James M. Redwine

Democracy

A New World Resolution

by Leave a Comment

A new year is rapidly approaching. Hope for a better world is evidenced by universal blame placing, always onto someone else. Perhaps Jeffrey Epstein, or Donald Trump or Lane Kiffin or the idiot driving slowly in the passing lane. Or as Jimmy Buffett finally admitted in Margaritaville, “It was his own fault”.

One thing each of us believes is it is never our fault. Yet, in a republic, the United States for example, it is the fault of all citizens since we either choose or allow to remain in office our representatives. Secretary of War Pete Hegseth may have ordered Admiral Frank Bradley to carry out Commander in Chief Donald Trump’s order to kill the people on the alleged drug boat on September 02, 2025, but in America the President represents all of us. In the court of world opinion, each American violated our Constitution’s Bill of Rights and Due Process clauses as contained within the New World Resolutions of the Declaration of Independence and our Constitution.

Our Founders were well aware of the irony contained within those famous New World Resolutions, “We hold these truths to be self-evident that all men are created equal”. They knew that thousands of years of human history belied such a reality. What real truth they knew to be self-evident was that power does not corrupt humans, it enables them to be corrupt. The words were aspirational, not factual. The Constitution of the United States designed a framework for a system of government in which the natural inclination of humans to abuse power is sublimated to the competing powers of the majority who would abide by Due Process of Law.

If the eighty-one people we have killed in the Venezuelan boats were drug runners, there are well established procedures for determining those facts and for dealing with each situation. The U.S.A. has the most powerful military on earth. Even if the Venezuelan government was sponsoring those boats, its military is impotent against ours.

Our aircraft carriers, submarines, destroyers and aircraft can and do monitor every craft that comes within our United States territorial waters. We have the ability and authority to force any such drug boat or fishing boat, to stand down and be searched without danger to American personnel or equipment.

We could safely and thoroughly search such boats and vet their sailors as to drugs or other illegal contents. If such criminal intent against America were to be evidenced, the occupants could be arrested and taken before a court in the United States or a world authorized legal body. Any drugs could be confiscated, used as evidence and later destroyed and the drug runners imprisoned.

Such a procedure is what our Founders would have demanded from King George III. It is called Due Process. As the folk singer Phil Ochs sang in his song, Is There Anybody Here:

♫Is there anybody here
Who thinks that following the orders takes away the blame?
Is there anybody here
Who wouldn’t mind to murder by another name?♫

We Americans who claim to be a light to the world should shout STOP! when our representatives justify killing others without affording them the rights we demand for ourselves. America was born in 1776 and should not lose its aspirational soul after only 249 years. For as Phil Ochs also said in his song, ♫This country is too young to die♫. America today can re-pledge our “Lives, our Fortunes and our Sacred Honor” to the hopes our Founders knew had not yet been made possible but that they and we should resolve to make reality. Due process should be our talisman, not just our hope.

 

The Public Forum

by Leave a Comment

I have subscribed to The Posey County News and its progenitors for about forty years. At the request of the then editor and owner, Jim Kohlmeyer, in 1990 I began writing “Gavel Gamut”. Current editor Dave Pearce continued to publish my column after he and his wife Connie took over the paper. Neither Jim nor Dave nor Connie ever sought to censor any of the more than 1,000 columns I have written.

Gentle Reader, you are undoubtedly aware of how rare it has become for news outlets to provide a true forum for the exchange of differing views. The Posey County News provides such a forum. The Posey County News is a beacon to the First Amendment at a time that such beacons of illumination are under attack from several powerful and diverse sources. Our republic will not survive as the America our Founders envisioned if our citizens cannot freely express conflicting views, especially on deeply felt issues. As newspapers throughout our country continue to be subsumed by major news outlets, we need more than ever the courage of such local papers as The Posey County News.

Our republic’s free flow of ideas has been the major driver of our desire for “a more perfect union”. There was a time only 21-year-old, white, male citizens could vote. Due to the most vigorous of public debates, now 18-year-old citizens can not only be sent to war, they can vote on who sends them. My first vote for president was when I turned 21 even though I had already earned my honorable discharge from the Air Force.

My grandmother could not vote until 1921 after millions of Americans had demonstrated for her right to do so. It took a Civil War to get Blacks citizenship and many Native Americans are still in a struggle for the right to self-determination; but public outcries are forcing progress.

Therefore, when I opened my October 15, 2025 edition of my Posey County News and saw that Reverend Norman Martin had written a respectful and measured disagreement to one of my columns I was elated. There were no aspersions or threats, just calm opposing views. Thank you, Reverend, for reading my column. I am truly grateful you and I both have the right and, thanks to The Posey County News, the ability to publicly state our views without fear or expectation of favor.

We are all aware of our current climate of uncivil behavior among citizens of differing viewpoints. It may just be my age but I believe our culture was at one time able to discuss without cussing and disagree without canceling. Reverend Martin and I may never have the opportunity to have a cup of coffee and vigorously and respectfully exchange views, but thanks to one of America’s bedrock institutions, The Posey County News, if we ever have the chance, I bet we can do so.

The End of Days

by Leave a Comment

What makes life worth living? The ability to choose. If humans cannot choose what they do, then we are as livestock. When Americans travel to some foreign countries we are often perplexed by the reluctance of many of their citizens to voice their true opinions or openly protest the actions of their governments. One of the greatest values of foreign travel is the appreciation Americans discover of our freedom in America to say what we truly believe without fear.

So, when violence is perpetrated against Americans in America for speaking their minds, it jars our collective psyches. We may not agree with a speaker’s politics, religion, philosophy or choice of sports teams, but our First Amendment gives others the right to their expressions as well as our right to air our opposition. Our 249 years of free speech is why we will likely make it to our 250th birthday.

Our nation has often had to struggle to cling to this most important of democracy’s fundamental rights. We have survived a Civil War, McCarthyism, civil rights battles over gender, age, voting, foreign entanglements and countless other tears in the fabric of our rights to choose and freely express our true opinions.

It may seem the current atmosphere of attempts to silence unwanted different positions is unique. That is not correct. Our fledgling country survived a deadly duel between Alexander Hamilton, the Secretary of the Treasury, and sitting Vice-President, Aaron Burr, on July 11, 1804.

America has a long and varied history of violence against people for their political views. We have struggled through presidents Abraham Lincoln, James Garfield, William McKinley and John Kennedy being assassinated. Presidential candidate Robert Kennedy was killed while campaigning and several other presidents and candidates have had assassination attempts made against their lives: George Wallace, Theodore Roosevelt and Donald Trump to name but three.

There have been numerous assassination attempts made against other sitting presidents: Gerald Ford, Ronald Reagan, and both George H.W. Bush and George W. Bush. It is apparent that public service can be dangerous. Also, numerous plots against other American politicians have been both foiled and carried out. Being a public figure in America, especially one with strong views on emotional subjects, seems to bring out the worst in some people who wish to silence free expression.

Of course, in our contemporary society, our national media and others do not hesitate to assert that the most recent violence against someone else’s right to choose is the death knell of our democracy. These pronouncements are often coupled with diatribes against whatever political position is represented as in opposition to the attacked speaker’s political philosophy.

We do and should mourn and regret any violence against a public figure, such as Charlie Kirk, who may have been attacked simply because of his or her strong views, whatever they are. However, to predict our country’s demise based on attempts to quell freedom of expression is not supported by our long history of political violence. Draconian responses to horrific incidents of violence may be themselves quite damaging to our right to choose and, per force, to our democracy.

Luddites Lost

by Leave a Comment

Just recently, a 13-year-old boy captured a photograph of a young girl and used Artificial Intelligence to remove her clothing and make her normal image pornographic. Then he put his modified, false depiction on the internet and caused the girl great emotional distress.

In June 2025, some person or persons used AI to impersonate United States Secretary of State Marco Rubio and sent false messages to several foreign officials.

During the Sean Diddy Combs trial one of the jurors may have accessed internet information about the trial.

Can Americans rely upon their government through its legal system to afford them fair trials when false or inadmissible, unvetted information is readily available on a smart phone? The answer is, Yes! However, trial judges must apply the tools the various State Supreme Courts, Constitutions and statutes provide.

There are probably several ways for judges to approach the rapidly developing dilemmas of how jury trials are affected by Social Media. Three major theories are:

(1)       The ostrich method: pretend it does not exist. Well, it does, so ignoring it will not solve it;

(2)       The Luddite solution where the legal system strikes back with Draconian controls in hopes jurors will be frightened back to pre-internet behavior. Workers of the early 19th century tried to halt mechanization in an effort to save their jobs. The Luddites who refused to adapt to the Industrial Revolution were swept into the dustbin of history; or,

(3)       Adapt to the inevitable change in both technology and sociology.

State trial judges already have the education, training and legal tools to use the only rational approach to the irreversible momentum of the internet. We should call upon the lessons of thousands of years of history and our faith in our democratic system. Jurors, judges, the media and both real and artificial intelligence can operate a fair and efficient legal system using time-tested rules of due process applied with diligence and goodwill.

Technology may change but human nature has been formed over a few million years of hominoid fits and starts and two or three hundred thousand years of Homo sapiens experience and progress. And over about the past 250 years we have gone from gazing at the heavens to visiting them. Plus, over the past 100 years we have gone from curing polio and small pox to creating artificial limbs. Science has been good to us even if we take pause at the levels of death and destruction it has enabled. We just need to keep progressing before we exterminate ourselves and AI might be a huge boost in that regard.

So, how does the legal system deal with Social Media and Jurors? By remaining true to our time-tested principles and having confidence our citizens who are called for jury duty will also. As we know, people usually respond positively to positive treatment and ethically to expectations of ethical behavior. Are there plenty of bad exceptions, absolutely. However, judges have the tools to weed those potential jurors out and to guide and encourage sitting jurors to eschew extraneous influence from outside forces.

In the end, judges must adhere to their honored principles and have faith so will jurors. Most jurors want to be fair and most likely will be if judges give them proper guidance, such as the following instructions:

The parties are entitled to jurors who approach this case with open minds and agree to keep their minds open until a verdict is reached. Jurors must be as free as humanly possible from bias, prejudice or, sympathy. Jurors must not be influenced by preconceived ideas as to facts or as to law.  

… Until the conclusion of this trial, do not discuss this case with any other person, including family and friends. You should not read or listen to any media discussing this case nor research this case in any way, including through the internet or any other tools of technology. Nor should you use any of these means to communicate to others about the case. It is important that this case be decided solely on the evidence you receive in this courtroom.

Progress can be a huge benefit to us. We may not now be able to see the benefits, but we should approach the future relying on our lessons from the past.

 

What Is In Control?

by Leave a Comment

One of the first lectures I received in law school was about how jury trials had changed over about 2,500 years; they hadn’t. According to my law professor, if we budding attorneys had walked into the courtroom in Athens for the trial of Socrates in 399 B.C., we would have easily understood the proceeding. Socrates was charged with corrupting Athenian youth with his views on the prevalent religion and government. He was convicted by a jury of about 500 citizens. Socrates was prosecuted by three senators and he defended himself. In other words, that court of over 2,000 years ago functioned like most courts of the 21st century, until the advent of smart telephones, artificial intelligence and rapidly changing electronic technology.

Unlike the practice of medicine, according to our law professor, that a physician of modern times would not even recognize, until recently the legal profession stoically struggled to deliver justice about the same way our Stone Age progenitors did. As science reached for the stars, the Star Chamber was right at home with the law. Most lawyers, judges and juries sought just verdicts, but often did so with quill pens, arcane fixtures and cloistered proceedings. Well, those honored, if often questioned, days have recently crashed upon the shoals of instant and ubiquitous information and misinformation. And much as the art world and the defense industry are wringing their hands and racing to keep up with machines gone mad, the legal profession is struggling to preserve the First Amendment’s guarantees of Freedom of Speech and the Press along with the Sixth Amendment’s guarantees of Due Process and a Fair Trial.

For thousands of years societies have confidently relied upon jurors to hear cases without being influenced by prejudicial information from outside of the court. Today, judges cannot just order jurors to not read newspapers, or listen to radio or television stories about a case. Jurors in 2025 are just like virtually every other child, teenager, adult and elderly person; everyone has a smart phone to which they are addicted. All the judicial admonishments judges can think of will not defeat the deep-seated need by jurors to “tune in and turn on” and, most likely buy into, the often incorrect information about practically anything, including “facts” about an on-going case.

The Founding Fathers most feared centralized governmental power and believed the best defense to it was for the public to have almost unfettered Freedom of Speech and for the media to be almost immunized from governmental restraint. Of course, America’s legal system has adapted many times to changes in our society. It will surely find ways to deal with the internet. However, the age-old reliance on the omnipotence and wisdom of the trial judge’s instructions has already become as much of a relic as the pyramids. And, just as the pyramids still inspire us, our historically provident legal system probably will too.

However, we in the legal profession must face the reality that Facebook and its ilk have to be dealt with because the populace will not stand for them to be destroyed. Surely, if I were back in that first law school class today, the professor would evince a different perspective on 2025’s legal system.

Wise Fools Needed

by Leave a Comment

Arthur Miller’s 1953 play The Crucible was a metaphor for the dangers of the McCarthyism era. Senator Joseph McCarthy wielded virtually unchecked power using Red Scare tactics. Governments, the news media and the public devoured allegations that Soviet Communists had infiltrated American culture and the only solution was to excise the traitors. Thousands of careers were ruined as was the social standing of countless loyal citizens by innuendo. Senator McCarthy’s most powerful weapon was fear. Freedom of speech could have been America’s best defense, but fear of being painted with McCarthyism’s red brush kept truth at bay. As with many dangerous social problems, America’s solution had already been provided by our 18th century Founders, scholars and historians who had studied thousands of years of great civilizations that had destroyed themselves through hubris and stifled debate. Freedom of Speech is not just a shield, it is also a democratic society’s most powerful sword. To concede this ultimate right is to voluntarily disarm.

Our Constitution was crafted by human beings who were steeped in the lessons of civilizations that had been forged on an anvil of free speech but had declined when truth could or would no longer confront power. Our Founders knew their history, especially that of the brilliant ancient Greeks who realized:

“…democracy insisted on complete freedom of speech, and thought it well to mock the personalities and
air the burning problems of the moment.”

Charles A. Robinson, Jr.
In his Introduction to
An Anthology of Greek Drama (1949)

From Sophocles’ twenty-five-hundred-year-old Oedipus the King to Shakespeare’s (1564-1616) Macbeth and other countless examples from civilizations of old to modern times, we have warnings that leaders who do not heed voices cautioning against hubris can bring down great societies. A common theme in both monarchial government and literature for thousands of years is that of the Wise Fool who, without fear of repercussions, both whispers in the emperor’s ear and speaks truth to his or her face.  In the plays of ancient Greece this role was often played by the chorus which would presage the harm a ruler’s pride was going to bring about later if he did not heed the warnings or if the populace did not replace the ruler. This is the ultimate in free expression. However, often times those in power surround themselves not with “Wise Fools” who tell them unwelcome truth, but with fearful fools who cling to power through sycophantic flattery.

When the victims of Salem, Massachusetts were executed in 1692-1693, it was not because they were witches but because superstition, personal grudges, prejudices, ignorance or religion trumped truth. In the McCarthy era, the Red Scare did not put America in peril, the fear of it did. The cure then as always is Freedom of Expression. The disease of misguided or corrupt power is best cured by a free flow of ideas and most exacerbated by silence, or worse, capitulation. When even our universities cower into silence before threats of our government, the rotting of our moral core as a free people has taken root. We have the recent example of the 1950’s to awaken us to what silence in the face of government power run amok can wreak on our democracy. History is littered with the rubble of previously once great societies that have committed the sin of lassitude in the face of ignorance.

The voices of campus protesters in the 1960’s and 1970’s helped bring America back from the precipice during the Viet Nam War era much as the courage of those such as Arthur Miller, who refused to be silenced, did during the 1950’s Red Scare. One might ask where the prophetic and courageous Greek chorus and wise fools are today as our government sends our soldiers into our streets?