At the time the United States of America became a nation, most countries were ruled by a person. For example, England and France were each ruled by a king. Some countries were part of the empires of other countries. They were ruled by the king, or emperor, of their ruling country. If they had their own king, that person was subordinate to the emperor.
When the United States won its independence from the British Empire, our founders were faced with a choice. They could make someone king, or they could try something different. We opted for the latter.
We created a constitution that bound the original 13 states into one nation. The constitution was called the law of the land, and we agreed to be ruled by laws rather than by a person. That is what is meant when people in America refer to “the rule of law.”
Please forgive me if this is oversimplified. It is being written with those in mind who have had the “benefit” of a free, compulsory (to age 16) American secondary school education … that may not have included classes in Civics, Government, or even U.S. History. When Jesse Watters does “man on the street” interviews on TV with college students near the campuses of prestigious universities, and they are unable to provide the correct answer to the simplest of questions about our country, it makes me want to pull out my hair, (if I had any).
Q: Who was the first President of the United States?
A: I don’t know … Abraham Lincoln?
Q: Why Did we fight the Revolutionary War?
A: Uh … to free the slaves?
Supreme Court
The next questions are a more rigorous test of what we know about our government:
Q: Is the supreme court in the constitution?
A: Dude! Check out Article III:
The judicial
Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme
Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain
and establish. The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold
their Offices during good Behaviour, and shall, at stated Times, receive
for their Services, a Compensation, which shall not be diminished during their
Continuance in Office.
Q: Does the constitution set the number of justices on the supreme court?
A: NO, but an amendment establishing nine justices might settle the issue.
The Judiciary Act of 1789 fixed the number of Supreme Court Justices at six (an even number). Congress changed the number of justices several times, but nine was established by the Judiciary Act of 1869. It has not been changed since.
In 1937, President Franklin Roosevelt attempted to “pack” the court for political purposes with justices who would support him by increasing the size of the court to 15 justices. He was defeated, in part by members of his own party. His opponents were concerned that if the number of justices was changed for political reasons the court would be subject to undue political influence. (1) Hey! That means the Judiciary would lose its independence. Sooooo not good.
In November, we will get to answer the next question:
Q: Admittedly, the court is already tainted by political considerations. Will things improve if the number of justices is changed?
A: If your answer is “yes” then vote for Democratic candidates. If your answer is “no” then vote Republican.
Supreme court justices serve for a lifetime. In many ways their decisions have greater and more permanent weight in the long-term than either a legislator or a president. Choose carefully. Personally, I will not vote to further politicize the courts. Changing the size of the supreme court might benefit the Democrats today, but what about tomorrow? Wouldn’t the Republicans be able to play the same game?
Electoral College
The way a political party feels about the electoral college varies in direct proportion to whether they think they were robbed in the last election. Currently, the Democrats are convinced that they lost to George W. Bush and Donald Trump because the Republicans “manipulated” the elections, resulting in victories in the electoral college.
The President and Vice President of the United States are not elected, directly, by the popular vote. It has been that way since 1788; almost 232 years. (For our European readers, Americans think that’s a long time.)
Some think we ought to elect the president and vice president by popular vote. They think that would improve the “purity” of our democracy. Maybe so, but it would give an unfair advantage to large population centers … which usually vote Democratic. So, is “one man one vote” as pure on close examination as it seems at first glance?
A candidate may say, “If elected, I will work to abolish the electoral college.” If they do, they are not telling the whole truth because they cannot amend the constitution on their own.
Article II of the U.S. Constitution sets forth the manner in which the president and vice president are to be elected. Each state is assigned a number of electors based on the total of the senators and congressional representatives allotted to that state. There is one elector for each senator and one for each congressional representative. The electors vote to elect the president and vice president. The twelfth amendment stipulates how the electoral college operates, and the fourteenth amendment bolsters laws in every state providing for the electors to be elected by the people. Representation for U.S. citizens living in Washington D.C. is provided by the twenty-third amendment. “One man one vote” is achieved by the popular vote of the people for their states’ electors to the electoral college. Finally, Article V of the constitution gives the ways that the constitution may be amended.
God gave the founding fathers uncommon wisdom and foresight as they crafted the constitution. They purposely made it difficult to amend. That way, it would not be unduly influenced by the momentary whims of popular opinion. They provided for the states to have an equal number of senators, regardless of their size; thus keeping the “big” states from riding roughshod over the “little” ones. However, congressional representatives are allotted by population, giving due consideration to the needs of the many.
In November, we need to be mindful of the stated intention of some Democrats, if they get a majority in the senate and the house, to abolish the electoral college. Is that what you want? If so, then vote Democratic. If you are opposed, vote Republican. I used to be for abolishing the electoral college. I changed my mind. I like the people in New York and California, but I do not want them to pick my president and vice president for me.
I urge every American to read the U.S. Constitution and its amendments. It really doesn’t take that long. If you start to go to sleep, read it standing up. (It works for me!) There are a lot of interesting contrasts to be made between what is in the constitution and what our politicians promise that they are going to do.
(1) Vladeck, Steve, (professor at the University of Texas School of Law). Why does the Supreme Court Have Nine Justices? And Why can’t Democrats Add More? April 10, 2019. https://www.nbcnews.com/think/opinion/why-does-supreme-court-have-nine-justices-why-can-t-ncna992851
No comments:
Post a Comment