REMEMBERING ED

Ed and I were colleagues in the same school district for three years. He was a high school principal and I was an elementary school principal, so we ran in different circles and were not close. Yet, I noticed some things about Ed that set him apart from his peers.

First, some background information is needed. Ed was brought to our district from another state to lead a high school which had three principals the previous school year. His mandate was to get order in the school so the students could achieve academically and socially. From what I gathered, he was doing a good job about it but he was hampered, much like I was, by often changing district directives and guidelines.

I am not sure what finally broke the bond between Ed and the district leaders. During his third year a student incident occurred in his school and the district held him directly responsible for it. His contract was not renewed and without tenure, another district position was not available to him. What bothered me personally was the open public disdain some district leaders had for Ed.

Ed moved back to his hometown in another state and became the elementary school principal in that district as well as the high school baseball coach. Eventually he was promoted to superintendent of the district. My thought was, “Good for him!” Then earlier this week I learned that last year Ed had suddenly died in his home at the age of 52. No cause was given for his passing, but the situation did not seem to be Covid-related.

So, what was it about Ed that made him stick out of the crowd for me? First, his demeaner was positive and friendly. Whenever Ed and I greeted one another, he was very cordial. Second, he had a quiet confidence. Not once in principal meetings we attended did I hear him brag about himself in any way. Third, he was an encourager. A year after Ed left the district I retired after receiving my own underserving treatment from district leaders. I wrote Ed and he was very empathic about my plight. Fourth and finally, Ed did not give up. He was an educator, and he remained an educator. I admired him for his persistence and perseverance in the wake of adversity.

People like Ed need to be remembered beyond their families and communities for their service. Thanks, Ed!

 

PERSISTENT BOUTS OF CHRISTIANITY

 [This brief sermonic essay demonstrates my interest in how literature can be connected to faith.]

In his commentary on English religious controversies in the mid-nineteenth century author Anthony Trollope in his Chronicles of Barsetshire series tells stories about the inhabitants of the fictional cathedral city of Barchester in the also fictional county of Barsetshire.

One of Trollope’s novels entitled The Warden centers on Mr. Septimus Harding. an elderly priest who is assigned as the warden of a home for aged men. Mr. Harding is a simple man of piety who desires to do his duties with diligence and reverence. His son-in-law, Mr. Theophilus Grantly, is the archdeacon (administrator) of the Barchester Cathedral and unlike his father-in-law is a vain man who cares primarily about appearances and propriety, Mr. Grantly’s father is the Bishop of Barchester, the man who appointed Mr. Harding as warden.

One day an investigative reporter arrives from London to find dirt on the cathedral, and he finds it in the men’s home. It seems that over the years, unbeknownst to the warden, the heads of the home have been profiting from the clients. For the warden the only honorable act to do is to resign and he does. in time becoming the priest of a small parish with a smaller income than he had previously enjoyed as the home’s warden. His son-in-law strongly opposes this move and when it happens, he explains to his associates that his father-in-law has “persistent bouts of Christianity.”

Persistent bouts of Christianity? Is consistently living a life of faith within Christian tenets like having the flu, a cough, a runny nose- an illness likely to be cured in a matter of time. Perhaps to the archdeacon and others in the Victorian culture of England, it was; and many more in our contemporary scene, it is. So, if the following indicate a persistent bout of illness-

·       Devoted to the Kingdom of God fired by a robust biblical imagination

·       Living abundantly in loving and serving God and others

·       Committed to justice, especially for those who have been marginalized

·       Committed to peace and reconciliation

·       Devoted to a life of seeking spiritual wisdom

Then I would rather be sick in (not sick of) Christianity! Last Sunday my church had a guest preacher who shared a Russian proverb- Those infected with the disease of Jesus will never be cured. So then, let us be like our fictional friend Mr. Harding and have persistent bouts of Christianity.

  

THE THREE-FIFTHS CLAUSE: PRAGMATIC OR WICKED?

  

Perhaps the most miscommunicated part, misunderstood, and controversial part of the United States Constitution is Article 1, Section 2, Clause 3, which reads:

Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons [italics added].

This is the enigmatic Three-Fifths Clause which has been interpreted by liberals and conservatives alike as the Constitution, until the addition of the Thirteenth Amendment, ascertained the legal status of black slaves as only three-fifths of a person.  Undoubtedly, the clause is referring to slaves but not as to their legal status of personhood, but to how they were to be counted in each state’s population for the number of representatives in the House of Representative and for federal taxes.

Rather than being wicked, this clause was a pragmatic barrier against largely slave-owning states using their large slave populations to booster their numbers in the House of Representatives and in the number of electors to choose the president. And this compromise in the Constitutional Convention of 1787 was part of a larger debate of how the Congress would be structured.

Cross-current with the slave debate was the issue of large states and small states. Obviously, the smaller states did not want to lose too much status and influence with the new national government so the Senate would have two senators from each state regardless of population and the House of Representatives based on the population of each state. To prevent the largely Southern slave states having too much influence, the Three-Fifths Compromise was introduced and quickly adopted at the convention.

The foundation of this compromise was in the Confederation Congress as part of an amendment proposed in 1783 to change the basis for determining the wealth of each state from real estate to population for national tax obligations. Southern congressmen objected to this new proposed tax base would include slaves. After debating one half and three fourths proposals, the Congress settled on a three-fifths ratio, but it ultimately failed to pass.  Nevertheless, it was the three-fifths ratio that surfaced in the debates in 1787.

To ascertain whether this clause was successful in preventing undue Southern influence in the House of Representatives, I created four tables based on the Federal censuses of 1790, 1800, 1810, and 1820. Each table lists the combined populations of northern states and southern states with their combined slave populations. Additionally, I included the percentage of slaves in the total populations of each region. To ascertain the 3/5 adjustments for each region I subtracted 40 percent of the slave population from the total population. I have also calculated the Southern Power Index (SPI) after each census by dividing the two regional populations and with the Northern Power Index being constantly maintained at 1.

Based upon this data, one can see that Southern power was blunted in the House of Representatives and would continue to do so. Northern states increased in population while lowering the real numbers of their slaves. Southern states also increased in population but the percentage of slaves of the total population in these states remained consistently constant.

The United States would become a continental power, but it was limited in the type of climate and land friendly to the cotton economy which needed slaves. The last grasp of Southern power was the Kansas-Nebraska controversy in the 1850s.

The clause was not successful in helping elect a president until 1860. Of the fifteen presidents before Abraham Lincoln, I count thirteen as either slaveowners, friendly to slaveowners, or unable/unwilling to upset the system. I only consider John Adams and John Quincy Adams truly opposed to slavery but lacking the power to end it as Lincoln did.

Considering the narrow focus of the Three-Fifths Clause I believe it was a successful pragmatic compromise. Our Constitution does indeed recognize the reality of slavery but had in place this mechanism for helping to end it. But this clause was not alone in this endeavor. Two other factors were also in place-

1.     The constitutional ban on the slave trade after 1808. While the slave trade from Africa to the United States did continue, it did so illegality and found itself at the mercy of British Royal Navy’s West Africa Squadron and eventually by the United States Navy after the War of 1812.

2.     The Northwest Ordinance passed by the Confederation Congress in 1787 even as the Constitutional Convention was meeting. This ordinance was perhaps the greatest anti-slavery legislation passed before the Civil War. The law, among other notable features, prohibited slavery in the newly established Northwest Territory which included what is now Ohio, Michigan, Indiana, Illinois, Wisconsin, and Minnesota. The Northwest Ordinance was upheld by the new United States Congress in 1789

 

Our Founders were flawed men, with their own passions and prejudices, biases and temptations. Yet morally, many, if not most of them, understood slavery to be wrong. Realistically, however, they could not “die on the hill” of ending slavery and keep intact our fragile constitutional republic. Brilliantly, nevertheless, they played the long game to end slavery and uphold our cherished values of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness by trusting that “we the people” would ultimately find the way that they could not,

 

 

Table 1- 1790 CENSUS                          SPI: 0.89

REGION	POPULATION	SLAVES	% SLAVES
North (8 states)	1,880,564	40,086	2.1
North 3/5 Adjustment	1,864,530 counted for federal representation & taxation
South (7 states)	1,926,677	654.121	34.0
South 3/5 Adjustment	1,665,019 counted for federal representation & taxation

 

Table 2- 1800 CENSUS                          SPI: 0.96

REGION	POPULATION	SLAVES	% SLAVES
North (8 states)	2,294,257	36,080	1.6
North 3/5 Adjustment	2,279,825 counted for federal representation & taxation
South (8 states)	2,534,688	851,532	33.6
South 3/5 Adjustment	2,194,075 counted for federal representation & taxation

 

Table 3- 1810 CENSUS                          SPI: 0.78

REGION	POPULATION	SLAVES	% SLAVES
North (10 states)	3,717,483	27,081	0.7
North 3/5 Adjustment	3.706,651 counted for federal representation & taxation
South (8 states)	3,319,126	1,103,700	33.3
South 3/5 Adjustment	2,877,646 counted for federal representation & taxation

 

 

Table 4- 1820 CENSUS                          SPI: 0.68

REGION	POPULATION	SLAVES	% SLAVES
North (12 states)	5,643,522	19,108	0.3
North 3/5 Adjustment	5,635,879 counted for federal representation & taxation
South (12 states)*	4,442,493	1,509,904	34.0
South 3/5 Adjustment	3,838,531 counted for federal representation & taxation

*Includes Missouri which officially became s state in 1821

WE NEED A GARDEN OF HEROES

 During the last year of his presidency Donald Trump advocated for a Garden of Heroes to commemorate Americans who helped make this country great. Since the president encouraged folks to nominate candidates for the Garden of Heroes I submitted the following names to the White House for consideration:

·       Jim Thorpe- Sac and Fox Nation: college football All-American and Olympic champion; considered the greatest athlete of the first half of the twentieth century

·       Lieutenant Commander John Waldron- Lakota Nation: naval aviator who died leading his squadron against the Japanese fleet at the Battle of Midway

·       General Ely Parker- Seneca Nation: civil engineer who served on staff of General Grant during Civil War; later appointed by President Grant to be commissioner of Indian affairs

·       General Clarence Tinker- Osage Nation: army pilot who died at sea while leading his bomber unit against the Japanese fleet at the Battle of Midway

·       Sequoyah- Cherokee Nation: polymath who completed the Cherokee Syllabary which permitted the Cherokees to be able to read and write their language

·       Geronimo- Apache Nation: tribal leader and medicine man who had a large portion of the US Army pursuing him and his followers before his surrender

·       Sitting Bull- Lakota Nation: tribal leader and holy man who led his people to resist US government policies towards indigenous peoples

·       Crazy Horse- Lakota Nation: tribal war leader who resisted the US government

As you can see all my nominations are Native Americans. While not personally Native American, I appreciate their contributions to American history and culture and desired to see an ample number of worthy Native Americans represented in the Garden. Unfortunately, President has ended the Garden of Heroes project. Whether or not the Garden of Heroes is realized, who would you nominate?

 

 

BACK TO THE FUTURE FOR REFORMING THE POLICE

 

[This essay is a revised proposal I sent last year to my city mayor and county sheriff.]

Recently after the police murder of George Floyd in Minneapolis there were many public cries to defund or abolish police departments across the nation. Initially I was very skeptical of the idea and still am. Nevertheless, I conducted a thought experiment of how a truly reformed police department could operate.

While I realize police reforms have been promised for decades I also realize that abolition of police would truly hurt only our poorest citizens who would not be able to purchase their own private security. Unlike the rich elites who could do so and therefore be safe and feel safe in their gated homes, communities, and resorts with armed guards, the poor would be left to the whims of gang enforcers and anarchist vigilantes. So, instead of defunding or abolishing, my thought experiment led me to a “something else” – a middle ground between the current status quo and the radical no-policing agenda. This is fundamentally a radical proposal because radical can be defined as a return to the basics.

Before listing a reform agenda we need to return to the basics of effective policing and there is no better place to start with other than Sir Robert Peel of England, the founder of modern policing. Peel was the UK prime minister twice and home secretary twice. In the United Kingdom the home secretary is the cabinet minister charged with, among other responsibilities, domestic law enforcement. As home secretary in 1829 Peel created the Metropolitan Police Department for London. The department was headquartered in the section of London known as “Scotland Yard” (hence the nickname). In addition, from a derivative of Peel’s first name, the police officers became known as “Bobbies.”

What is important for us is that Peel and his police commissioners created a set of nine principles for effective policing from which we can pull out three core ideas. The principles in their entirety can be found with a quick google search so I will just list them in abbreviated paraphrased fashion:

1.     Effective policing prevents crime and disorder and is an alternative to military force and severe legal remedies.

2.     Effective policing is dependent on public approval and respect.

3.     Effective policing needs the cooperation of the public to observe laws.

4.     Effective policing is diminished by the excessive use of physical force and compulsion.

5.     Effective policing is preserved by absolute impartial service to law.

6.     Effective policing uses physical force only as a last resort and only at the minimum degree necessary.

7.     Effective policing is always maintained  by a positive relationship with the public.

8.     Effective policing does not replace the courts.

9.     Effective policing is measured by the absence of crime and disorder not by the number of arrests.

From these principles flow the three core ideas:

1.     The goal is preventing crime, not catching criminals.

2.     The key to preventing crime is earning public support.

3.     The police earn public support by respecting community principles.

Of course, no police department has been perfect. Too often they have been bastions of graft, corruption, political maneuvering, questionable tactics, and the like. But these principles and core ideas are an excellent foundation from which to propel a police reformation.

I am proposing reforms at two primary levels- the macro level of state governments and the micro level of local (city and county) governments. The federal government can indeed play a secondary level in with advising, consulting, and some funding. But, because of the Tenth Amendment, effective policing is a state and local issue with support as needed and requested from the federal government.

Macro reforms would include:

·       End the practice of civil asset forfeiture as it violates constitutional due process guarantees.

·       Eliminate needless regulations that criminalize certain behaviors (ex- cutting hair without a license).

·       Abolish no-knock warrants.

·       End the qualified immunity of police officers who intentionally harm others.

Micro reforms would include:

·       Focus on essential policing that protects life, property, and community values.

·       Adopt the Peel policing principles and core ideas in spirit and practice.

·       Blunt the power of police unions to stop effective discipline of police officers who misbehave.

·       Place as much emphasis on conflict resolution as on weapons training.

·       End the practice of accepting surplus military equipment from the federal government.

·       Eliminate needless laws and regulations with fines that turn police officers into de facto tax collectors.

·       Ban restraining procedures that may cause needless injury or even death.

·       Install and use body cameras on all on-duty police officers.

·       Each police department shall have access to independent community boards to assess police complaints and shootings.

Effective policing comes from the consent of those being policed than from their fear of the police. I believe that policing of this sort is a benchmark of a civilized society. Yet the police, like all other institutions, need reforming on a regular basis or we shall lose the rule of law. We need law and order for all, and we need justice for all.

 

 

 

CAN ONE LEADER MAKE A BIG POSITIVE DIFFERENCE?

 

When someone is usually asked that question, one’s response is probably predicated on the situation that leader faced. As a student of military history, I will offer one example- Captain William Tennant of the British Royal Navy who had one of the greatest impacts in the history of warfare though an evacuation, the Dunkirk evacuation.

The German army and air force attacked France and other countries in western Europe in the spring of 1940. The United Kingdom dispatched a huge British Expeditionary Force (BEF) to assist its allies against the German invasion. But the BEF was not enough to stop the onslaught. By late May the British and French armies were in full retreat and moving towards the northern French coastal town of Dunkirk on the English Channel just mere miles from England itself. When Belgium surrendered to the Germans, their situation became even more dire.

The UK Admiralty, its naval office, dispatched Captain Tennant to Dunkirk as the Senior Naval Officer (SNO) with a shore party of just 12 officers and 160 sailors to organize the evacuation of British and French troops from Dunkirk to England- Operation Dynamo. When Tennant inquired what was expected in numbers of soldiers to be saved from German captivity, he was told he would be lucky to get 30,000 soldiers out of harm.

Tennant and his shore party arrived in France. He was briefed by the army commanders on the situation and began planning and organizing the evacuation. He stood out in the combat by wearing his dress uniform with an overcoat and did not wear a helmet, only his naval cap. He kept his cool and did not panic as he believed as the SNO he must be an example of calm in the midst of violence. The 2017 film Dunkirk had the actor Kenneth Branagh portray Tennant as Commander Bolton; the film correctly showed Tennant’s composure and demeanor throughout the battle.

From May 26- June 4, the evacuation occurred. The feat was more than successful- it was a smashing success. About 330,000 soldiers were delivered to safety- over 1000 percent more than initially predicted! Unfortunately, some units had to be sacrificed to German captivity to hold back the attack long enough for maximum exit of forces. And only after Tennant satisfied that he and his party had accomplished their mission did he leave the French beach to return home; he was one of the last to depart.

Of course, Tennant had help. Prime Minister Winston Churchill provided inspiration; British civilians provided yachts, fishing boats, and other small craft. Mother Nature provided cloudy weather; and the German High Command provided questionable strategy. But Captain Tennant and his team did the dirty work on the ground. Yes, one leader can make a big difference!

BREAKING GOSPEL

 

[This sermonic essay may initially be understood as exclusively for Christians. Yet Jesus Christ invites all people to Him who are weary and heavy-laden with life,]

In response to the COVID19 pandemic my wife and I purchased a subscription to Netflix as we knew we would not be going out as much. Binge watching Netflix series has become a guilty pleasure for us. Especially enjoyable was Breaking Bad, originally seen on AMC.

In case you have not seen Breaking Bad (and I imagine that there are many who have watched but for various reasons wish to remain anonymous) I will summarize the highlights. Walter White is a high school chemistry teacher living in Albuquerque New Mexico with his pregnant wife and teenage son. Walter is overqualified for his current job. He is a former government research scientist and entrepreneur who took a five thousand buyout from his former business partners. With the tech firm now worth billions Walter is becoming increasingly bitter as he enters the sixth decade of his life. His family is growing, and he must work extra at a car wash with a demanding and unsympathetic boss.

Then Walter’s life implodes when he discovers he has lung cancer and the out-of-pocket expenses for treatments will probably bankrupt his fragile finances. In the meantime, DEA agent Hank, Walter’s brother-in-law, invites Walter for a ride-along to see a possible drug bust. During the operation Walter recognizes a former student of his, a slacker who is obviously a low-level drug dealer. Walter looks up Jesse and makes him a deal. They will “cook” a high-quality meth and sell it in the growing and lucrative drug market. Walter justifies his deal dealing with the claim that he is only doing this for his family and calculates he needs to clear about 950,000 dollars before he leaves the business.

The unintended consequences of his actions lead to murders, threats, and deals with Mexican cartels and domestic white supremacists. The two heart-wrenching moments in the series were the deliberate execution of a child who witnessed one of the robberies Walter led and the execution of Hank by one of Walter’s business associates. All along the way Walter continued to justify his behavior by saying he is just doing this for his family. But finally, towards the end Walter finally admits to his wife that he is doing this for the power, and he is good at it. Essentially, his drug business gave him a sense of control over an otherwise chaotic and boring life before he started cooking meth.

Breaking Bad is a morality play rather than a mere drug drama. The title itself is derived from a Southern colloquia term meaning to choose evil. At the beginning Walter is not necessarily a “bad” person but we soon learn he lacks a clear moral compass. Also, in the beginning, he is a sympathetic character as we understand his plight. But as he sinks further and further into the darkness of his own choosing, we begin to lose any positive regards for Walter, and we are relieved that Hank discovers the truth about him.

Yet Walter is not alone in choosing badness over goodness. Saint Paul declares that all of us have sinned and fall short of God’s glory. We sin in our thoughts, words, and deeds and seek to justify our deliberate shortcomings with self-serving lies. And the sin cycle continues as we ourselves break bad, perhaps not as dramatic as the fictional Walter White but bad nevertheless.

To break our cycle of badness we need an intervention. The bad news is that at the very core of our soul no one, not even ourselves, can break through this cycle. The good news is that God can and will break through by the way of Jesus Christ. Then we become free to break gospel- to choose to follow Christ rather than to glory, as theologian Scot McKnight suggests (with some added twists of my own) in the following-

·       Individualism (I am the center of the universe)

·       Consumerism (I buy things I don’t need with money I don’t have to impress people I don’t like)

·       Nationalism (I believe God loves my country more than any other)

·       Moral relativism (I cannot know what is universally good)

·       Scientific naturalism (I believe all that matters is matter)

·       New agism (I believe I can become a god)

·       Postmodern tribalism (I believe all that matters is what my small group thinks)

·       Salvation by therapy-ism (I believe that I can come to my full human potential though inner exploration)

By breaking gospel, we are free to engage in, again as McKnight suggests, other pursues (also, again, with some added twists)-

·       Devoted to the Kingdom of God fired by a robust biblical imagination

·       Living abundantly in loving and serving God and others

·       Committed to justice, especially for those who have been marginalized

·       Committed to peace and reconciliation

·       Devoted to a life of seeking spiritual wisdom

Let us break gospel together!

 

THE ELECTORAL COLLEGE- IS IT OUTDATED?

 

In an earlier essay I discussed whether the Senate filibuster is a threat to democracy. I concluded that it was not, based primarily on the fact that the United States is a constitutional republic, not a democracy. Now I turn my attention to another item of controversy in our current political climate- the Electoral College.

When our Constitutional Founders created our constitutional republic, they were concerned about how to elect the chief executive- the president. They rejected a lifetime appointment which would turn the position into a monarchy. We just rejected one king with our blood and treasure and we were not about to create one of our own. Yet the Founders were also fearful of an democratic election of the president- the one with the most votes wins. As I stated in my earlier essay, The Founders equated democracy with mob rule. So, they created electors to serve as the “middlemen” to elect the president. Then college was added extra-constitutionally to give us the term Electoral College as we know it today.

Originally, the process would begin by the selection of electors in each state either by the state legislatures or by popular vote. The number of electors for each state was determined by the number of people elected to the House of Representatives plus two for each sate for the number of senators they had. Each elector was to vote for two persons for the presidency. When all the votes were tallied the one with the most electoral votes was elected president and the one with the second most votes was elected vice president. If no one

had a majority of votes the House woold vote for the president and the Senate for vice president. This system worked for the first eight years (1789-1797) while George Washington was president and then it broke down.

The Founders had failed to recognize the growth and influence of political rivalries that crystallized into organized parties. The Federalists and the Democratic-Republicans were in full force by the 1796 election. John Adams of the Federalists won the presidency, but Thomas Jefferson of the Democratic-Republicans was elected vice president. Although both men were present at the “creation” in 1776 they were unlike in temperament, personality, and politically. No “Adams-Jefferson” Administration here! The electoral system was cracking.

But the electoral system outright broke with the 1800 election. Thomas Jefferson and Aaron Burr were tied with the electors and the House of Representatives had to choose the president. Jefferson eventually won with Burr becoming vice president. The Twelfth Amendment in 1804 changed the electoral system to the one we have currently in which each elector casts a vote for president and another vote for vice president. Nevertheless, the House also had to select the president in 1824 and in 1876 a special commission in effect selected the president when several electoral votes were disputed.

The Electoral College usually gives us a clear winner whereas the popular vote at times will not. In 1860 Lincoln had only 40 percent of the popular vote among four major candidates but was a clear winner with the electors. Kennedy in 1960 and Clinton in 1992 and 1996 had a plurality of the popular votes and were clear winners among the electors. Thus, the Electoral College helps avoid the confusion of who is elected president.

Critics of the Electoral College, however, point to the elections in which one candidate is the clear winner in popular votes and yet loses the electoral votes. For example, in 2016 Clinton had three million more votes than Trump but Trump beat Clinton decisively in the Electoral College. Trump’s victory was predicated by razor-thin popular victories in several key states which awarded him all their electoral votes.

Other critics, perhaps less partisan, point to the decisive red/blue political divide today in the United States. One party can almost guarantee victories in about 15-20 states and the other party about the same. So that makes only a handful of states presidential candidates must home in on and they can generally ignore the others except for appearances at major fund raisers and sending in surrogate to campaign on their behalf. Electoral proponents counter this criticism by claiming only the most populous states, generally on either coast, would elect presidents in a national popular vote only.

In conclusion after this brief history and civics lesson, I offer my own opinions:

• 1.     The Electoral College fits in comfortably with our constitutional republic form of government. (Remember, we do not have a democracy as described by our Constitution.)
• 2.    The Electoral College is an essential piece of our federalism between the states and the national government. Small states receive a small measure of “greater” clout through the Senate and the Electoral College through compromises agreed upon at the Convention of 1787.

• 3.     The Electoral College generally gives us a clear-cut winner for president.

• 4.    The Electoral College does need reform. One plan calls for states to pledge their electors to the candidate receiving the most popular votes nationally rather than state-wide. While this plan has some traction, I believe it to be unconstitutional. I prefer the Nebraska/Maine plan which both states currently use. If s state sneds five members to the House and if two candidates split that state’s congressional districts 3/2 they would be awarded accordingly- one would receive three electoral votes and the other two votes. Then the popular winner of the entire state would receive the additional two electoral votes. In 2016, Trump received one vote from Maine and in 2020, Biden received one vote from Nebraska. I do not have the research to know if this system used in all states would have changed an election but it does give the appearance of being more fair than a winner-take -all system. And all that is needed is state legislation to make it happen.

Finally, I believe the Electoral College is essential to our presidential election process and is here to stay. Nevertheless, it needs a small reform.

 

THE SENATE FILIBUSTER- THREAT TO DEMOCRACY?

 

The United States Senate has an unusual rule- the filibuster. Originally from the Dutch meaning ‘pirate’ or ‘plunderer”, the word has been modified by several linguistic transitions to now mean a legislative strategy to delay or kill a bill. This strategy has been utilized in the past by prolonged speaking. Film buffs will easily recall the movie Mr. Smith Goes to Washington (1939) in which the fictional Senator Smith portrayed by the actor Jimmy Stewart collapses on the Senate floor after speaking through the night in an effort to halt a corrupt bill.

The Senate rule is also a matter of counting votes. If 60 senators (out of 100 total) do not support pending legislation it is considered a filibuster because it takes 60 votes to end debate. So, if any one of our two major political parties has 60 or more senators and all these senators stay united the political majority can pass any legislation it so desires. Also, if the majority party does not have 60 senators, deals can with senators from the minority party to reach the “magic: number of 60.

That is one reason why many on the political scene are charging that the filibuster is a threat to democracy in that it thwarts the will of the people, never mind the premise of Jimmy Stewart’s Senator Smith fighting corruption. I also fell into this camp until I studied the matter further. I now believe for several that the filibuster is no threat to democracy.

First, the United States is not a democracy and was not designed to be. (Shall I dare to repeat?) Our Founders in the Constitutional Convention of 1787 were concerned about democracy. From the Greek meaning “rule of the people”, democracy had a popular connotation of mob rule. The Founders knew our new nation needed order to protect our rights and liberties and any idea approaching mob rule just could not become reality. So, to be correct, our political order is a constitutional republic based upon representative government and federalism.

The second reason is related to the first and it deals with the nature of the Senate. Our legislative branch, the Congress, has two houses which the Founders designed to be different. The House of Representatives (henceforth the House) is based on the population of each state and its members are elected every two years. The House is the closest organ of our federal government to democracy.

The Senate, on the other hand, has two senators from each state, regardless of population, Senators have six-year terms with one third of the member elected every two years. Originally senators were selected by their respective state legislatures; this was changed by constitutional amendment to popular elections early in the twentieth century. Contrary to the House, the Senate is a constitutional barrier against the temporal passions of the people and is designed to “cool” legislation.

Third, the constitution gives each house of Congress the right to make it own rules of procedure and conduct. The Senate approved the filibuster rule in 1806 and although limited in its use initially, the filibuster is now used regularly by political opponents on all sorts of issues, major or minor

The filibuster rule was last changed in 2013 when the majority Democrats changed the filibuster rule by a simple majority vote to end filibusters on presidential appointments, including cabinet secretaries and judges. When the Republicans assumed control, they used the new rule to their great advantage with three Supreme Court justices confirmed by bare majorities. The tow Democratic senators opposing the end of the filibuster (Machin and Sinema) know full well that if and when the Republicans win back a majority they will use it to their advantage like they did with the Supreme Court with the last rules change. The essence of the filibuster is protection of the minority among its membership.

Therefore, I do not believe the Senate filibuster is a threat to democracy because the United States is a constitutional republic, the Senate is designed to slow the legislative process, and because the Senate has the constitutional guarantee of establishing its oown rules.