James M. Redwine

Executive

Food Fight

by Leave a Comment

President Trump spoke to a joint session of Congress on Tuesday, March 04, 2025 for 99 minutes. His entrance to and exit from the podium each took about 15 minutes. The Cabinet, the Supreme Court and the Joint Chiefs of Staff were in attendance as were invited guests, members of the media and numerous interested observers. The proceedings were telecast to the world by several media outlets who commentated on the events. The Democratic Party’s selected responder, Senator Elissa Slotkin, spoke briefly after President Trump.

As the President entered the chamber numerous Democrat senators and house members turned their backs, displayed custom designed placards with anti-MAGA comments and did not applaud; virtually all Republican members applauded incessantly, cheered and arose to stand many times. On television, the effect was as if one-half of attendees were at the Super Bowl and the other half were at a funeral. The gathering looked like a combination of sycophants and official witnesses at an execution who alternated between tossing roses and brickbats.

My reaction was to be rhetorically reminded of food fights at summer camp. My guess is the only reason there was no general tossing of rotten eggs is due to the price. My overarching impression was: surely there is a better way for members of our national government to interact concerning issues. I will suggest a couple: The Executive Branch could remain in the West Wing while both houses of the Legislative Branch submit proposed bills for the President’s consideration. The Supreme Court could remain stoic unless called upon to resolve a Constitutional issue. The military could and should remain at each of their designated posts until and unless America needs defending as determined by Congress and the President.

There is no good reason to subject anyone to the burlesque show that taxpayers are paying trillions to endure. If Tuesday night was democracy in action, perhaps we need, at least, less action. I call for no more “Joint Sessions” of any kind. As our mothers made clear, “If you cannot play nice, you will not play”.

You Say You Want A Revolution

by Leave a Comment

Photo by Peg Redwine

The Beatles sang:

♪ You say you want a revolution
…
You say you’ll change the Constitution
Well, you know
We all want to change the world
You tell me it’s the institution
Well, you know
You’d better free your mind instead ♪

I do not know why those British songsters were singing about changing America’s Constitution during the Viet Nam War. Perhaps they were just selling a song or perhaps they felt it was a return to 1776. Regardless, today in the United States it seems a lot of Americans seek to remake America in their own image and the quickest way is a revolution. Of course, not much thought may have gone into what a revolution would truly mean in 2025 et. seq.

On the other hand, James Madison of the small body and the gigantic brain gave the written word to the revolution he had just participated in and the possible future ones he wanted to prevent by designing a United States Constitution based on a theory that all humans seek to expand their power as much as they are allowed. Therefore, for a democracy to continue existing, the bedrock of our country had to be a government made up of separate functions controlled by competing separate and equal powers. As a people we have had a history of teetering from side to side with only occasionally tipping completely over to any one branch gaining too much power.

The Civil War broke out because all three branches chose conflict over compromise on the issues of slavery and the human rights of African Americans. On other visceral issues, such as Native American rights, Women’s right to vote, use of alcohol or marijuana or wars such as World Wars I and II, Korea, Vietnam and Iraq, we have managed to let the struggling of the separate governmental powers find a way to come out in an acceptable equilibrium.

We have had countless opportunities to lose our democracy but have eventually stepped back from the brink. The United States Supreme Court has taken more than one foray into excessive power, such as Dred Scott v. Sandford (1857). During Chief Justice Earl Warren’s reign (1953-1969) the Court’s ultra-liberal rulings had much of the public up in arms. There were even billboards on the highways calling for Warren’s impeachment.

And the Legislative Branch has had its attempts at being the conscience of America also. For example, Wisconsin Senator Joseph McCarthy set himself up to be the ultimate determiner of what a “true American” was. During the era of “McCarthyism” in the 1940’s and 1950’s the American public generally bought into his “Red Scare” tactics until the facts overcame his allegations.

But it has usually been the Executive Branch where the abuse of power has been the most obvious. The most salient example was Franklin Delano Roosevelt who was president from 1933 until his death during his fourth term in 1945. Even though a great majority of both Congress and the American people objected to American involvement in WWII, Roosevelt manipulated the United States into the war. Of course, he had the aggression of Japan to help his argument.

It was Roosevelt’s long-term in office and some of his unpopular policies that brought about the 22nd Amendment to the U.S. Constitution that forbids anyone from serving more than two terms as President. Although some supporters of President Donald Trump have advanced the possibility of an exception to this amendment for President Trump. Such moves on behalf of Donald Trump and the current makeup of the U.S. Supreme Court are raising concerns among anti-Trumpers. There exists the possibility that neither the Supreme Court nor the Legislature may provide a proper balance for our democracy as both may be biased in favor of President Trump, especially as about one-half of the electorate has supported him and his policies.

While a revolution may be extremely unlikely, so have been numerous other shifts in power in America throughout our history. There is no need yet to call for extraordinary action by any branch nor from the news media or the public. However, it is the fabric of our democracy that may be being tested once again. There is no harm in remaining true to the wisdom of our nation’s charter and there could be harm from failing to reference it.

Photo by Peg Redwine

A Teetering Balance

by Leave a Comment

Our federal democracy is seen as having three equal branches that keep our democracy by equally asserting restraints on one another. The Legislative Branch plays its part by having 435 representatives elected for 2-year terms by citizens throughout the country along with 100 senators elected for 6-year terms. These just over 500 individuals have many functions but they really have only one power, providing or restricting funds to themselves and to the other two branches of government, the Executive and Judicial Branches.

 The Executive Branch has thousands of functionaries but its most powerful executive is the President who directly and indirectly heads the military and countless other divisions of that diverse branch. Each of those often nameless bureaucracies has untold, often nameless, functionaries whose functions may hold the key to whether our government functions.

The Judicial Branch is easy to generally designate but much more difficult for the populace and the other two branches to corral as the Judicial Branch has generally defined itself since Marbury v. Madison in 1803. In fact, the Judicial Branch jealously and vigorously spends much of its time struggling to make sure the other two branches do not infringe on its powers, the chief of which is to define what the law allows the other two branches to do.

This theory of a three equal and separate foundation of our democracy works well as long as the powers of each branch remain truly separate and fairly balanced and each branch is composed of greatly dispersed functionaries. It is not a novel observation that our great democracy has remained democratic, mostly, because it remains diverse, dispersed and divided. When power becomes concentrated in a particular individual or individuals or branch, democracy suffers and internecine competitions may arise. Such theoretical and rhetorical battles can, as our Civil War proved, break out into real battles as one or two or even all three of the branches seek dominance.

Currently, we have members of each branch asserting efforts to imprint upon our whole country the vision of a few executives, followed by a few judges, both entities being subject to the status of financial hostages from a powerful few in the Legislative Branch. Now, some may analyze our current imbroglio as evidence our three-branch theory is simply working itself out in practice. That could be true. However, I hypothesize our Founding Fathers may have neglected the Fourth Branch of our social/governmental structure, the citizenry. Normally we have an electorate that, while unhappy perhaps, still finds a way to “soldier on”.

Our current social intercourse pits about one-half of America against the other half, sort of like the times of theDred Scott v. Sandford case of 1857 that led to the Civil War. Much as when a large portion of the United States agreed with the U.S. Supreme Court that African Americans were not citizens while another large portion disagreed. Many Americans today either agree or disagree with Birthright Citizenship and several other issues. One President and at least one federal judge come down on opposite sides of this citizenship issue and probably several others.

Such matters being seen diametrically opposite by each of two of our branches and both branches awaiting input from the Legislative and more importantly the public, creates a situation where our national soul may be at war with itself. What is called for is much more equal and reasonable input from each branch, especially that Fourth Branch, the populace.

70 X 7

by Leave a Comment

Peter eventually made it to the rank of saint; although he may have paid a heavy price for it. Peter was uncouth but Jesus stated he was the foundation of Jesus’ church. According to the New Testament, Jesus and Peter had many one-on-one conversations about theological matters, including forgiveness. In Matthew, Ch. 18, vs. 15-21, Peter asked Jesus, “Lord, how often shall my brother sin against me, and I forgive him? As many as seven times?” Jesus said to him, “I do not say to you seven times, but seventy times seven.”

In other words, both Donald Trump and Hunter Biden are clothed with a robe of get out of jail free cards based on our Constitution’s Presidential Pardon Power. Oklahoma’s State Superintendent of Public Instruction, Ryan Walters, is not correct; America was not founded on Biblical principles but on principles of the European Enlightenment. Its army was led by George Washington who owned slaves and its Constitution was drafted by fellow slave owner James Madison who was Washington’s staunchest supporter. Washington’s physical presence and Madison’s great mental prowess were two of the main building blocks of our country. The President’s Pardon Power was inserted into the Constitution, probably, because most of the Founding Fathers who had a foundation in the history of the monarchies of Europe expected George Washington to become America’s first king and the Pardon Power was most likely a vestige of the European “Divine Right of Kings” to have the “Final Say” in matters calling for mercy. Instead, we might seek guidance from our Founding Fathers and such other secular authorities as Professor Joseph Campbell who taught mythology and literature at Sarah Lawrence College for many years. Unfortunately, Professor Campbell passed away in 1987, but in his 1972 book Myths to Live By at pages 188-189 Campbell wrote:

…. “The modern Western concept of a legal code is not of a list of unassailable divine edicts {such as the Code of Hammurabi or the Ten Commandments for examples} but of a rationally contrived, evolving compilation of statutes, shaped by fallible human beings in council, to realize rationally recognized social (and therefore temporal) aims. We understand that our laws are not divinely ordained; and we know also that no laws of any people on earth ever were.”

Both Joe Biden and Donald Trump must navigate America’s Constitution where Article II, §2, clause 1 provides, “The President shall have Power to grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offences against the United States, except in cases of Impeachment.”

Pardons are granted by democratically elected Presidents. Over the years thousands of pardons have been granted. President Biden has pardoned his own son after repeatedly and publicly stating he would not. Donald Trump may pardon numerous January 06, 2020 defendants after repeatedly and publicly stating he would. Some people find both Presidents’ actions repugnant. If so, they may work to change the people-made Constitution or work to elect somebody else or impeach whomever the country has elected. After all, our Founding Fathers bequeathed to us a democracy based on free will.

 

Existential Threats

by Leave a Comment

An existential risk, in general, is one that could cause the collapse of human civilization, such as nuclear war. An existential risk to democracy is one that could bring about the collapse of individual liberty, such as fascism. This is the theme of The New Republic magazine cover that morphs Donald Trump’s face into Hitler’s. It is, also, the theme of numerous politicians and cable news commentators who have called Trump an existential threat to our American democracy and called for him to be stopped at all costs. Twenty-year-old Thomas Matthew Crooks gave up his own life to try.

In like manner, many politicians and cable news commentators have asserted Joe Biden is corrupt in his personal life and, as president, he has “weaponized” his Justice Department against his political opponents and must be ousted from office. He has been demonized as “Crooked Joe” and vilified as a threat to our democracy due to his advancing age. Although many of us also feel Father Time creeping around.

Some supporters of Biden and some supporters of Trump are indistinguishable in their vociferously clanging brass, or as Ecclesiastes, Ch. 9, v. 17 might say their “… shouting of ruler(s) among fools.” What we need instead are, “The words of the wise heard in quiet ….”

But America may have been blessed with the curse of a near miss on July 13, 2024 when former President Trump somehow survived an assassination attempt and gave both Trump and Biden and their supporters one of life’s greatest and rarest gifts, another chance. And America, itself, would be the beneficiary if we do not squander it.

Biden and Trump are neither one dogs but they might want to reflect on some more wisdom from Ecclesiastes, “But he who is joined with all the living has hope, for a living dog is better than a dead lion,” Ch. 9, v. 4. In other words, even though both men are old they still have the opportunity to go out like lions if they choose wise leadership over foolish rhetoric and actions. Instead of speaking and acting like petulant children they should follow First Corinthians, Ch. 13, v. 11, “When I was a child, I spoke like a child, I thought like a child, I reasoned like a child; when I became a man, I gave up childish ways.” And all it took was one near miss for both of them to have the chance to finally grow up.

Former President Trump is the one who was shot and survived, but Biden is intrinsically entwined by circumstances with Trump’s fate and fortune. Much like many paired adversaries, the fate of one is the fate of both. And Biden is being “shot at” by his own Democrat Party that is pressuring him to simply give up “for the good of the country.” Of course, if instead of standing up and fighting Biden steps aside, whoever replaces him will come from the ranks of those who have also ascribed to the assertions that Trump is an existential threat. Regardless, for now both Biden and Trump are the candidates and just as all of us, they have had that ever present gnawing thought in the middle of the night, “Why didn’t I do or say that differently? Oh, how I wish I had the chance to change what I said or did.” Well, Trump and Biden do now have that chance. They both, even as elderly public servants, have been given the golden gift of an unexpected chance to re-make their personal and public personas. They could take their guidance from that great philosopher, William Shakespeare, whose Prince Hal put off juvenile behavior and clothed himself in royal responsibility. As King Henry, the onetime feckless rogue made himself into a great leader of England upon his father’s death and astonished his people:

“… he (Prince Hal) may be more wondered at by breaking through the foul and ugly mists of vapors that did seem to strangle him.
”Henry IV, Part I, scene II.

Of course, one person will win in November, but whoever the candidates may be they both can rise above the current ad hominem viciousness and provide our country with hope, guidance, wisdom and leadership. Most of us will not get a reprieve from life for our sins and bad judgments. But occasionally life does shoot-at-someone-and miss. Say a cancer diagnosis that turns out to take years instead of days or an unexpected heart attack that we survive. How we respond determines how we expend the rest of our lives and how our family and friends evaluate whether we are honorable in our second chance behavior.

When it comes to Donald and Joe, they now, even at or near 80, have the totally unexpected chance to modify their behavior, and in doing so, help save their country. Such a rare treasure should not be squandered on the shoals of egotistical ambition. Perhaps when each of them awakes in the middle of the night now they will say to themselves, “Thank you for this once in a life-time totally unexpected opportunity.” Then each might become the leader even their opponent did not expect.

Whose Peers?

by Leave a Comment

Former United States President Donald Trump was indicted by a federal grand jury June 8, 2023 in Florida. Trump is entitled to have the charges tried by a jury selected from the state of Florida. CNN and MSNBC are complaining that the prosecution, the federal government, cannot receive a fair trial in Florida, especially before U.S. District Judge Aileen Cannon who is currently assigned to try Trump’s case. Cannon was appointed by President Trump, which is just fine with FOX News.

One way to assuage the fears of some cable news anchors is for Special Prosecutor Jack Smith to have Trump indicted by a grand jury in New Jersey or perhaps Washington, D.C. Trump possessed government documents in both places, both as president and former president. Either jurisdiction would eliminate Judge Cannon and, theoretically, provide a jury pool more favorable to the government and more anti-Trump.

Of course, the appointed judge concern could be remedied by enacting my repeated recommendations for all federal judges to have term limits and to be chosen in fair and free elections. Alas, those pleas have so far been drowned out by the cacophony from the mis-named merit-selection voices. Therefore, we will currently have to deal with our highly political and extremely anti-democratic system of having our federal judges chosen in smoke-filled rooms and the oval office. So, let’s stick with the jury selection issues for Mr. Trump’s case or possibly cases if Jack Smith decides to hedge his bets and bring charges in more government friendly climes than Florida.

To me, our fears should be of potentially fatal damage to our democracy from a country that may have lost sight of how critical public faith in our legal system is. We know there is already great cynicism about our executive and legislative branches. Our constitutional three-branch balancing act relies on faith that when the Presidency and Congress ooze near the abyss, a public belief in a fair, just and independent judicial branch can keep us from teetering over.

One of America’s earliest jury trials illustrates how this fragile system should work. In the 1730’s when we were still British subjects, John Peter Zenger who published The New York Weekly Journal, publicly criticized colonial governor William Cosby who had Zenger arrested. At a jury trial, Zenger’s attorneys persuaded the jury to “nullify” the existing written law and acquit Zenger. Zenger’s peers defied the government. Such action by a Florida jury is the concern of some. What such commentators suggest as a fallback plan is to have Trump tried elsewhere and in front of some judge other than Eileen Cannon.

This Gordian Knot dilemma is what we as a country are experiencing when, for the first time in history, the currently in-office executive branch seeks a jury trial of a former head of the same branch. Such a crucible has all the possible national angst of fire and brimstone speeches from legislators, castigation of all three branches by media pundits, polemics at thousands of taverns, coffee shops and perhaps even religious or educational institutions.

There may be allegations of Star Chamber proceedings, Joan of Arc’s burning at the stake, or even the trial of Jesus. It will be a wild ride but, as long as we do not lose sight of what’s really important, that is Prince Harry’s and Meghan’s travails, as soon as the football season returns, we will be okay.