James M. Redwine

Marbury v. Madison

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.

False Flags

by Leave a Comment

Photo by Peg Redwine

The United States Supreme Court has upset the United States Congress since Chief Justice John Marshall created the Court’s power to be the final authority on what our Constitution means. The Court, in the case of Marbury v. Madison, used President Thomas Jefferson’s pride against his logic and traded an insignificant presidential appointment by John Adams, Jefferson’s bitter political enemy and his immediate predecessor, for the immense and previously non-existent “Power of Judicial Review”. Ever since 1803 Congress, the Executive Branch and the American public have regularly wrung their hands as the Court decided numerous atrocious cases such as Dred Scott, Bush v. Gore 2000, Citizens United v. FEC and Dobbs v. Jackson. Yet from 1789 when our Constitution was ratified until today the authority to balance the power of the Supreme Court has been clearly set forth in Articles I, II and III of the Constitution. It just requires that Congress find the courage to do so. Article III provides that justices of the Supreme Court:

“[S]hall hold their offices during good behavior.”

And it is up to the House of Representatives to decide what is “good behavior” and whether a justice has violated it, such as by committing some unethical act. Then the U.S. Senate holds a trial on the charge of impeachment.

In our current legal and political climate many members of Congress have publicly stated some justices have committed impeachable offenses. However, instead of advancing articles of impeachment Congress rails against the Court and demands the Court police itself and come up with written ethical rules and sanctions. Not surprisingly, the justices demur; no one likes to be controlled by anyone else, especially if those anyone elses are as lacking in “good behavior” as the Court.

If Congress wishes to influence the personal behavior of the justices in such areas as conflicts of interest and abuse of their special status, all Congress needs to do is apply the Constitution. On the other hand, we as a country, could find the courage to quit prescribing pain killers and perform some real, curative surgery on the judicial limb of our three-branch government.

It is historically established that Article III’s requirement that United States Supreme Court justices’ good behavior standard is pro forma only. Such instances as a former slave owner, Chief Justice Roger Taney in 1857, deciding slave Dred Scott had no rights that needed to be protected or a majority of Republican appointed justices deciding Republican George W. Bush “won” the presidency in 2000 are simply winked at.

The remedies for our nation’s possibly fatal illness of public loss of confidence in the Court may be painful and difficult to endure, but the alternatives are worse. The impeachment of all justices for every breach of decorum would be wrong, unfair and impractical. It would also not solve our problems.

But if Congress truly wishes to put the balance back in our democracy, I suggest we first institute term limits for justices. Our presidents can serve only 8 years. Perhaps a 10-year term for justices would be workable. Also, federal judges are now nominated by the President and confirmed in the Senate. Why not implement a democratic system for all federal judges so that all citizens, not just a select elite few, would have the right to help choose those whose decisions can affect us all? Of course, such changes will require much thought and input, but all serious illnesses should.

In other words, instead of continuing to complain as we avoid the hard choices, let’s choose the harder right instead of continuing to fly false flags that only apply band aids.

Photo by Peg Redwine

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.

Legal Slight of Hand

by Leave a Comment

After last week’s scintillating column on Constitutional Law I know you are eagerly awaiting promised round two on politics and the United States Supreme Court. Of course, America’s judiciary eschews any notion that court outcomes are sometimes a product of the political views of the judge or judges who decide the cases. At the National Judicial College where I have served as a part-time faculty member since 1995 one of the guiding principles is the effort to have completely impartial judging of all cases. That is a proper goal. However, is that goal always achieved? Let’s take a look behind the black robes of history starting with America’s most famous case, Marbury v. Madison, decided in 1803 a mere sixteen years after the end of the Constitutional Convention that occurred on September 17, 1787.

You may recall that last week we had sought guidance on understanding the U.S. Constitution from law professor Michael Klarman who spoke to the Indiana Graduate Judges Seminar in French Lick, Indiana in June 2019. In his book The Framers’ Coup, The Making of the United States Constitution, Professor Klarman gave an in-depth analysis of the political warfare that produced our Constitution. A similar phenomenon occurred when the fourth Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, John Marshall, blatantly grabbed for the U.S. Supreme Court the immense power to declare whether a particular law was constitutional. Marshall deftly, and unethically, used the virulent hatred between those early Americans who favored a strong central government, the Federalists, and the anti-Federalists who preferred a more citizen-centered national government. John Adams was our second president and he was one of the strongest proponents of a strong central government. Adams was defeated in an election by our third president Thomas Jefferson in a bitterly fought campaign. John Marshall served as Adams’ Secretary of State and Marshall and Jefferson despised one another. Just before Adams’ term as president ran out he appointed John Marshall to be Chief Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court. Marshall was succeeded as Secretary of State by James Madison who, incidentally, later became our fourth president.

Just before John Adams left office he also appointed numerous judges and justices of the peace as a sharp stick in the eye of the incoming president Thomas Jefferson. William Marbury, a wealthy businessman and vocal opponent of Jefferson, was one of Adams’ justice of the peace appointees. While Secretary of State, John Marshall had the duty of signing Marbury’s certificate of appointment and delivering it to Congress. Marshall failed to get that done and the task was left to new Secretary of State James Madison. But President Jefferson, who was angry at John Adams for the last minute appointments, ordered Madison to not deliver Marbury’s certificate. Marbury then filed a law suit in the Supreme Court seeking to have the Court order Madison to give Marbury the certificate of appointment.

If all this intrigue seems rather petty and even perhaps reminiscent of our current political climate involving nasty actions on all sides, well, the pettiness turned out to have a momentous affect on every court case in America after 1803. The squabble may have resembled a tempest in a teapot but Chief Justice John Marshall’s highly political decision in the case resulted in a federal judiciary of immense power, a power not contemplated by many of our Founders and Framers of our Constitution.

Because of his earlier direct connection to Marbury’s appointment John Marshall should have recused himself from the case and should have had no part in it. However, Marshall seized upon Thomas Jefferson’s hatred of John Adams to trade what Jefferson wanted, that is to prevent Adams’ last minute appointments, for a huge leap toward a strong centralized government where the Judicial Branch would have power over decisions of both the Legislative and Executive Branches’ decisions.

What John Marshall and two more members of the then five member Supreme Court decided was that the legislative act that purported to give jurisdiction over cases such as the one brought by Marbury violated the Constitution therefore the Supreme Court had no authority to order Madison to give Marbury his certificate. It might appear to have been a win for Jefferson over Adams, but it was the ultimate Pyrrhic victory as Marshall and all future courts used it as a nuclear weapon in the war between the Federalists and anti-Federalists. Supreme power over what the Constitution meant has resided in the Supreme Court ever since 1803.

For example, in Dred Scott v. Sandford (1857) Chief Justice Roger Taney, a former slave owner, and the U.S. Supreme Court ruled Negro slaves had no rights that the Constitution was bound to protect. Then in George Bush v. Al Gore (2000) a bitterly divided court led by Chief Justice William Rehnquist who had been appointed by Republican President Richard Nixon to be an associate justice then by Republican President Ronald Reagan to be Chief Justice handed the presidential election to Republican George Bush.

So, as America’s judiciary proclaims it must remain independent from outside influences and look only to the law and the facts, it might appear to some cynics that the blindfold often slips. Anyway, I am certain you probably feel the same sense of relief in finishing this column that I did in finishing law school and Professor Klarman’s book. On the bright side however, the rest of your day is bound to get better.