The Republican Club of Sun City

NEWSLETTER
September 2014 Everett Schmidt, Editor Sun City Texas

PARTY’S “STATE ORGANIZATION DIRECTOR” TO ADDRESS CLUB

Cassie Daniel, State Organization Director, Republican Party of Texas, will address the club during its dinner meeting scheduled for Wednesday, September 10 in the ballroom of the Social Center in Sun City. (Note: The September meeting has been scheduled on a Wednesday night because a Thursday night – the club’s usual meeting night – was not available.)

In that capacity our speaker works with all 254 counties to recruit county chairs, develop their party infrastructure, implement training, and hold primary elections and conventions. She also works with the State Republican Executive Committee. This summer she developed and implemented regional training conferences around the state for the first time in recent party history.

The Social Period, Dinner and Program. A social period will begin at 6:00 PM. The dinner will begin at 6:30 PM and will be followed by the program. The dinner will consist of spinach salad, corn bread, chicken cordon bleu, wild rice pilaf, and green bean almondine.

Cost. Cost is $16 per person. Checks made out to The Republican Club of Sun City should be mailed to: The Republican Club of Sun City, 1530 Sun City Blvd., Suite 120, Box 227, Georgetown, TX 78633. The deadline for payment or reservations is Thursday, September 4. (Note that the deadline for payment is 1 day earlier that the usual Friday deadline.)

Club treasurer John Congdon has set up a special collection box on his front porch at 610 Farm Hill Drive for individuals wishing to hand-deliver payments, with the proviso that the Thursday deadline has been met. For information about reservations, contact John at 512-686-1676 or johnsctx@gmail.com

VISITORS ARE WELCOME!

SENATOR SCHWERTNER TO ADDRESS CLUB IN OCTOBER

State Senator Charles Schwertner, representing Senate District 5, will address the club during its dinner meeting scheduled for Wednesday, October 1.

Inasmuch as the Texas Legislature will soon be convening to take legislative action during the next biennium, his comments will be extremely pertinent. In addition to learning of the coming legislative battles, attendees can also learn of changes which are likely to come about because of a change in personnel for the positions of Governor and Lt. Governor.

Details of the meeting will be provided in the October newsletter.

OTHER CLUB NEWS

The club’s web site is www.rcsctx.com

As was reported in the August newsletter, a “block walk” to register unregistered voters in Sun City is scheduled for the morning of Saturday, September 13. The registration will be carried out on a non-partisan basis.

SEPTEMBER 17, 1787: WHEN THE U. S. CONSTITUTION WAS SIGNED

An Event Which Should Be Commemorated
Foreword. The U. S. Constitution, having been signed by delegates to a Constitutional Convention on

September 17, 1787, will become 227 years old this coming September 17. While is is a highly respected document, its anniversary will, unfortunately, go virtually unnoticed, if past history is an indicator.

There is unfortunate symbolism in that non-recognition, that being said because the greatness of that document seems not to be sufficiently understood or appreciated by the general public, or explained in educational institutions. And members of Congress and members of the judicial branch, in a growing number of instances, seem to making their oaths of office pledging to defend the Constitution but a perfunctory, pointless ritual.

Yet today, when a great many citizens, out of fear for the future of the country, cry for help, almost invariably, they will say the solution for the nation’s woes is to “FOLLOW THE CONSTITUTION!” But before the Constitution can be followed it must first be understood and revered, and be given some historical context. This report is to help fill that need. In addition to discussion of the Constitution, there is discussion of the Declaration of Independence which the framers considered a part of the Constitution.

The Importance of a Written Constitution. Thomas Jefferson observed that “our peculiar security is in the possession of a written Constitution. “What he was saying was that the U. S. Constitution did not arise out of an age-old custom and legal usage or court decisions as was the case with the British Constitution which is basically a collection or assorted documents such as the Magna Carta, Petition of Rights, certain acts of Parliament, various customs, etc. The reader may find it instructive to reflect on the current state of affairs in England in the absence of a written Constitution. The U. S. Constitution, in contrast, is not a common law instrument; hence, it was not to be subject to change by construction or change in custom. It can be changed only by formal amendment.

What is the Constitution’s primary feature? Author Clarence Carson says: “Perhaps . . .it is that it not only prescribes the form and operation of government, but it places substantive restrictions and limitations on the exercise of governmental power . . . “ (emphasis added)

The Declaration-Constitution Relationship. There is clear evidence that the signers of the Constitution in 1787 intended for the Declaration of Independence signed in 1776 (more than 10 years earlier) to be incorporated in the Constitution. Author Matthew Spalding notes in that regard the unusual method by which, in the text, the Constitution is dated (two dates are shown) in Article VII where signatures are shown: “the Seventeenth Day of September in the year of our Lord” 1787, “and the Independence of the United States of America the Twelfth.” (emphasis added) He then goes on to explain: “The language here is neither insignificant nor unintentional: these dates serve to place the document in the context of the religious traditions of Western civilization and, at the same time, to link it to the regime principles proclaimed in the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution having been written in the twelfth year after July 1776.”

In addition, columnist George Will notes the Declaration is the nation’s first law, citing the fact that it appears on Page 1 of the U. S. Statutes at Large and at the beginning of the U. S. Code. Hence the Declaration sets the framework for reading the Constitution not as being about democracy, but about natural rights defining the limits of even a democratic government at the national level.

Former Attorney General Edwin Meese comments on this relationship: “Part of the reason for the Constitution’s enduring strength is that it is the complement of the Declaration of Independence. The Declaration provided the philosophical basis for a government that exercises legitimate power by ‘the consent of the governed,’ and it defined conditions of a free people, whose rights and liberty are derived from their Creator. The Constitution delineated the structure of government and the rules for its operation, consistent with the creed of human liberty proclaimed in the Declaration.”

Some of the God-given rights mentioned by Meese are familiar to us: Life, Liberty and pursuit of Happiness. The purpose of government is “to secure those rights.”

As will be explained later, governments are not established to carry out the unrestricted will of a majority, but (as reported above) “to secure those rights.”

Such philosophical basis of government had been unheard of during all previous history of mankind.

Contrary Views. But not everyone agrees with the contention that the Declaration provides the philosophical basis of the Constitution. Will, citing data written in a book by Timothy Sandefur of the Pacific Legal Foundation, notes that Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer, reflecting much contemporary thought, said the Constitution was “basically about ‘democracy,’” But such interpretation, contends Will, is not justified because (1) the term “democracy” is not found in our founding documents, and (2) the Constitution was adopted to confine power – not to codify all the desires of a majority vote.

BEN FRANKLIN’S POIGNANT REFLECTIONS Written Upon the Adoption of the U. S. Constitution

The fact that the Constitutional Convention took place some 227 years ago tends to mitigate our understanding of the human drama which must have existed then as the consequential events of those days unfolded.

Fortunately, Benjamin Franklin, who was 81 at the time and ailing, left for posterity a letter he read to the convention at the time of the final vote. The letter reveals some internal torment he had about the wisdom of some of the provisions of the Constitution. His touching comments, excerpted below, reveal a humility which could well serve all of us – including the current president who apparently rejects many of that documents tenets – as a beacon to follow.

I confess that there are several parts of the constitution which I do not at present approve,
but I am not sure I shall never approve them: For having lived long, I have experienced many instances of being obliged by better information, or fuller consideration, to change opinions even on important subjects, which I once thought right, but found otherwise. It is therefore that the older I grow, the more apt I am to doubt my own judgment, and to pay more respect to themselves judgment of others . . .

For when you assemble a number of men to have the advantage of their joint wisdom, you inevitably assemble with those men, all their prejudices, their passions, their errors of opinions, their local interests, and their selfish views. From such an assembly can a perfect production be expected?

It therefore astonishes me, Sir, to find this system approaching so near to perfection as it does; and I think it will astonish our enemies, who are waiting with confidence to hear that our councils are confounded like those of the Builder of Babel; and that our States are on the point of separation, only to meet hereafter for the purpose of cutting one another’s throats. Thus I consent, Sir, to this Constitution because I expect no better, and because I am not sure, that it is not the best.

James Madison, recognized as the father of the Constitution, upon noting that so many difficulties had been surmounted with such unanimity, observed: “It is impossible for a man of pious reflection not to perceive in it a finger of that Almighty hand which has been so frequently and signally extended to our relief in the critical stages of the revolution.”

NATURAL LAW: AN IMPORTANT FACTOR IN THE NATION’S FOUNDING

What Is Natural Law?

Natural Law was a controlling influence on the founders and framers, and found expression in the Declaration through use of such terms as “Laws of Nature” and “Nature’s God.” Natural Law, wherein one has an intrinsic, built-in knowledge of what is right and wrong, was given authoritative definition by English jurist William Blackstone, whose Commentaries was the second most referenced document (following the Bible) used by the framers. Wrote Blackstone:

As man depends absolutely upon his Maker for everything, it is necessary that he should in all points conform to his Maker’s will. This will of his Maker is called the law of nature. . .This law of nature, being coeval [coexistent] with mankind and dictated by God Himself is, of course, superior in obligation to any other. It is binding over the all the globe, in all countries, and at all times; no human laws are of any validity if contrary to this . . . Upon these two foundations,
the law of nature and the law of revelation, depend all human laws; that is to say, no human laws should be suffered [permitted] to contradict these.

Natural Law is not merely a relic of the past. As many readers can recall, it has been used in more recent times. In the absence of any applicable written law, it was the charge “crimes against humanity,” a charge based on Natural Law, which was used to convict and execute Nazi leaders after World War II.

THE ASSAULTS ON THE CONSTITUTION

Following are listed what might be termed “assaults’ – because of their deleterious effects – on the Constitution. In the main, these assaults stem from members of Congress and the judiciary who, being motivated by Darwin’s theory of evolution, believe that the Constitution is somewhat dated and should “evolve.” They seem to reject the notion that because the Constitution was designed to curb man’s depraved nature and because human nature hasn’t changed, the checks and balances of the Constitution remain as relevant as ever – as can be validated by the stunning power grab of the present administration.

President Obama’s Contempt of the Constitution. Given his proclivity to take unauthorized actions which, thus far, have been given little if any serious challenge, President Obama indicates a contempt for the Constitution. Indeed, like Woodrow Wilson and others, he indicates he knows better than our nation’s founders. Note the following quote of Obama on one of his favorite subjects – the distribution of wealth – in which he is implicitly (if not explicitly) critical of possibly the most basic principle of our Constitution: Government is to be restrained in what it can do. Note Obama’s contrary view: “But the supreme Court never ventured into the issues of redistribution of wealth . . .It didn’t break free from the essential constraints that were placed by the Founding Fathers in the Constitution . . .”

The Case Law Method. Ten years after Charles Darwin published his Origin of the Species, a new president took over at Harvard University. The new president, a devoted Darwinist, believed that the “survival of the fittest” concept could not only be applied in the field of biology, but also to other academic fields – including law – as well. Consequently, he hired a lawyer, Christopher Langdell, who had similar beliefs and who would set up a curriculum on a belief that the tenets of the Constitution should also evolve, ever upward, in accordance with changing societal needs, instead of being static as was the original concept of the framers.

Even though the entire law faculty resigned in protest, Langdell, after hiring kindred spirits on the faculty, was able to bring about what has come to be known as the case law study method, which meant that law students would study opinions of judges – some of whom would be liberal – at the expense of a study of the

original founding documents, including the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution, and Blackstone’s Commentaries.

Compassion as an Intimidating Factor. For many politicians a factor too intimidating to resist is the possible use of federal money for welfare and related purposes, even though authorization to do so cannot be found in the Constitution. To resist doing so means that charges of racism, hate, uncaring, etc. will ensue. But to not use federal funds doesn’t mean welfare could not be provided from other sources – states, organizations and individuals. And not being able to “print money,” as can the federal government, those sources can more likely control expenditures. Under the present system (involving federal funds), the adage which states “if you want more of something, the subsidize it” is confirmed.

Former Congressman Ron Paul provides a rationale – even in regard to a “safety net” – for strictly interpreting the Constitution on this matter:

Although those who hunger for power are small in number, it’s easy to entice the masses into believing that government can provide for everyone’s needs and safety. Yet the others who continue to produce are misled into believing that they must accept the system or be labeled selfish and lacking compassion. To do this, they accept the idea that a person’s need, desires or demands equate to rights. Thus we hear from those who say they object to the welfare/socialist state that they nevertheless accept the fact that the few truly in need deserve help from the government. They claim it’s only abuse of the system that must be stopped. This concedes the intellectual and moral argument that a need is equal to a right now referred to as an entitlement. No one should be entitled or have a right
to someone else’s labor. This idea opens the door to the special interests to manipulate the system to their advantage at the expense of all others.

Congress, having power to print money, has no discipline with respect to the present out-of-control debt to which a major contributor is welfare. The national debt is now well over 17 trillion, an amount of money most people cannot comprehend. However, an examination of the Debt Clock, found at www.USDebtClock.Org, may be helpful to the reader in this regard.

The Misapplication of the First Amendment’s Religious Liberty Clauses. The reader is aware that courts and others in many cases have virtually eliminated all forms of religion in the “public square.” i.e., in public gatherings and in schools. But the position of those courts and others is simply incompatible with what history, paintings, etc. tell us about the role of religion in connection with our nation’s founding. The current position of the courts comes mainly from the precedent established in the 1947 Everson case in which the doctrine known as “separation of church and state” was promulgated. Former Chief Justice William Rehnquist, a critic of that doctrine, assesses the finding in that case as follows:

There is simply no historical foundation for the proposition that the framers intended to build a “wall of separation” . . . But the greatest injury of the “wall” notion is its mischievous diversion of judges from the actual intentions of the drafters of the Bill of Rights . . . The “wall of separation between church and state” is a metaphor based on bad history . . . It [the Courts finding} should be frankly and explicitly abandoned . . .

The Oath of Office: Now a Pointless Ritual? The Constitution requires that an incoming president take the following oath or affirmation: “I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of the President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.” The phrase “so help me God” is not part of the required oath, but it has been made a part of the oath via a tradition started by George Washington at the time of his inauguration.

Columnist Walter Williams points out that some of the nation’s earlier presidents faithfully observed their oaths of office with respect to the the 9th and 10th Amendments which are, today, virtually ignored by all three

branches of government and seemingly by the citizenry. Williams presents several examples, two which follow:

• James Madison, in declining to approve aid for some French refugees, wrote: “I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution which granted a right to congress of expending, on objects of benevolence, the money of their constituents.”
• Franklin Pierce, the nation’s 14th president, vetoed a bill to help the mentally ill saying: “I cannot find any authority in the Constitution for public charity,” adding that to approve such spending “would be contrary to the letter and the spirit of the Constitution and subversive to the whole theory upon which the Union of these states is founded.”

THE WAR AGAINST RELIGIOUS LIBERTY

A scanning of various media reports reveals there is a clearly hostility toward religion – particularly Christian religion – in the country. Following is but a small sampling. A baker cannot, on religious grounds, withhold baking a cake for a homosexual wedding, nor can a florist withhold providing flowers from a similar wedding on those grounds. Religious liberty has been attacked in other areas, as, for example when Christian prayers were banned at graveside services at National Cemetery in Houston, and when Bibles were at one point banned from Walter Reed Army Medical Center. And hostility toward religion in schools – promulgated by administrators and teachers – has been reported numerous times. For example, one student in Fort Worth was suspended after he told someone at school he believed homosexuality was wrong. And the list could go on and

one.
Some religious leaders are concerned that the nation is now on the edge of religious persecution of

Christians. Frank Page, president of the Southern Baptist Convention’s Executive Committee of the nation’s largest non-Catholic denomination said, “I do believe the day is coming when churches will see outright persecution – as well as harassment and marginalization in this culture.”

Courts, through the years, have gotten involved in various religious issues; however, their holdings have had little favorable – and possibly negative impact – on traditional religion. Recall that the perpetrator of the Ft. Hood massacre, Major Hasan, claimed during his trial that he wanted to wear a beard because of his Muslim faith. Although contrary to army regulations, he was allowed to do so. The Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA), enacted by Congress in 1993, was prompted by a Supreme Court decision, issued previously, upholding the penalization of Oregon Indians for using peyote which they claimed was used in a religious rite. Also, Congress or the courts have on religious grounds permitted conscientious objectors to be exempt from military service; Christian Scientists were exempted from mandatory vaccinations; Amash were exempted from 12 years of compulsory education.

It should be noted that on occasion courts have made rulings favorable to traditional religion. But it should be noted that at the Supreme Court level, the famous Hobby Lobby case, although decided in favor of the Christian owners, was decided by the narrowest of margins, a 5-4 ruling which could have been the reverse had a new Justice been appointed. Further, the Hobby Lobby case was based on the ruling of a bureaucrat.

Whether one is or is not comfortable with religious influence, the fact remains that the nation’s founding and its established tenets were closely intertwined with religion. One of those tenets, derived particularly from natural law, concerned morality. Perhaps the most respected of all Americans, George Washington, in his “farewell address,” made his views on this matter clearly known: “Of all the dispositions and habits which leads to political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports . . .reason and experience both forbid us to expect us to expect that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle.”

Columnist Jeff Jacoby expands on Washington’s thoughts:

For in a world without God, there is no obvious difference between good and evil. There is no way to prove that murder is wrong if there is no Creator who decrees “Thou shalt not murder.” It certainly cannot be proved wrong by reason alone. One might reason instead – as Lenin and Stalin and Mao reasoned – that there is nothing wrong with murdering human beings by the millions if doing so advanced the Marxist cause.

Why has much of the nation been not only abandoning religion in national life but also promoting hostility toward religion? Is the national preoccupation with sex and sexual perversion driving change? One answer, at least in part, to that question might be found in an analogy with the reasons for continuing support of the theory of evolution when (as with global warming) it would be scientifically impossible to do so. Author/theologian D. James Kennedy reported that when the question was asked why the evolutionary theory had such high level of support, the greatest evolution advocate on earth at the time, Sir Julian Huxley, said, “[I suppose the reason] we all jumped at [Darwin’s] Origin of the Species [which provided a rationale for atheism] was because the idea of God interfered with our sexual mores.” (emphasis added)

Past as Prologue. The tenuous nature of religion in contemporary America prompted Steve Deace, author and talk-show host, to speculate what changes in America will come about if there is no revival of religious influence. He was influenced considerably in this endeavor by his association with Joel Rosenberg, widely-read novelist who writes about prophecy in his novels and who contends that without religious renewal America is headed for an “implosion.”

In making his presentation, Deace first points out that many Americans share apprehension about the future: In one poll 80% think America is on the wrong track!

He then embarks on an effort to predict what America will be like only 25 years hence if there is no revival of religious influence. Some of his predictions follow; however, it should be understood that they are not presented because they have validity. Instead, they are presented as a means of stimulating the reader to form his or her own predictions about the future.

To prepare his listeners for his predictions of radical change, Deace points out some characteristics of American 25 years ago, in 1989, including the following: there were prolife Democrats then but there are virtually none today; there was no redefining of marriage (including homosexuals, transgenders, etc.) among Democrats, but there is solid support for such now; all the nation knew about Islam was Kadafi and Arafat; “Silent Night” was still sung in the schools and publicly; and California was a “red state.”

Deace then suggests 5 radical changes America will have experienced by 2039, 25 years hence, if there is no renewal:

American Sovereignty Will End. We will see what Western Europe has, a kind of European Union; we will phase out American currencies and establish a regional economy. This is why there is apparently such strong support for open borders; it may be why the Bushes and Clinton promoted the North American Free Trade

Agreement (NAFTA). A quest for equality is driving this change.
The 2-Party System Will End. Evidence of this change is the present low voter turnout and the support

of both parties by corporations.
America Will Become Divided Geographically Into Two States. One state will be government-

oriented; the other will be liberty-oriented. Evidence is the accumulation of huge debt in certain states like California, Illinois and New York with their citizens moving to liberty-oriented states like Texas and Florida. Government oriented states will attempt to have their huge debt paid by liberty-oriented states.

Certain Civil Rights Will Be Abolished. Already there is constant attack on the gun rights of the Second Amendment, the religious guarantees of the First Amendment, and the anti-spying provisions of the Fourth Amendment. Rights will come from a strong central government (the likes of Obama, Holder, Reid, etc.) and not from God. Tenets of American exceptionalism will be gone in the interest of promoting egalitarianism.

The U. S. Will Abandon Israel. With the abandonment of America’s Judeo-Christian foundation, anti- Semitism will rise in America as it growing now in Europe. Israel will become endangered.

WHITE STUDENTS NO LONGER TO BE MAJORITY IN SCHOOLS The Same Situation to Follow in the General Population

For the first time ever, U. S. public schools are projected this fall to have more minority students than non-Hispanic whiles enrolled, a shift largely fueled by growth in the number of Hispanic children.

Non-Hispanic white students are still expected to be the largest racial group in the public schools this year at 49.8%. But the National Center for Education Statistics says minority students, when added together, will not make up the majority.

About one-quarter of the minority students are Hispanic, 15% are black and 5% are Asian and Pacific Islanders.

Columnist Pat Buchanan has some observations about this development. He notes that in Federalist No. 2, John Jay wrote, “Providence has been pleased to give this one connected country to one united people – a people descended from the same ancestors, speaking the same language, professing the same religion, attached to the same principles of government, very similar in the their manners and customs . . . “

The republic of the founders for whom Jay spoke did not give a fig for diversity, contend Buchanan.

We are from every continent and country. Nearly four in 10 Americans trace their ancestry to Asia, Africa and Latin America. We are a multiracial, multilingual, multicultural society in a world where countless countries are being torn apart over race, religion and roots. We no longer speak the same language, worship the same God, honor the same heroes or share the same holidays.

If a country is a land of defined and defended borders, within which resides a people of a common ancestry, history, language, faith, culture and traditions, in what sense are we Americans one nation and one people today?

EFFORTS UNDERWAY TO ABOLISH OR MODIFY ELECTORAL COLLEGE

Effort to Help Democrats Elect Leftist Presidents
The Electoral College Plan. The Constitution states that electors from each state are to choose the President and he Vice President, and states that it is up to the state legislatures to determine how those electors are selected. It is only by happenstance that states use a popular vote to choose their electors. States could also abolish their winner-take-all method of choosing electors – as Nebraska and Maine have already done – allowing their electors to be allocated by congressional district in accordance with the popular vote in each

congressional district.
In Texas, Republican presidential electors are elected during the State Republican convention when

delegates, meeting by congressional districts, elect the elector to represent a given congressional district. Electors sign pledges promising to vote for the Republican presidential candidate on the ballot in the event a a Republican won the state’s popular vote.

Nearly all states now give all of their electoral votes to the presidential candidate who wins the popular vote in the state, no matter how small the margin. The number electoral votes a given state has is determined by the number of Congressional districts, plus 2 for its Senators. Currently, at least 270 electoral votes are needed to elect a president.

The Founders and Framers specifically designed this system to thwart an election of a president by a popular vote, a system they would equate with “mob rule” and with a violation of the rights of smaller, less populated states.

It should be noted that the present plan resulted in presidential candidate Al Gore, in 2000, winning the nation’s popular vote by half a percentage point, but losing his race in the Electoral College. There were three

other times in the nation’s history when a president, elected by the Electoral College, did not receive a majority of the popular vote.

The National Popular Vote Compact. But thanks largely leftist Democrats, including George Soros- funded groups, there is currently underway an effort to neuter both the language and the spirit of the Constitutional provision providing for an Electoral College. And this effort, if successful, would be carried out without changing the language of the Constitution.

The effort involves several states banding together in a National Popular Vote Compact in which states, through their legislatures, agree to give all their electoral votes to the candidate who wins the national popular vote, regardless of how residents of a particular state vote.

With the recent addition of New York to the compact, the effort is now well underway with 10 states (plus the District of Columbia) – all of which backed Obama in 2012 – having signed the Compact, thereby controlling 165 votes in the Electoral College. In addition, the Compact has already been passed one legislative chamber in at least 10 other states which have a total of 78 electoral votes.

The Effort to Turn Texas “Blue.” The 20 states just mentioned control or could control a total of 243 votes, still 27 votes short of the 270 needed. But if Texas should turn “blue” and have its 36 electoral votes apply to, say, a leftist candidate, the votes of the other states will be of no consequence. That is a situation the framers wished to avoid.

The Vision of the Founders and Framers. Political pundits may argue that it would be undemocratic to deny the presidency to the person who received the most votes, nationwide. But former Congressman Ron Paul offers the following rebuttal to those pundits:

Their argument is hostile to the Constitution, however, which expressly established the United States as a constitutionally limited republic and not a direct democracy. The Found Fathers sought to protect certain fundamental freedoms, such as freedom of speech, against the changing whims of popular opinion. Similarly, they created the electoral college to guard against majority tyranny in federal elections. The president was to be elected by the 50 states rather than the American people directly, to ensure that less populated sates had a voice in national elections. This is
why they blended electoral college votes between U. S. House seats, which are based on population, and U. S. Senate seats, which are accorded equally to each state. The goal was to balance the inherent tension between majority will and majority tyranny. Those who wish to abolish the electoral college because it’s not purely democratic should also argue that less populated states . . .don’t deserve two senators.

“HIGH CRIMES AND MISDEMEANORS”

If there is to be an effort in the House to impeach a president, the controlling phrase used in that effort will come from Article II, Section 4 of the Constitution where the grounds for impeachment can be found. Those stated ground are “treason,” “bribery,” or “other high crimes and misdemeanors.”

Even the lay person will have at least some concept of the definition of the terms “treason” and “bribery,” but what does the phrase, “other high crimes and misdemeanors “ mean?

Former prosecutor and current columnist Andrew McCarthy provides some help when he points out the phrase does not pertain to the ordinary crimes and misdemeanors like he used when he was a prosecutor. Quoting founder Alexander Hamilton, McCarthy contends the phrase refers to “political wrongs of public men.” More specifically, it refers to “breaches of the fiduciary duty, of the immense trust that’s reposed in the President.”

There are historical reasons for the current confusion about the meaning of that phrase. Legal scholar Charles L. Black, Jr. explains that the phrase “comes to us out of English law and practice; starting (as far as we know) in 1386, it frequently figured in impeachment of officers.” (Its use began more than 600 years ago!) It seems within the realm of possibilities that the phrase would have had some meaning to the framers of the Constitution, but that its meaning, by now, has been seriously clouded or even lost.

Nevertheless, there appears to be no reason why that phrase could not be used in connection with any impeachments proceedings which may begin in the future.