founding Fathers feared the emergence of any single uncontrollably powerful branch of government, so they implemented this system in order to prevent this from taking place. There are various examples of this.
For example, the Supreme Court wields the power of judicial review, a power which enables it to check the powers of other branches of government. This was seen through the DC v Heller case of 2008, during which the Second Amendment rights of citizens to bear arms was protected from being meddled with by the state. The McDonald v Chicago case, which was heard two years later in 2010, took this ruling further by clearing up the ability of states to meddle with these rights; it was declared that states had no right to do this after Chicago had attempted to ban the use of handguns in the city in an attempt to solve the murder crisis existent there.
There are various other examples of checks and balances within the Constitution, such as the fact that proposed laws have to be ping-ponged between both Houses of Congress before being signed into law, and the fact that the President can veto these laws if he comes into disagreement with them, such as Obama's veto of the 9/11 bill which allowed the families of 9/11 victims to sue Saudi Arabia.
A second way in which the Constitution tackles tyranny of the majority is through the entrenchment of individual rights, as seen through the Bill of Rights and subsequent amendments. The First Amendment, for example, entrenches freedom of speech into the Constitution, thus preventing the establishment from infringing this right even if it does not personally agree with something that an individual expresses.
For example, the Snyder v Phelps case of 2011 upheld the right of the Westboro Baptist Church to protest at the funerals of deceased American service members, even if such is not widely considered to be morally justifiable, precisely because preventing this would amount to infringing their rights to freedom of speech. Thus, even if such speech is considered to be offensive, it is still protected within the Constitution because the nature of being offensive is subjective and cannot be defined by a court of law. Individual rights were also protected through the Roe v Wade abortion case in 1973 and the Obergefell v Hodges case in 2015 on the subject of legalising same-sex marriage. Abortion and gay rights were protected in both of these cases on the basis of the Equal Protection Clause in the 14th Amendment, which guarantees citizens equal protections in the eyes of the law.
Thus, the entrenchment of individual rights is clearly another way in which tyranny of the majority is prevented within the Constitution. Finally, another way in which the Constitution seeks to defend against tyranny of the majority is through the amendment process, which makes the Constitution very difficult to change. Whilst the Founding Fathers wished for the Constitution to evolve with society, they did not wish for this to be so easy that there would be the potential for a government to take advantage of this in the corrupt pursuit of greater power. As such, the Constitution was deliberately made difficult to amend by requiring ratification from two-thirds of both Congressional Houses and three-fourths of state legislatures.
The difficulty of amending the Constitution is emphasised through the notion that it has only been amended twenty-seven times within a historical span of over two-hundred years, and this has also prevented tyranny of the majority within this time-frame. As such, it is clear that this provision, as well as the others mentioned above, display the Founding Fathers' intention of defending the United States against tyranny of the majority in coming decades.