PERRYGRAPHS

POLITICS:  A COMMON SENSE PARTY

(I abhor party platforms! Each issue should be examined carefully with recommendations from experts. At that point lawmakers should propose, debate, and decide each issue by itself, unless it connects vitally with a larger issue. In other words, a Democrat should be able to oppose abortion, and a Republican can on occasion vote to raise taxes. There should be no “whip” pressuring party members to fall in line, but each should vote their own conscience.)

1.     THE ROLE OF THE CONSTITUTION:

My training lies, among other places, in Biblical scholarship. The rule is first, discover what it meant; then discover what it means. How did the first readers and those who wrote intend their meanings? One example, Paul instructs women not to cut their hair. Was that meant as an eternal principal, as some Pentecostal groups interpret it, still refusing to cut ladies’ hair? In that culture, one mark of a prostitute was short hair, which was a form of advertising. So one possible modern application might be “don’t dress like a prostitute,” or just dress modestly. Most denominations had taken this approach in the first quarter of the 20^th century.

Turning to the US Constitution, it becomes vital to understand how and why the founders made the choices they did. The problems they dealt with are at least analogous when not identical to those we now face. They came from 13 colonies, very different colonies in geography, history, ethnicity, and activity. All were English colonies, but with saltings here and there of Dutch, French, Spanish, and a great many slaves. The constitution had to receive approval by a 2/3 vote of 13 legislatures to complete the unifying of one nation. Among other things that last fact resulted in the 10^th Amendment stating that those powers not granted to the federal government remained in the province of the state. Though that provision hasn’t been spoken about nearly so much as the first and second amendments, it may well be the most abused of all. Congressmen do bring it up when they are having difficulty defeating a bill, seemingly just to add one more argument against it. There are indeed many pieces of legislation that could easily be relegated to the states, and many more that could go either way.

An editorial in today’s paper (10/11/16) is a diatribe against one law professor who favors ignoring the Constitution as from a bunch of 18^th century white men. The latter part is true. In fact, those 18^th century white men were considering primarily other 18^th century white men who also owned property. Remember that neither blacks nor women were allowed to vote. Many forget that initially only white property owners could vote. The reasoning was that they were the only ones who primarily paid taxes, so why should others take their money? But note that 100 years later black men could vote, along with white men who did not own property. In the next 40-50 years women also gained the ballot.

But to insist that situation invalidates the document misses the mark. Note that those faults WERE corrected by a process those white men built into the Constitution itself. Less than 30 amendments over 233 years, under 20 if you drop the first 10 that are virtually part of the body itself, testifies to its relevance.

Look at some of the compromises they made. In passing, note they DID compromise, and it was not a dirty word. They built in checks and balances to require compromise for government to function. Where government has bogged down, it almost always come from refusal to work out a mutual agreement, each side adjusting until both find something they can live with. One fundamental compromise was the bicameral legislature. The smaller states were afraid the more populous states would control the legislation and leave them begging. So they created the House of Representatives and required all financial bills to begin there. That kept small states from overtaxing the larger ones to their benefit. They also created a Senate with equal representation – 2 Senators – from every state regardless of area or population. That prevents the big states from running roughshod over the smaller ones. The use of electors to cast the actual ballots for President came from poor travel and slow communication. Should they arrive without a majority, they were free to work out a deal to elect a President with general support. The latter could certainly be modified today with instant communication and easy travel. I’d like to see a national law, perhaps an amendment, requiring ALL states to send electors directly proportional to the vote. Today some states have a winner take all, so a close election there would send, say, 10 electors to vote, rather than 6 and 4 that reflect the vote.

So I think I have shown that I like staying as close as possible to the original constitution, but still adjusting to those things influenced by changes in technology, but not so much in changes of society. One thing I don’t know how to do is to make the Supreme and Appellate Courts apolitical. I would like to see Justices appointed with no commitment to preserving only the original meaning OR to modernizing any suspected Founders’ meaning. The tilt should be conservative, because after all it’s a constitution and supposed to be an infrastructure. But each case should be decided on its own merits, not because the Justice has an agenda.