James M. Redwine

judicial branch

Natural Law, Morality and Democracy

by Leave a Comment

Our homo sapiens species has been around about two to three hundred thousand years. We probably began biologically in Africa with what we assert is our Western culture becoming ascendant in southern Europe about twenty-five hundred years ago. The Greeks and the Romans laid the foundation for our civilization and we still rely upon their theories of what a civilized society should be, especially in regard to morality and law.

History is replete with rising and falling societies that have gone from collectively agreed upon legal systems to usurpation of power by elites that caused the society to fall upon its own sword. While there are many reasons why each “eternal” nation collapsed, as Plato posited in his Republic, a society rules by consensus then by a ruling party in its own interests. The rulers define the laws based upon what the autocrats desire, then define anyone who breaks such laws a wrongdoer. This is the final stage of a great civilization. Law moves from a consensus among a majority of the citizens as to what is right and good to a decree from the powerful based upon what they want.

Thousands of years ago primitive societies found they could live better lives among themselves and with their neighbors if they cooperated on such matters as the sharing of natural resources and respect for the person and property of others. This was the beginning of morality; and still moral behavior by individuals and nations comes down to treating others as we wish to be treated. Gradually, such nascent civilizations came to realize that as Aristotle said, legal systems (laws) were necessary because people could not restrain desire for power. If people were perfect, laws would not be needed but, as we are not, to ensure justice we must have law. And if the laws remain just, a society can survive life’s inevitable chaos.

Such philosophers as Socrates, Plato and Aristotle believed the world was grounded in Natural Law. Law just existed as did gods. Mankind only needed to divine what the gods required and apply such rules to humanity. If mankind ignored this immutable Natural Law, then chaos would rein. This concept of the eternal existence of Natural Law was at the core of most of the great legal theories from the ancient Greeks up to our Founding Fathers and is still prevalent today in many countries. In America, we separated law from superstition and left it to individuals to believe or not. This separation of theocracy from democracy was a new concept 250 years ago and has helped preserve our nation through many moral crises such as the Civil War and political in-fighting today. The First Ten Amendments of our Constitution are the rock by which we thrive.

Experience has proven that relying on a fear of a god or gods to enforce laws fails in the face of human nature. We have found that it is human law that must set limits on the natural tendency of mankind to abuse power. Over the last twenty-five hundred years or so we have sought systems of law that restrain autocratic impulses and protect individual rights. The most successful of such systems so far has been the Separation of Powers legal system as set forth in the United States Constitution.

Our Constitution was not based on Natural Law but upon the theories of such visionaries as Baron de Montesquieu. (1689-1755), John Locke (1632-1704), and especially, James Madison (1751-1836) and James Wilson (1742-1798). Wilson not only was a contributing author to our Constitution but also sat on our first United States Supreme Court. These legal philosophers recognized the major problem of instituting a lasting democratic legal system was preventing autocrats from usurping powers that properly belong to the citizens.

The division of executive power and legislative power as a restraint on one another was not sufficient. The inclusion of a third branch of government, the judiciary, was the piece of the puzzle that our Founders devised to answer this fatal flaw that had occurred in other legal systems which had failed, because as power corrupted the leaders, democracy collapsed into tyranny. In America today, our Legislative Branch has generally abandoned its role of restraining our out-of-control Executive Branch and our Judicial Branch has sometimes not asserted proper restraints on both of the other branches.

Is America in a vulnerable position democratically today? Probably not, as yet. However, when the Executive repeatedly takes the country to war in spite of virtually every poll indicating a significant majority of the electorate objects, and the Legislative Branch is supine in its duties concerning the power to declare war and the Judiciary fiddles away, the will of the people is frustrated and democracy might teeter. This could be one of those times as Greece, Rome and numerous other democracies discovered when it is critical that all three branches not only stay in their lane but gird their Constitutional loins up about them and courageously execute their own Constitutionally defined responsibilities.

You can also follow us on Facebook at “Jim Peg Redwine” or Substack “@gavelgamut”

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.

The Scarlet Bills

by 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.

Insomnia Revisited

by Leave a Comment

If you, as I, have trouble sleeping, this column should help. You may have read last week’s offering concerning the politicization of our federal courts. As warned in that article, today’s Gavel Gamut will further delve into MSNBC Alex Wagner’s suggestion that the legitimacy of America’s federal courts may be undermined by politics. If so, judicial independence and citizen confidence in our Judicial Branch may suffer.

Article III of the United States Constitution provides Justices of the Supreme Court and any lower federal court judges will be appointed by the President and confirmed by the Senate. The right for a citizen to vote for the President and the two senators from the citizen’s state of residence is the total opportunity Americans have to help select an entire branch of our three-branch government. Only the President and the one hundred senators have the constitutional right and opportunity to help select all federal judges. There are federal magistrates and specialty federal judges, such as bankruptcy referees, that are selected by either the sitting judges or special commissions. There are approximately 250,000,000 American citizens eighteen and over (eligible voters) who are cut out of all these selection procedures. So the power to select an entire branch of our government resides in 101 individuals and a few committees.

Further, when it comes to the Supreme Court, the Circuit Courts of Appeal and the District Courts, all these judges have life-time tenure and can only be removed involuntarily by impeachment. There are currently about 1,731 federal judges as appointed by a president. Since our nation’s founding in 1789, articles of impeachment have been brought against 15 federal judges of whom 8 were convicted. Therefore, the American people, except for a president and 100 senators, have no direct say in selecting or removing our federal judges who serve for life. Yet our Executive and Legislative branches are all subject to the will of the people and presidents may only serve 8 years. Our senators and congresspeople serve either 6 or 2-year terms and are subject to periodic popular, partisan elections.

Our system of federal judicial selection eliminates the populace from any control over an entire branch of our separate and equal three branch democracy. If there ever was justification for this extremely parochial and extremely partisan selection procedure for selecting federal judges, it has outlived its purposes. One hundred and one Americans should not have the power to exclude 250 million of their fellow citizens from helping to configure an entire branch of a democratic government.

A constitutional amendment to Article III may be needed if we are to ensure citizens have the option for input into selecting the extremely powerful federal judges who, already according to virtually every political pundit, legal theorist and media commentator, are the product of a shameful partisan vetting. But we have amended our Constitution 27 times for such things as the right to vote for Blacks and women, so we can do it for such an important right as selecting federal judges. Almost every federal judge whose decisions concern such general issues as guns, abortion, immigration, the environment, national defense, education, health care, public entitlements, infrastructure, interstate commerce, criminal justice, voting rights and water rights among many others, when the judge’s identity becomes public during a case, the judge’s name and his/her appointing president is mentioned. Every federal judge in every controversial case is identified as a Trump appointment, a Biden appointment, an Obama appointment or even a Bush appointment. Often the media will even identify the federal judge involved in a contentious case as a “Trump or Biden, etc.” judge. America no longer labors under a belief that federal judges are not the product of a highly partisan process. Therefore, why eliminate almost all Americans from such a transparent power struggle?

I suggest we amend the Constitution to establish a 10-year one-time term for all federal judges. Our existing federal judges who have already served 10 years would remain until the nearest federal election cycle which would not exceed 2 more years. We should pension out all sitting and future judges with their full salaries and benefits in return for them leaving the branch. Such pensions would cost us far less than we have spent in Ukraine or Iraq and we would be buying something of great value, the right to control our own judicial branch.

If we do not address our growing national internecine warfare over our highly political federal judicial selection process, we risk becoming like those countries where the people lose all confidence in the judicial process over which they have no control or even influence.

 

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. Not 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.

Distancing

by Leave a Comment

President Lincoln reportedly used to occasionally sit on the back steps of the White House and talk to old friends who might just drop by. President Truman used to play poker at his Key West, Florida White House with ordinary folks. President Jackson invited the hoi polloi to his inauguration and they came and trashed the White House. There was a time America’s leaders thought of Americans as equals, or at least not as persona non grata. Now there are fences and armed guards at the White House and the only time a president makes personal contact with Americans is to have a photo op. Democracy is now pretty much non-democratic.

Our politicians often ascribe the responsibility for this metamorphosis to need for security, that is, fear of contact with us. I suggest it has more to do with their desire to just pick up their tax payor funded paychecks while being left alone. Kind of like getting COVID-19 checks not to work. Anyway, my experience in working for the public has been that it has not been a concern for my security or anyone else’s that has brought about such distance between public servants and the public. But it comes more from a realization that there simply is very little difference between those who control the government and those who are controlled by it, and the controllers are afraid that will be found out. At least that is true with the judicial branch and the legal system. I invite you, Gentle Reader, to return with me to at least one incident from those “thrilling days of yesteryear” to help me illustrate my concerns about the loss of direct connection to our office holders.

When the State of Indiana used justices of the peace to process most minor legal matters such as driving offenses and small civil claims, the “courts” were often held in the homes or store fronts owned by the justices. One would appear before some non-formally trained person who would dispense justice in a relaxed atmosphere and at little cost. Then we “improved” the system by requiring legally educated and licensed judges and publicly financed court facilities. Everything became more complex, costlier and more distant.

In Posey County, Indiana the County Court that replaced the Justice of the Peace system in 1975 was jammed into a portion of the 1927 Memorial Coliseum Building. The original coliseum was built as a community center. It had a swimming pool, a gymnasium, a stage for shows and a pool table. The new County Court, including the judge’s chamber, took up three small rooms next to where the pool table was. And another feature was the closet in the approximately 20-foot by 30-foot courtroom where the Daughters of the American Revolution ladies kept their regalia to be used in their meetings that also were held in the courtroom.

When I was the Chief Deputy Prosecuting Attorney for Posey County, 1976-1978, I tried six-person jury trials in that courtroom. As we had no separate jury room we would try a case then leave the jury in the courtroom alone to deliberate on their verdict. Everyone in the courtroom could reach out and almost touch everyone else. Of course, there was little pretense of confidentiality. I know it sounds bizarre but it worked okay and no one, including the judge and the attorneys, could arrogate themselves into special status. Please let me tell you about one of my favorite cases from that halcyon time.

I was a little younger then and one of the cases I prosecuted involved a misdemeanor charge against a Billy ______ who was about my age. Billy represented himself in the jury trial. After Billy and I traded accusations and insults during final arguments the judge gave the case to the jury then ordered the courtroom cleared except for the jury. Billy and I stepped out to the adjoining room where both a soft-drink machine and the pool table were located.

As we attempted to ignore one another, Billy turned to me and said, “Hey, Jim, do you play pool?” As I grew up in Pawhuska, Oklahoma at a time when the only thing other than the ball field was the pool hall, of course I played pool.

“Yeah, Billy, I play pool and I can beat you at that too. By the way, I thought you did okay in court, but be prepared for the gavel to fall.” I was much more sure of myself then.

“Jim, do you want to put anything on the pool game?”

“No, Billy, that would be illegal; go ahead and break.” I did not mention that a portion of my tuition at Oklahoma State University came from non-legal lucre.

Well, we played as the jury was busy deciding they didn’t care if I thought Billy was a menace to society; they sided with Billy. Since that trial Billy and I have had several contacts of the legal variety and you may note Billy is still playing pool but now my pool table is in my barn.

In my opinion, America could use a reprise of some of that by-gone legal system where the people who are processed and those who do the processing are not separated by layers of convolution. As Eva Peron might say, ♫ I’ll keep my promise, don’t keep your distance.” ♫