• Skip to primary navigation
  • Skip to main content

James M. Redwine

  • Books
  • Columns
  • 1878 Lynchings/Pogrom
  • Events
  • About

Legislative

Food Fight

March 5, 2025 by Peg 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”.

Share this:

  • Click to share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook
  • Click to share on X (Opens in new window) X
  • Click to email a link to a friend (Opens in new window) Email
  • Click to share on WhatsApp (Opens in new window) WhatsApp

Like this:

Like Loading...

Filed Under: America, Democracy, Executive, Gavel Gamut, Judicial, Legislative, Military Tagged With: anti-MAGA comments, burlesque show, Cabinet, democracy, Democratic Party, executive branch, food fights, James M. Redwine, Jim Redwine, Joint Chiefs of Staff, Joint Session of Congress, legislative branch, President Trump, Republican, Senator Elissa Slotkin, Supreme Court, West Wing

You Say You Want A Revolution

February 4, 2025 by Peg 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

Share this:

  • Click to share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook
  • Click to share on X (Opens in new window) X
  • Click to email a link to a friend (Opens in new window) Email
  • Click to share on WhatsApp (Opens in new window) WhatsApp

Like this:

Like Loading...

Filed Under: America, Authors, Democracy, Executive, Gavel Gamut, Judicial, Legislative, Native Americans, Race, War, Women's Rights Tagged With: 22nd Amendment, Civil War, Donald Trump, Dred Scott, Franklin Delano Roosevelt, Iraq, James M. Redwine, James Madison, Jim Redwine, Joseph McCarthy, Korea, Revolution, The Beatles, U.S. Constitution, U.S. Supreme Court, Viet Nam War, World War I and II

A Teetering Balance

January 29, 2025 by Peg 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.

Share this:

  • Click to share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook
  • Click to share on X (Opens in new window) X
  • Click to email a link to a friend (Opens in new window) Email
  • Click to share on WhatsApp (Opens in new window) WhatsApp

Like this:

Like Loading...

Filed Under: America, Democracy, Executive, Gavel Gamut, Judicial, Legislative Tagged With: Civil War, democracy, Dred Scott v. Sandford, executive branch, Fourth Branch, James M. Redwine, Jim Redwine, judicial branch, legislative branch, Marbury v. Madison, populace, three equal branches

Whose Peers?

June 19, 2023 by Peg 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.

Share this:

  • Click to share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook
  • Click to share on X (Opens in new window) X
  • Click to email a link to a friend (Opens in new window) Email
  • Click to share on WhatsApp (Opens in new window) WhatsApp

Like this:

Like Loading...

Filed Under: America, Democracy, Executive, Gavel Gamut, Judicial, Legislative Tagged With: Donald Trump, federal judges term limits, indicted by federal grand jury, James M. Redwine, Jim Redwine, three branch system of democracy

The Scarlet Bills

May 15, 2023 by Peg Leave a Comment

Congress is demanding a code of ethics for the U.S. Supreme Court. So is the national news media. Congress and the media may not see eye to eye on much but they do agree that the Judicial Branch should be controlled by the Legislative Branch. It appears the ideology of Israel’s Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has infiltrated the American Garden of Eden with a poisoned pome and Congress is champing to chomp.

Congress teaching ethics to the Supreme Court is like Helen of Troy teaching matrimonial loyalty to Hamlet’s mother. If Congress were medical advice providers we might say, “First heal yourselves.” Be that as it may, there is little doubt the Supreme Court could use some ethical lessons. However, as a separate and equal branch of our three-branch democratic republic, I prefer the courts remain independent even if they sometimes teeter on a fulcrum between questionable personal behavior and unquestioned legerdemain. Such cases as Dred Scott in which the one-time slave holder, Chief Justice Roger Taney who did not recuse himself, decided the Negro Dred Scott had no rights that America’s white society was bound by law to recognize come to mind.

No, Congress should not be looking for the log in the eyes of the Supreme Court but should be initiating a Constitutional amendment that would ensure America’s citizens, not a few highly partisan politicians, would have the choice as to who and for what term judges would serve. I do not know, Gentle Reader, if you have read my numerous columns on electing judges to one fairly short term. I only know for sure that Peg read them because I refused to comply with her many varied domestic demands until she did. However, if by some chance you did read them you know my preference is a truly democratic judicial selection process.

Non-partisan elections of competing, qualified judicial candidates for one 10-year term and life-time pensions are my suggestion. Advice on ethics for anyone from our Congress rings hollow.

Share this:

  • Click to share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook
  • Click to share on X (Opens in new window) X
  • Click to email a link to a friend (Opens in new window) Email
  • Click to share on WhatsApp (Opens in new window) WhatsApp

Like this:

Like Loading...

Filed Under: America, Democracy, Elections, Executive, Gavel Gamut, Judicial, Legislative Tagged With: Benjamin Netanyahu, Congress, Dred Scott, Gentle Reader, Hamlet, Helen of Troy, James M. Redwine, Jim Redwine, judicial branch, legislative branch, non-partisan elections of judicial candidates, Roger Taney, three-branch democratic republic, U.S. Supreme Court

The Founders

March 17, 2023 by Peg Leave a Comment

Reminder at a coffee shop in Batumi, Georgia

When our son, Jim, was stationed with the U.S. Army in Germany he visited the old Soviet Union just before the collapse of the Berlin Wall in 1989. He told us the very few other Americans he saw in what became modern Russia were easy to spot; they were the only ones smiling. I noticed that same phenomenon among the public when I worked for a couple of weeks in the Republic of Ukraine in 2000. Then when Peg and I spent a week working in Russia in 2003 we noted everyone but the two of us wore dark clothes and dark expressions.

Our recent eight-month experience working with the judiciary in the Republic of Georgia, once part of the old Soviet Union and bordering Russia, reinforced these impressions of uncertainty given out by the Georgian people who are ostensibly in a now free and democratic country; however, they appeared to us to be hedging their bets due to fear of their Russian neighbor.

Peg and I could not have been treated any more courteously than we were by our new Georgian friends who were generous and great fun to live and work among. We had a marvelous experience and learned a great deal. One thing we already knew, but had not fully appreciated until sharing with the Georgians whose small country is across the Black Sea from Ukraine, was how fortunate we are as Americans to not only be free but to feel free.

The people of Georgia were open and friendly with us whether at court, our other meeting places or on the streets. We were fully accepted, often objects of curiosity and were constantly asked, “How are things done in America?” You see, Gentle American Reader, Russia occupies 20% of the “Republic” of Georgia and is a constantly looming presence, at least mentally, in most Georgian psyches. Freedom there is established by law but is quite uneasy. The friendliness and good will of the countless Georgian citizens we worked and socialized with was unforced and generous. However, our Georgian acquaintances usually found an opportunity to express their good will and appreciation toward America and their almost universal desire to come here. It was reassuring and gratifying to experience how other people respected our home country.

I guess it is sort of like Mark Twain’s epiphany, “When I was a teenager, I could not believe how ignorant my father was, but by the time I turned 21 I was amazed at how much the old man had learned.” In much the same manner, Peg and I were brought to fully appreciate living in a truly free country. It is one thing to be physically in a country called a democracy, and it is an entirely different feeling to live in America where, as Lee Greenwood sings, “I am proud to be an American where at least I know I’m free.”

The dreams and aspirations of our new Georgian friends also affected our understanding of people risking their lives and sacrificing everything to get to America, you know, as many of our ancestors did. Even native-born Americans such as Peg and I owe huge debts to the brilliance and courage of many immigrants and their progeny who helped make these United States, as Katherine Lee Bates and Samuel A. Ward wrote in America the Beautiful, “Oh beautiful for pilgrim feet whose stern impassioned stress, a thoroughfare for freedom beat across the wilderness.”

Or as Frances Williams and Marjorie Elliot in their song Hymn to America, Let There Be Music called for, an America where, “May kindness and forbearance make this land a joyous place, where each man feels a brotherhood, unmarred by creed or race.” We recognize our country’s imperfections and sins of the past and present. But, America’s beacon of freedom expiates many of our failings. And, once one leaves America she or he understands why regardless of our shortcomings, as Neil Diamond sings, “From all across the world they’re coming to America.” Why? Because, “They only want to be free.”

Gentle Reader, haven’t you often wished you could travel back in time to when our country was founded? Wouldn’t it be something special to meet and talk with such dreamers, heroes and revolutionaries as George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, John Adams, James Madison, Alexander Hamilton and others? Perhaps we could have even joined in that difficult and dangerous struggle for freedom that now we can only read about, but thanks to them and others, we enjoy every day. Of course, who knows if we would have dared join in that revolt against Great Britain, the most powerful nation on earth in the 1700’s. And if we had lived then and had shown the courage of our Forefathers, we as they might have been blind to the hypocrisy and irony of fighting for our own freedom as we denied Native Americans, Blacks and women theirs. Heroes do not have to be perfect to strive for, “[A] more perfect union.”

Many of our Georgian friends are publicly standing up to a large portion of their government that has chosen to abide by Russia’s infiltration into Georgia. It takes courage to risk freedom to seek freedom. A large portion of the Georgian government is sympathetic to Russia while the majority of the citizens yearn for a true freedom that does not require a subtle fealty to what remains of the old Soviet Union.

Peg and I were impressed by the bravery of our Georgian friends and, especially, the boldness of the women. It reminded us of what it might have been like to know Martha Washington, Martha Jefferson, Abigail Adams, Dolly Madison and Eliza Hamilton. You know, our Founding Mothers, without whom we in America might well be the Georgians of today, “Yearning to be breathe free.” I will not name our courageous Georgian friends, both women and men, as the penalties for seeking a true democracy may well be severe. But I do admire their willingness to risk all for what our Founders risked for us. When Peg and I finally returned to Osage County, Oklahoma, U.S.A. we found ourselves gratefully humming that song by Woody Guthrie about America’s birthright, This Land Is Your Land. Apparently even depression era America felt good as long as it was free; freedom renders hardships bearable.

Our time working abroad showed Peg and me we had to leave America to truly appreciate what it might feel like to lose it. We are products of the 1960’s and have long recognized and often pointed out the U.S.A. is not perfect. But no place is and it sure beats all the alternatives we have seen. As for our Georgian friends, many of them are concerned that Russia will not respect Georgia’s 8,000 years of history and tradition and will seek to control the remaining 80% of that beautiful but small and vulnerable country.

That the concerns of numerous of our Georgian friends are well justified has been recently validated by the ruling political power’s attempt to push through two Russian influenced statutes that sought to prohibit and punish “foreign influence.” Due to strong public protests that some of our Georgian colleagues joined, the ruling party withdrew the bills, for now. However, under these proposed draconian laws, as Americans sent to Georgia to help Georgia’s judges seek more independence, Peg and I might well have come under scrutiny for our actions since our mission was fully funded by the United States Agency for International Development, the American Bar Association and the East-West Management Institute, all of which could be classified by Russia or the Georgian Parliament as “foreign influencers.” Judicial Independence is not a goal of Georgia’s controlling political party. Peg and I are glad to be home but are concerned about our Georgian friends as there is still much important and difficult work to be done and we hope America continues to “influence” our friends’ courageous efforts to do it.

Share this:

  • Click to share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook
  • Click to share on X (Opens in new window) X
  • Click to email a link to a friend (Opens in new window) Email
  • Click to share on WhatsApp (Opens in new window) WhatsApp

Like this:

Like Loading...

Filed Under: America, Democracy, Friends, Gavel Gamut, Judicial, Justice, Legislative, Native Americans, Osage County, Patriotism, Russia, Slavery, Ukraine, United States, Women's Rights Tagged With: a more perfect union, America, America the Beautiful, Blacks, democracy, draconian laws, foreign influence, Founders, freedom, friendly, Gentle Reader, Georgia, good will, Hymn to America, James M. Redwine, Jim Redwine, Lee Greenwood, Mark Twain, Native Americans, Neil Diamond, Russia, This Land is Your Land, Ukraine, Women's Movement

  • Page 1
  • Page 2
  • Go to Next Page »

© 2025 James M. Redwine

 

Loading Comments...
 

    %d