James M. Redwine

Legislative

Our Two Branch Democracy

by Leave a Comment

Photo by Peg Redwine

Pure democratic government involves direct selection of leaders by those who are led. The United States is two thirds of a democracy. The Executive Branch is elected by popular vote every four years. The House of Representatives of the Legislative Branch is elected by popular vote every two years. The Senatorial part of the Legislative Branch is elected by popular vote in staggered parts over six years. The Executive and Legislative Branches then select all members of the federal judiciary. The American public has no direct input in the selection of the Judicial Branch.

Federal judges receive life-time appointments subject only to their own choice or, extremely rarely, impeachment. Supreme Court Justice Samuel Chase (in 1805) was the only U.S. Supreme Court justice to have articles of impeachment brought against him; he was acquitted and continued on the court. Fifteen lower federal court judges have been impeached in American history. Eight were convicted and removed from the court. Four were acquitted and three resigned. We currently have about 1,800 federal judges including 9 Supreme Court justices.

The Judicial Branch of our government is in some ways the most powerful and in every way the least democratic branch. While we have only one President, the President may serve a maximum of eight years and must be elected by popular vote. Of course, the Electoral College is the mechanism we use, but popular vote by the electorate is still the gold standard. That is, we have the right to help choose our Executives. No so our federal judges.

In like manner, we have the right to help choose our state’s Congress people and our state’s two senators. And while there are no term limits for the Legislative Branch, if we choose, we can vote them out. Not so our federal judges.

The historical reasons for how our ideal form of a Three Equal Branch democracy became two equal branches with the Judicial Branch being outside the control of the citizens are complex and, in many ways, convoluted. For the purposes of this column, I ask for a suspension of your legitimate questions about the etiology of how we got to our current non-democratic system. I respectfully recommend an examination of the most famous and momentous U.S. Supreme Court case, Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. (1cranch) 137 (1803). It was the original wrongly decided case that the highly political Chief Justice John Marshall used to outfox his bitter political opponent, President Thomas Jefferson, and usurp out of whole cloth for the Supreme Court the ultimate authority to determine if an act or law was constitutional. That was the beginning of how the federal courts have placed themselves beyond the reach of the citizens and slowly but inexorably created a government that, I submit, James Madison and the other Founders would not recognize. The ideal of a living democracy based on direct citizen involvement in the selection of each of three separate and equal branches of self-government has evolved into bicameral branches of Executives and Legislators who then choose the Judicial Branch.

Most experts now believe it would take an amendment to Article III of our Constitution to return to the purity of the Founders’ vision. If so, that painful and arduous process would be preferable to the alternatives.

Judicial Proclivities

by Leave a Comment

Three of the United States Supreme Court’s own members Elena Kagan, Stephen Breyer and Sonia Sotomayor warn us the Court has appointed itself, instead of Congress or the EPA, the decision maker on climate policy. An outcome the three dissenters found frightening. See the dissenting opinion of Kagan as joined by Breyer and Sotomayor in West Virginia v. EPA decided June 30, 2022. What they meant was that the unelected Supreme Court installed the Judicial Branch as the policy maker for an issue, management of the environment, that should be within the Legislative Branch that is subject to democratic control, as the Court is not.

Most of us are unable to see the irony in our own actions. The same is true of the Supreme Court. The six-member majority of the Court couched its decision in terms of preserving policy making in Congress as opposed to unelected bureaucrats at the Environmental Protection Agency. But, according to the Dissent, what the Court did was simply replace the EPA with the Court as the ultimate decision maker on the broad, critical issues of environmental management.

In the similarly ironical decision Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health handed down 24 June 2022, the same majority set the U.S. Supreme Court up as the final policy maker on the volatile issue of abortion by deciding Roe v. Wade must be overturned and each state should decide the issue.

The same three dissenting justices warned in Dobbs that:

“The Court reverses course today for one reason and one reason only: because the composition of this Court has changed. Stare decisis, this Court has often said, contributes to the actual and perceived integrity of the judicial process by ensuring that decisions are founded in the law rather than in the proclivities of individuals. Today, the proclivities of individuals rule. The Court departs from its obligation to faithfully and impartially apply the law.”

It is not the substance of either the EPA case or the abortion case that is our concern in today’s column. Those emotional issues of global warming and human reproduction are just too volatile and complicated to be adequately discussed in one short column. Instead, what I am struck by is the obtuseness of nine unelected, life-tenured people who arrogate themselves as final arbiters of issues so vital to the lives of 330 million Americans.  Perhaps the Supreme Court has finally brought in to focus that the justices are merely politicians on a micro scale. What I wish to discuss is how we might retain our three equal branches of government through a macro democratic process.

Does any rational observer of the Court deny the justices are simply politicians who wear black dresses and pretend to be apolitical? The justices are not to blame. If you, Gentle Reader, or I were placed by Presidential nomination and Senate confirmation on the Court, we would take our prejudices and “proclivities” with us. The problem lies not with the members of the Court but with the undemocratic way they are selected coupled with their life-time tenure. It is our Court and our Constitution and we should change both.

We have amended our Constitution 27 times. We should do so again. I suggest that the members of the U.S. Supreme Court and all federal judges be elected in a non-partisan election for one 10-year term. Once their term is honorably served, we should pay them their full salary for life and they should never serve as a judge again. The impeachment process should remain an option in case we make a mistake.

In summary, federal judges are no better or no worse than the rest of us. They are human, they have “proclivities”, they are politicians. We should drop the façade of “philosopher kings” and have our federal judges recognized as a full-fledged branch of our democracy as selected via a democratic process.

Lemonade

by Leave a Comment

Photo by Peg Redwine

Liberals are upset that the leak from the U.S. Supreme Court may signal that the case of Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113 (1973), may be overturned or, as is more likely, modified. Conservatives are upset there was a leak from the Supreme Court that may allow public pressure from Liberals to influence the Court to not modify Roe’s holdings.

Neither Roe v. Wade nor the case that followed it, Planned Parenthood v. Casey, 505 U.S. 833 (1992), is before the Supreme Court for decision. They could be referred to and overturned or reaffirmed by the Court within its decision of the pending case of Dobbs v. Jackson, No. 19-1392 that will be decided in 2022. As there has not yet been an official decision in Dobbs, it does not have an official public citation.

Liberals celebrate the leak and abhor the substance of the draft opinion authored by conservative justice Samuel Alito. Conservatives celebrate the preliminary opinion and abhor the leak. Both Liberals and Conservatives find reasons to attack the institution of the Third Branch of our democracy as they clamor for it to be fundamentally changed. Liberals want to “pack” the Court so as to dilute its current conservative majority. Conservatives want a vigorous investigation into the leak with the hope the public will be outraged if some left-leaning leaker is identified as the culprit.

I agree with Shakespeare’s character, Mercutio, in Act III, scene 1 of Romeo and Juliet when his imminent death results due to an irrational feud between the families of the lovers:

“A plague on both your houses!”

However, if we are to be constantly accosted by railings of both Liberals and Conservatives about the need for modifications in the United States Supreme Court, let us consider making some constructive changes. After all, no rational American wants to do away with the Court. We all know one of the main reasons our country has outlived every other constitutional democracy on earth is our equally competing three branches of government. We must support the maintenance of all three, including the Judicial Branch.

When it comes to the Judicial Branch, political commentators often assert it is non-political and must remain so. They are correct if they mean the actual decisions of the Court. No judge should allow political influence to affect his or her decision. But when it comes to maintaining the public’s confidence in the non-political basis of a judge’s decision, it is the processes of judicial selection and retention that are most important.

One reason the public believes the members of the Supreme Court are politically motivated is because the public has no influence on how the justices get their life-time jobs nor any realistic way to remove them. Presidents are elected every four years with the possibility of only one more four-year term. Representatives are elected every two years and Senators are elected every six years. The public has a right to remove them. Supreme Court justices are nominated by one person, the President, as the President sees fit. The public’s influence is greatly attenuated, in fact, virtually non-existent.

At a minimum, the public should have the assurance that many of the most vital issues of their lives will not be at the mercy of the same five-member majority of the Supreme Court for an unknown period. Perhaps our current national furor could be a catalyst to, at least, set term limits for the Supreme Court justices. A ten-year term is what I suggest but the public, through its federal Legislature, should decide such issues. It is fair and in our own best interest in getting well-qualified justices who are willing to serve, to grant the retired justices generous life-time pensions once their term is up. But in return, the retired justices would agree to neither seek nor accept another judicial position ever again.

The possibility of term limits for the Supreme Court might help assuage the current calls by Liberals and Conservatives to radically control what must remain one of our three independent branches of government. Term limits is a better solution than a continuing loss of public confidence in and, perhaps, a loss of independence for, our Supreme Court. In other words, we do not want to make the same types of mistakes as did Romeo and Juliet in their final Act. We do not need to continue on our road toward possible suicide for our democracy.

p.s. Gentle Reader, Peg and I have two upcoming book signings for our new historical novel, Unanimous for Murder, that is a sequel to JUDGE LYNCH!. The first is May 17, 2022 from 10 a.m. to 4 p.m. at the Osage County Historical Society Museum at 700 Lynn Avenue in Pawhuska, Oklahoma. The second is May 20, 2022 at Capers Emporium, 602 Main Street, New Harmony, Indiana from 2 p.m. to 5 p.m. Please drop by and say hello!

The World’s Greatest Deliberative Body

by Leave a Comment

James Buchanan was the American president from 1857-1861 and is credited with that description of the United States Senate as a place for respectful, intelligent and impassioned debate. Such luminaries as Henry Clay, Daniel Webster and John Calhoun forged a senate known for its ability to get hard jobs done well. Those three served when the annual pay was $5,000. Today, Senator Rand Paul of Kentucky earns $174,000 per year as one of our one hundred senators.

Henry Clay represented Kentucky also. Clay was called the Great Compromiser due to his ability to get senate consensus on such volatile issues as war, then peace, with Great Britain in 1812-1814 and preservation of the union during ante-bellum days. Anthony Fauci is not a senator but he is our highest paid federal employee, $434,312 per year, as the Director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases and as the chief medical advisor to the President of the United States. On July 20, 2021 Senator Paul and Dr. Fauci sat in the hallowed chamber where Henry Clay used to orate. Their exchange about the Wuhan China laboratory funds received from America was notably different from issues concerning war and slavery. It went something like this, “You are a liar!” and “You are another!” If the famous Ohio River brawler Mike Fink (c. 1770-c. 1823) had been involved, either Paul or Fauci might have been challenged to knock a red feather off the other’s shoulder. Or if two twelve-year-old boys during a school recess had been at odds one might have shoved the other and kicked dirt on him.

For several hundred thousand dollars in salaries and such seeming trivialities as a world pandemic involved, one might expect the World’s Greatest Deliberative Body to be, well, more deliberative. As reported over the cable news networks, Paul and Fauci were each claiming the other was not just incorrect on the arcane science known as gain-of-function research; the direct accusations were that both public servants were deliberately misleading their employers, i.e., you and me, Gentle Readers.

Further, Paul accused Fauci of perjury before Congress and Fauci pointed a bony finger at Paul and yelled that Paul was intentionally confusing the facts. I do not know about you but I have found this Wuhan gain-of-function thing confusing enough on its own. Our leaders need not obfuscate things further. Research into how science can manipulate the genetic code of the coronavirus in order to create new more deadly ones sounds ominous enough. And according to some reports, the mysterious Wuhan Laboratory “Bat Lady”, Shi Zhengle, has already combined the genes of two bat viruses with genes from a SARS related strain to make a new and even more deadly virus. I am thinking we all might want to step back a way. Supposedly the good reason for such research is to prepare us for some future deadly disease. Unfortunately, history teaches us the altruistic motivations do not always win out.

Paul got his medical degree from Duke University and Fauci got his from Cornell University. They should know better than to bandy about with such concepts as world plagues, present or future. I respectfully suggest we may want to use the resources of the World’s Greatest Deliberative Body for good and not expend our precious and limited resources on schoolboy shouting matches while Washington, D.C. burns.

A Delicate Balance

by Leave a Comment

Five-foot, four inch tall “Little Jimmy”, James Madison, Jr. (1751-1836), applied his gigantic intellect to melding the Natural Law theory of John Locke (1632-1704) and the Separation of Powers theory of Charles Montesquieu (1689-1755) into the Constitution of the United States. Locke and Montesquieu postulated that all things being equal no person should harm another in his/her life, liberty, health or possessions. They, along with Madison, also believed that every person who has power is apt to abuse it. Therefore, governments are necessary to keep individual power in check but the power of government must also be kept in check.

According to Edgar Bodenheimer (1908-1991) in his treatise on jurisprudence:

“The basic idea of the American Declaration of Independence as well as the Bill of Rights is the recognition of the natural and inalienable rights of life, liberty, and property, as conceived by Locke, while the main body of the United States Constitution is a practical application of Montesquieu’s doctrine of separation of powers. The connection between these two doctrines in the American government is made by the theory of judicial review. The United States Supreme Court has held that, in order to guarantee the enforcement of natural rights, the power to make laws must be separated not only from the power to execute laws, but also from the power to review laws with their regard to their conformity with higher principles, as recognized by the United States Constitution. Thus, in the United States the courts, and especially the United States Supreme Court, have assumed guardianship over natural law.”

See Bodenheimer, Jurisprudence at p. 146

This separation of powers has served America well since 1789. As is to be expected in matters as complex as government and politics the powers of the three branches have each waxed and waned from time to time. However, we have always managed to keep our democracy by remaining moored to the rock upon which it was founded. Just as our founders recognized that individuals and governments will abuse power unless checked, they also recognized the danger and guarded against any of the three branches having unfettered power. The wisdom of Madison, et. al., is once again being tested. Has the Executive Branch gone outside its traces and incited violence against the Legislative Branch? Has the Legislative Branch blurred the boundaries that should keep all three branches separate by both charging an impeachment and then filling the role of the Judicial Branch by having one of its own members serve as the presiding officer at the trial? And, has the Judicial Branch been marginalized because the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court will not be serving as the neutral and detached trial judge as designed by our Founders.

For as Bodenheimer points out, “Any abuse of its power by the legislature should be curbed by the Judiciary Branch of the government, to which falls the duty of declaring void all statutes which are repugnant to the Constitution.” See Bodenheimer, Jurisprudence, at page 148. Perhaps Chief Justice John Roberts and the rest of the Supreme Court are anticipating being confronted with such an issue later.

The crimes that were committed on January 06, 2021 are being investigated and several alleged perpetrators have already been identified and charged. Numerous others will and should be. America’s normal criminal justice system can fairly and efficiently provide due process to those involved. If Donald Trump committed any state or federal crimes either on or before January 06, 2021 he can be prosecuted separately from the impeachment. And if a pardon is considered it would cover only federal offenses.

In our current test of our charter’s application, the Legislative Branch has filed an article impeaching the head of the Executive Branch, former President Donald Trump. It is alleged he engaged in:

“[H]igh crimes and Misdemeanors by inciting violence against the Government of the United States” on January 06, 2021 and for in the months preceding January 06, 2021 repeatedly issuing false statements asserting that the Presidential election results were the product of widespread fraud and should not be accepted by the America people or certified by State or Federal officials.

The Article of Impeachment was returned against President Donald Trump on January 13, 2021 while he was still the acting President. On January 25, 2021 after Donald Trump’s term had ended, the Article of Impeachment was sent to the Senate for trial. The Senate has set the trial to begin February 09, 2021 with Senator Patrick Leahy, Democrat from Vermont, to preside and the senators to serve as jurors.

Article I, Section Three, of the U.S. Constitution provides that in the trial of the President of the United States the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court shall preside. For reasons not yet fully explained, Chief Justice John Roberts will not be involved, so only two of our three equal branches of government will be embroiled in this matter of grave national concern. It is suggested that this is because Donald Trump is no longer President. However, that does not take into consideration the bed rock reason why the Founders made it mandatory for the Judicial Branch to be involved.

The impact of this omission upon public confidence in the fairness of the process is worthy of consideration. After all, it is not Donald Trump’s fate that is most important, but the country’s faith in the process that determines that fate. However, this faith might be shaken by a trial where the role of a “neutral and detached magistrate” is filled by a member of the body that both files and prosecutes the charge. Symbolism is important and a level scales of justice is one of our nation’s most potent and delicately balanced symbols.

Independence Day

by 1 Comment

Lexington Minuteman
Lexington Battle Green, MA

The Fourth of July is called Independence Day with good reason. Our Founders were willing to die for the right to control their own lives. They were not seeking war with the most powerful nation on Earth in 1776. They were not attempting to dictate to King George III how the English should behave. They sought only free will for America to determine its own course. In these troubled times we are now navigating, perhaps a look back to America’s early struggles might be helpful.

We may wish we could ask George Washington or James Madison for advice. But the best we can do is read about past heroes’ courage and sacrifice and try to learn lessons that will help us during our own battles.

For example, one of my heroines is Frances (Mad Fanny) Wright, that fighter for women’s rights, Black rights and freedom from religion who spoke in New Harmony, Indiana on July 04, 1828. Oh, how much we could learn if we could speak with her now. However, we do know she dedicated her life and fortune to eliminating slavery. Had she lived only nine more years she would have experienced the start of the Great Struggle that ended a whole race of Americans’ loss of control over their lives.

Control, isn’t that what matters most to all of us? The visceral need for the freedom to make our own choices is why on that day we now call Patriots Day, April 19, 1775, at Lexington and Concord those suppressed colonists “Fired the shots heard ’round the world”. And in our current political climate when Americans get embroiled in political discussions it sometimes feels as if both sides have muskets at the ready.

When I find myself surrounded by the competing political mini balls, I try to remember this is nothing new. Over the two or three hundred thousand years we Homo sapiens have been around, after air, water, food, shelter and procreation we seem to have two more basic needs: the control of our own lives; and the strong desire to control the thoughts and behavior of others. These two related but directly oppositional impulses apply to groups of people and nations as well. You know, we will each defend to the death the right of our political adversaries to agree with us. But conversations can rapidly turn to confrontation if someone comes down on what we believe is the wrong side of such issues as religion, race, global warming, immigration, war and peace, who should or should not be President of the United States and a thousand other subjects.

The right to control our own lives makes us smile. The desire to control other peoples’ lives can lead to such things as vitriolic statements and sometimes even vicious interchanges in our public and interpersonal interactions. Sometimes today’s discussions about control may center on sexual assault and the “Me Too Movement” or hate crimes and “Black Lives Matter”.

Rape is a terrible crime not because of forced sexual contact, billions of humans have had sexual relations. No, rape is a terrible crime because of the victims’ loss of their right to decide for themselves whether and with whom to have sex. The fear, terror, anger and humiliation caused by losing total control of one’s body is incalculable. It is in itself a life sentence that can lead to permanent bitterness toward and distrust of our legal system much as lynchings can result in an entire race of people living with constant concern about their freedom.

Lynchings, such as those that were committed on the Posey County, Indiana courthouse lawn on October 12, 1878, are a collective denial of another’s right to control their own destiny. And it is not just the victims who lose, but even those who deny justice to others may reap the whirlwinds of retaliation and political correctness.

Wars of aggression, not constitutionally authorized wars for national defense, are our country’s intentional denial of another country’s or people’s right to independently determine their own destiny. One of the main causes of our country’s post-WWII denials of the right of other countries to control their own lives are wars instigated by independent executive action without congressional authorization.

We can each quickly cite evidence of such wars based on false premises and rash executive action. President Lyndon Johnson used the shaky premise of the Tonkin Gulf Resolution to get us hopelessly embroiled in Vietnam. President George W. Bush relied on false intelligence reports that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction and was involved in 9/11. President Bush then precipitously led us into what appears to be an endless and pointless war in the Middle East.  As Pete Seeger’s song “Where Have All The Flowers Gone?” asks us, “When will we ever learn?, when will we ever learn?”

Our Founders’ wisdom of placing the authority to wage war in congress is that such a procedure keeps all of our citizens more closely involved in these grave decisions. And, it requires much more careful deliberation when congress is involved. Also, when we eliminated the military draft, we turned from a citizen minute man type military to a professional and less ecumenical type force. To make the tragic choice to go to war all Americans should feel the direct cost. It is too easy to hire others to impose our will on the powerless. With a professional standing military our armed forces never stand down. And the temptation for any of our presidents to play with these awesome powers as if they were toy soldiers is too intoxicating for most to resist. Of course, the draft is one of the ultimate impositions of loss of control. Our country should only use it when our national survival is truly at issue. And then it should include all able-bodied adult citizens. Not everyone needs to serve on the front lines but everyone can serve somehow.

One of the good things we received from one of our British cousins were John Locke’s Enlightenment philosophies as highlighted by the doctrine of separation of governmental powers. Our independence as a nation has survived great trauma due in large part to our three separate and equal political powers: Executive; Legislative; and, Judicial. We forget this at our peril. Control of our lives is an inherent need for individuals and nations and, if lost, can lead to long-term bad effects for both the invaders and the invaded. Freedom of choice is essential to our personal and national well-being. Our Founders enshrined that opportunity for us in our Constitution and that is what we celebrate on Independence Day as we struggle to afford that right to all of our citizens.