James M. Redwine

Elections

Legal Slight of Hand

by Leave a Comment

After last week’s scintillating column on Constitutional Law I know you are eagerly awaiting promised round two on politics and the United States Supreme Court. Of course, America’s judiciary eschews any notion that court outcomes are sometimes a product of the political views of the judge or judges who decide the cases. At the National Judicial College where I have served as a part-time faculty member since 1995 one of the guiding principles is the effort to have completely impartial judging of all cases. That is a proper goal. However, is that goal always achieved? Let’s take a look behind the black robes of history starting with America’s most famous case, Marbury v. Madison, decided in 1803 a mere sixteen years after the end of the Constitutional Convention that occurred on September 17, 1787.

You may recall that last week we had sought guidance on understanding the U.S. Constitution from law professor Michael Klarman who spoke to the Indiana Graduate Judges Seminar in French Lick, Indiana in June 2019. In his book The Framers’ Coup, The Making of the United States Constitution, Professor Klarman gave an in-depth analysis of the political warfare that produced our Constitution. A similar phenomenon occurred when the fourth Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, John Marshall, blatantly grabbed for the U.S. Supreme Court the immense power to declare whether a particular law was constitutional. Marshall deftly, and unethically, used the virulent hatred between those early Americans who favored a strong central government, the Federalists, and the anti-Federalists who preferred a more citizen-centered national government. John Adams was our second president and he was one of the strongest proponents of a strong central government. Adams was defeated in an election by our third president Thomas Jefferson in a bitterly fought campaign. John Marshall served as Adams’ Secretary of State and Marshall and Jefferson despised one another. Just before Adams’ term as president ran out he appointed John Marshall to be Chief Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court. Marshall was succeeded as Secretary of State by James Madison who, incidentally, later became our fourth president.

Just before John Adams left office he also appointed numerous judges and justices of the peace as a sharp stick in the eye of the incoming president Thomas Jefferson. William Marbury, a wealthy businessman and vocal opponent of Jefferson, was one of Adams’ justice of the peace appointees. While Secretary of State, John Marshall had the duty of signing Marbury’s certificate of appointment and delivering it to Congress. Marshall failed to get that done and the task was left to new Secretary of State James Madison. But President Jefferson, who was angry at John Adams for the last minute appointments, ordered Madison to not deliver Marbury’s certificate. Marbury then filed a law suit in the Supreme Court seeking to have the Court order Madison to give Marbury the certificate of appointment.

If all this intrigue seems rather petty and even perhaps reminiscent of our current political climate involving nasty actions on all sides, well, the pettiness turned out to have a momentous affect on every court case in America after 1803. The squabble may have resembled a tempest in a teapot but Chief Justice John Marshall’s highly political decision in the case resulted in a federal judiciary of immense power, a power not contemplated by many of our Founders and Framers of our Constitution.

Because of his earlier direct connection to Marbury’s appointment John Marshall should have recused himself from the case and should have had no part in it. However, Marshall seized upon Thomas Jefferson’s hatred of John Adams to trade what Jefferson wanted, that is to prevent Adams’ last minute appointments, for a huge leap toward a strong centralized government where the Judicial Branch would have power over decisions of both the Legislative and Executive Branches’ decisions.

What John Marshall and two more members of the then five member Supreme Court decided was that the legislative act that purported to give jurisdiction over cases such as the one brought by Marbury violated the Constitution therefore the Supreme Court had no authority to order Madison to give Marbury his certificate. It might appear to have been a win for Jefferson over Adams, but it was the ultimate Pyrrhic victory as Marshall and all future courts used it as a nuclear weapon in the war between the Federalists and anti-Federalists. Supreme power over what the Constitution meant has resided in the Supreme Court ever since 1803.

For example, in Dred Scott v. Sandford (1857) Chief Justice Roger Taney, a former slave owner, and the U.S. Supreme Court ruled Negro slaves had no rights that the Constitution was bound to protect. Then in George Bush v. Al Gore (2000) a bitterly divided court led by Chief Justice William Rehnquist who had been appointed by Republican President Richard Nixon to be an associate justice then by Republican President Ronald Reagan to be Chief Justice handed the presidential election to Republican George Bush.

So, as America’s judiciary proclaims it must remain independent from outside influences and look only to the law and the facts, it might appear to some cynics that the blindfold often slips. Anyway, I am certain you probably feel the same sense of relief in finishing this column that I did in finishing law school and Professor Klarman’s book. On the bright side however, the rest of your day is bound to get better.

Sticks And Stones

by Leave a Comment

Special Consul Robert Mueller testified before Congress on July 24, 2019. During his six hours of testimony before the House Judiciary Committee the major emphasis shifted from concerns about the outcome of the 2016 presidential election to attempts by foreign countries to influence all of our elections.

Mueller testified that for many years and right up to our next election cycle in 2020 several foreign entities were involving themselves in our democracy. And while Mueller specified only Russia for 2016 he made it clear that we should be aware of other actors. Iran, Israel and even our first cousins the British, among numerous others, have sought to inveigle themselves into our governmental decisions.

We have often been subtlety and sometimes not so subtlety nudged toward or away from war or toward or away from alliances with other countries. The favored techniques in days before the internet were the planting of fake newspaper stories or biased books and movies. Today spy dossiers or misleading memes and tweets over the internet are the preferred methods.

But if the aim of a foreign country is to defame or embarrass a politician it seems silly to dispense dirty secrets or even create false ones when such disclosures and prejudiced articles appear in the newspapers and on television every day. For example, if a country wanted to defame Donald Trump it should just encourage Americans to read The New York Times or watch CNN. And if a foreign entity wished to bring down Hillary Clinton it should republish stories from The National Enquirer or push FOX News. There is no need for foreign attempts to bring down a candidate for public office when we do such a thorough job of that ourselves.

What is even more perplexing is why any foreign country cares about our elections when we care so little about the outcomes ourselves. About 40% of eligible voters do not vote in presidential elections and only about 40% trouble themselves to vote in mid-term national elections. And when it comes to state, county and city elections most of the voters are those hoping to get jobs from the winners.

The bottom line may be that foreign entities are often more concerned with the outcomes of our elections than we are. Maybe we should learn from them.

Not So Bad After All

by Leave a Comment

As our country nears its 243rd birthday we Americans may feel as if all is gloom and doom. Members of Congress are calling for the impeachment of President Trump. President Trump is tweeting out claims that some Congress people are traitors. CNN accuses FOX News of being a sycophant for the White House. Rush Limbaugh proclaims CNN, MSNBC, The New York Times and The Washington Post are not news agencies but simply “fake news” whose agendas have a single minded mission to remove the President from office.

At coffee shops and taverns throughout the United States one-time friends cannot carry on a respectful conversation. Even churches are choosing sides. In short, the last election drags into its third year and the next election is morphing into a mere continuation of the election past. Political pundits and politicians are donning sackcloth and ashes or arming themselves with skewers to assassinate the characters of those who have the temerity to disagree with them. It ain’t good, folks. Are we falling apart?

No! We are practicing the democracy bequeathed to us on July 04, 1776. A healthy lack of respect for the opinions of others is our birthright. As long as we simply “suffer the slings and arrows” and do not “take up arms to oppose them” it is all as clanging brass and hollow threats. In fact, our current political climate is about the same as it has been since John Adams and Thomas Jefferson, who both signed the Declaration of Independence, saw their close friendship dissolve over policy differences. It is America. We have the right, perhaps the duty, to voice our disagreements.

What we do not want to lose sight of is policy differences are important but should not be lethal. Maybe we should step back, take a deep breath and see how another country, North Korea for example, handles allegations of treason.

We do not know the facts and should be cautious of reports from either North Korea or other countries that may wish to harm North Korea. With that said, it has been “reported” that Kim Jong Un of North Korea was upset over the failed summit between Kim and President Trump to the point he imprisoned some of his negotiators and executed several others. He allegedly declared them traitors. Even if these reports are exaggerated, the contrast between America’s hyperbole and North Korea’s drastic actions should remind us of what the Fourth of July truly means.

To Those Who Dare And Care

by Leave a Comment

As with much of our philosophy we can thank the ancient Greeks for the concept of the Phoenix, something (or someone) who rises from the ashes of defeat to be even better than before. Or as we all remember our parents attempting to convince us, we learn more from defeat than victory. This provides scant solace at the time of a loss or an embarrassment but most of us eventually see the validity of wisdom born of hardship and the shallowness of temporary acclaim.

It is likely you are already aware that Rudyard Kipling (1865-1936) and Teddy Roosevelt (1858-1919) among many others have already written about these concepts and certainly more presciently than I. Kipling in his poem If advised his son and the rest of us:

“If you can dream and not make dreams your master,
If you can think and not make thoughts your aim,
If you can meet with Triumph and Disaster and
Treat those two imposters just the same, ….
Then you will be a man my son.”

Teddy Roosevelt in his thesis, The Man in the Arena, wrote of greatness born of failure:

“It is not the critic who counts; not the man who points out how the strong man stumbles, or where the doer of deeds could have done them better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena, whose face is marred by dust and sweat and blood; who strives valiantly; who errs, who comes short again and again, because there is no effort without error and shortcoming; but who does actually strive to do the deeds; who knows great enthusiasms, the great devotions; who spends himself in a worthy cause; who at the best knows in the end the triumph of high achievement, and who at the worst, if he fails, at least fails while daring greatly, so that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who neither know victory nor defeat.”

Naturally, winners of elections are justly elated and losers are hurt and depressed. I have lost an election and have won some. What I discovered was my loss and my victories had less to do with me than with the vicissitudes of a fickle electorate. Most voters had no idea who I was and both the victories and the loss were mostly happenstance.

On the other hand, for our democracy to endure someone has to be willing to suffer the slings, arrows, and expense of running for office. So, to all those who cared enough and dared enough to seek to serve the rest of us, both winners and others, I say, Thank You!

Options

by Leave a Comment

Peg and I voted early. I am not aware of whose idea early voting was, but it was a good one. Perhaps the period could be expanded and maybe a safe and secure system of voting from home could be devised. My opinion is that the more citizens who cast one legitimate ballot the better. If we can deliver packages by drone, get gourmet meals sent to our homes and pay our taxes over the internet we should be able to hold legitimate elections that meet our current lifestyle and encourages all who are qualified to vote. Of course, such a system would need to ensure only those qualified vote and ensure that there is only one vote per voter. But as we plan to colonize Mars and the Moon we ought to be able to call upon our ingenuity to increase our options here on Earth.

In my view that is what differentiates us from all other species, options. And the important decisions as to who should lead us forward are one critical area where options matter most. We should not only encourage maximum participation in elections, we should make that participation inviting and easy. After all, we know our society demands maximum ease in such things as satellite and cable TV, drive-through fast foods and shopping by index finger, so why should we make voting less accessible?

Some of you will read this article on or before Election Day on November 06, 2018. If you have not voted, please do so. You will feel better when your taxes come due if you feel you have had some input into who sent the statements to you.

I see participation in our democracy much as I view the case settlement system I helped devise in the Circuit Court of Posey County, Indiana. Let’s take a divorce for example. Two spouses who once loved one another and perhaps had children together or operated a business, now need to go new directions. How can the vital issues of child custody and property division best be resolved? Is it better to have the divorcing spouses turn their future over to a complete stranger, a judge, or might they be happier if they work together to resolve things for themselves? This system of keeping the couple’s options open leads to happier children and a much greater chance of a better future for all involved. In other words, such a court case is kind of like an election where the participants, the voters, have the option to impact their own destiny.

We may make a bad choice occasionally, but we can rectify matters at the next election if we stay involved. One thing is for sure, if we do not vote we cannot impact the selection of those people who control our lives. And if we lose control we are in the same position as all other species, that is, we will have no control because we did not exercise our options.

Some Relief

by Leave a Comment

November 6th cannot get here fast enough for those of us accosted by the national media about the acclaimed virtues of their favorite candidates and the attributed evils of those they dislike. But there is another group of citizens who will be even more grateful when the election is over, that is the candidates themselves. Having been a candidate myself I feel their pain. And the winners will have suffered as much as the losers; although victory may somewhat assuage the pain of the campaign. However, the elation from an election night win may soon crash on the reality of actually filling a public office and the nagging dread that another campaign may soon be required.

Political campaigns remind me of Jerry Clowers’ most famous story. You may recall Clowers who was a standup comedian known as the “Mouth of the South”. Clowers was born in Liberty, Mississippi in 1926 and died in Jackson, Mississippi in 1998. He told many humorous stories of southern culture, some of which might fall through the cracks of today’s political correctness. His Coon Hunting routine brings up the feelings many political candidates experience. You may know the story which involves a Mississippi coon hunter who climbs a tree to confront what he thinks is a raccoon and finds himself in a battle with an unamused lynx.

As the hunter is suffering claws and teeth he calls for his fellow coon hunter to shoot up in the tree. His friend yells back he is afraid to fire his gun as he might hit the treed hunter. The hunter in the tree yells back, “Fire anyway, one of us has to have some relief!”

When it comes to political races often candidates are so amazed and chagrined by the experience they get the same feeling. “Just get it over, I’ll worry about who wins later.” On the other hand, those of us on the ground, as it were, can receive the benefits of the effort of those who seek to serve us without any sacrifice on our part.

So, on behalf of those of us on the sidelines allow me to say thank you to the candidates and as another famous candidate said, “We feel your pain”, but it will soon be mercifully over for all of us.