REARRANGING THE CONSTITUTIONAL FURNITURE

 As I have mentioned in previous posts, I am not a constitutional originalist; in the sense, that what has been written needs to stay written as it currently is or understood as the framers understood it when they wrote it.  When I talk about the framer's original intent, I am seeking to fill in the blanks of things they didn't explain in order to understand the gaps in the Constitution's mortar that one would have thought was needed to hold it together or why later legislation chiseled out mortar with regard to the democratic processes the framers seemed necessary to avoid the extremes of partisanship and the tyranny of the masses.  For example, when the Seventeenth Amendment was ratified in 1913 resulted in changing the election of senators from state legislature to the people.

While few today would question what appears to be an enhancement of our democratic process with the ratification of the Seventeenth Amendment,  it increased the opportunity for enlarging the partisan divide among the populace as senators vied for popular support.   Was the framer's early wisdom knowingly being cast aside when it came to how senators were elected?   Was the legislative procedure in choosing senators side-stepped to make room for special interest to play a greater role in shaping legislation.  One must remember that this Seventeenth Amendment war ratified during a time when the Gilded Age was at its apex.

I believe the framers wisdom in having senators chosen by state legislators was to limit the temptation of those seeking to be a senator for personally profit by allowing moneyed interests to  play a prominent role in being elected.  In a democracy there is no adequate way to totally eliminate such influences, but the principle I believe the framers had in mind was to free the Senate from the distraction of worrying about appealing to a moneyed constituency at the cost of doing what was best for the nation as a whole.  At the time of the Constitution's framing, most politicians were people of wealth who gave of their wealth to preserve the Republic.   How things have changed since then.

"ELECTIPHOBIA"

I believe that what led to the current partisan divide in the United States is the political parlor games that both major political parties in the legislative branch of the government have engaged with throughout its history.  Extreme partisanship is originally rooted in the legislative branch where the concept of the majority party to hold up debate and where each political caucus votes along strict party lines has resulted in damage the democratic process and has weakened the republic.  Congress has also become slack in performing their constitutional duties in order to appease moneyed constituents.  The Presidency. like Congress, is increasingly influenced by moneyed interests in promoting partisanship in order to be re-elected to a second term.  This is not say that every representative, senator, or president has fallen victim to what might be identified as "Electiphobia," the fear of losing an election, but that the fear of losing an election can conflict with duty and what is best for the nation.

How can any politician give consideration to serious matters facing the nation when they always have one eye on being re-elected?  Representatives, with a two year term, are in re-election mode the day they are elected to their seat in the House of Representatives.  There is no limit to the number of terms they can serve and thus they spend a good deal of time improving their chance of reelection in the hope that the longer they are in the House the better chance they have at accomplishing their political agenda.  

Senators have more a six year term and also have no term limits and thus are constantly engaged in parlor politics to fulfill their political agenda and a fair amount of  partisan mud-slinging in order to keep their names in the public's mind.  Where the Senate is concerned,  I would also suggest a repeal of the Seventeenth Amendment  and have state legislatures appoint a state's senators to Congress.  This would help senators in keeping their political priorities straight.  

A president has a four-year term with a limit of serving two terms. Presidents, more than any other elected official are subject to the Lame-Duck syndrome if they win a second term, which often results in more concern about a president's legacy than the nation's welfare.   

Supreme Court justices have a lifetime term.  As the Court becomes noticeably more partisan in its decision-making and has no means of enforcing its decisions,  it has become increasing wary of making definitive rulings that are too open to interpretation.  Partisan sentiments are too apparent in recent Court rulings which brings into question the Court's independence in reaching decisions being based on Constitutional interpretation and precedence. 

In my opinion, I would rather see longer terms and term limits in elected offices rather than constant elections.  For example, representatives might benefit by having a four year term with a maximum of serving for two terms.  Senators might benefit by having an eight year term with a maximum of serving two terms.  A president might benefit by being limited to serving one twelve year term.  The Supreme Court might benefit by its justices limited to serving one sixteen year term.  

Beyond that, the nation might benefit by having all elected federal officials having a maximum retirement age of 75.  I would also suggest having a limited election cycle of six months in which to campaign for the House of Representatives and the Presidency.  The hoped for effect of such limitations would be to limit campaign spending and lessen voter fatigue. It would likely place more emphasis on voting in local and state elections which suffer most from voter's fatigue and it would reduce the entertainment value that current national elections and the news media rely on.

 THE BUREAUCRACY

By its very definition, a democratic republic is big government.  The constant harangue of big government being the problem is simply a partisan ploy to limit the goods and services a republic offers its citizens.  A nation "by the people and for the people." as the Declaration of Independence says can be nothing less than enormous.  This is not to say that there is no waste.  In every human endeavor there is always the potential for waste.  

The question becomes what is being considered as waste and what effect does that consideration have on the people?   Politicians are the law makers whose laws are then carried out by bureaucrats.  Often it is the bureaucrat who knows more about how the government in a particular domain works on a day to day basis better than a politician does.   A good representative, senator, or president knows who within the bureaucracy can help them do their job.  A good bureaucrat is able to ignore partisan politics, as long as partisan politics does not threaten the bureaucrat's job and livelihood.  Without a stable bureaucracy any democratic republic would be weakened immensely.  

That being said, given today's partisan divide, a rearrangement of the Constitution's furniture seems in order.  Various governmental agencies and departments are established by Congress and placed under the purview of the Presidency with congressional oversight.  Each department is headed by a secretary who is appointed by the President and each President has the ability to appoint new secretaries at will with the Senate's approval.  

Each secretary oversees a vast array of sub-departments or agencies of which career bureaucrats make up the workforce.  Being under the executive branch of government, a president can dismiss anyone under  the President can be dismissed at will.    In the early days of the Republic, there were a limited number of departments:  The Secretary of State, The Secretary of the Treasury, The Secretary of War, and the Attorney General.  Over the years the number of departments and agencies have grown exponentially, giving the Presidency a great deal of influence and power in the running of the day to day affairs of the republic.   In addition, the President, has a number of appointed personal advisors who help advise and manage the affairs of the President.  

Recently there has been a move to reduce the size of government, by eliminating some departments established by Congress.  The wisdom of this is questionable as the United States is a large democratic republic.  This questionable endeavor begs the question of whether all departments should be under the purview of the Presidency.  

Consider the Department of Justice, for instance.  It is intended to be a nonpartisan department and. until the present time it was, at least in theory.  Unless the Presidency itself is free of partisanship (see my previous posts), any department under its purview will be subjected to partisan politics or accused of being used as such.   Although practically unavoidable in a democratic republic, every attempt should be made to limit the Department of Justice from succumbing to partisan politics.  

The Justice Department and all its law enforcement agencies; such as, the FBI should fall under the Judiciary branch of government, answerable to the United States Attorney General, who would be nominated by the Court, confirmed by the Senate, and under the purview of the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court.  The Attorney General would be the enforcement arm of the Supreme Court.  Federal Marshalls, as House Minority leader Representative Jeffries recently suggested, would fall under the purview of the Supreme Court, as well as other national law enforcement agencies.  

The Department of Justice is one example were a move to a different branch of government would be beneficial.  Another consideration is whether a President can dismiss, at will, a secretary of a department without cause.  If an appointed secretary needed approval of the Senate, should not the Senate's approval be needed to dismiss a secretary.  

In short, as the Presidency becomes increasingly more powerful, the Congress needs to step up to the plate in a non-partisan way to oversee the day to day working of the government.  Congress must review and eliminate most of  its outdated and dysfunctional parlor games and get down to business.  The Supreme Court must become reticent in taking up cases that are clearly partisan in nature.  It should allow lower appellate court decision to stand or refer such matters to its Attorney General for review before the Court would adjudicate a politically motivated case.

These suggestion are just that, suggestions.   They undoubtedly seem to be an impossibility at the current time.  I offer them here simply as food for thought, something to consider down the road of making history.

Norm

 

FIXING THE CONSTITUTION

The Constitution of the United States is the United States' most revered document.  It has held the republic together for 235 years.   Its framers hoped that what they created would lead to a"more perfect union."   They were under no illusion that what they created was in any way perfect.  Its preamble outlined what they hoped to achieve in the pursuit of a more perfect union by identifying what they saw as necessary goals to ensure an enduring republic.  

That the Constitution was ratified at all was remarkable for the times in which it was written.  It must be viewed as a rare demonstration of the commitment and trust of the wise and virtuous individuals who ratified it on behalf of the people of the United States.  This is not to say, that the U.S. Constitution is perfect.  Paradoxically, any sense of perfection it has is in the fact the framers and ratifiers recognized its inherent imperfections that all human endeavors encounter when planning for the future.

In my previous posts, I focused on what I consider may have been the framers intent when establishing the three branches of the federal government.  Their intent appears to utilize an increasingly representative form of democracy when it came to the Senate, the Presidency, and the Supreme Court.  The reason for the emphasis on representative democracy at the federal level was to avoid partisan intrigue, something both the founding fathers and framers of the Constitution saw as a threat to an enduring republic.  

Since I have addressed what I consider the weaknesses within the Constitution in my last two, posts I will focus on how they might be remedied in order to strengthen the republic with regard to the election of the President of the United States in particular. 

AN ELECTORAL COLLEGE

If one the goals of the Constitution was to protect the republic from the corrosive effects of partisan and populist intrigue by creating a representative democracy at the federal level, it would appear that the framers dropped the ball when it came to concept of electors electing the President of the United States.  Leaving the definition of the electors' role up to each state has proven to be a mistake; in that, it opened the door to what most of the framers wanted to avoid, partisan intrigue.  One can understand why the framers allowed the states to define the role of the electors as a means to encourage the states in ratifying the Constitution, however, by  not defining the role of the electors in the Constitution, the framers opened a Pandora's box of partisan intrigue and manipulation.  

The term Electoral College is a misnomer.  There is nothing collegial about the electors, as they are selected to reflect the outcome of their state's popular vote regarding a presidential election.  The electors do not gather to vet nominees or elect the President.   Current electors are not at liberty to go rogue and vote for their personal preference without risking replacement, fines, or even imprisonment.  One might describe the current concept of an "Electoral College" as a puppet college.  The way the presidential electoral system functions has perpetuated the problem of sectionalism and partisanship that has plagued the United States throughout its history.

To remedy this situation would be to establish a true Electoral College which could reduce the extreme partisan divide this nation is currently experiencing.  My take on remedying the current divide is primarily to start a conversation on what I perceive to be one fundamental flaw amongst others within the Constitution.  Doing so requires revisiting the intent of the framers.  The exact role of the electors is very vague in the Constitution.  

In my opinion, a true Electoral College requires definition in the Constitution as to its purpose and the role it plays in electing a president.  It would seem the primary purpose of an Electoral College would be to ensure that any candidate for the Presidency is demonstratively qualified to be the President.  Article II of the Constitution lists only three requirements for a person to become the President of the United State:  The President must be natural born citizen of the United States, at least 35 years old, and has been a resident living in the United States for 14 years.  

John Jay, the author of "The Federalist 64" made the following statement with regard to presidential qualifications as "those who best understand our national interests . . . who are best able to promote those interests, and whose reputation for integrity inspires and merits confidence."  Jay's comment gives an idea of what the framers were aiming for when thinking of who would best serve as President.  The question becomes who decides "who best understands our national interest... who best promotes those interests" and who has a "reputation for integrity inspires and merits confidence?"  

The framers certainly did not think the majority of the voting populace had the required understanding of our national interests to elect someone with such knowledge and integrity which one suspects is the intent behind the notion of electors.   It seems the concept of electors was intended to debate and discern who best would meet such qualifications and then elect the President on behalf of the states they represented.  Interestingly, the Constitution currently excludes representatives and senators from serving as electors, but who better would know the national interests and the concerns of the states they represent.  

* * *

Not everyone is qualified to be the President of the United Sates.  Along side the existing constitutional requirements, the Constitution could have specified that a candidate should have experience either in governance, diplomacy, or lawmaking.  At the time, the framers they might have thought of that as a "no brainer." The Constitution might have required that a candidate served as a minimal of one term as either a member of the Congress of the Confederation, served as a diplomat, or as a governor of a state.  This was all new turf for the framers.  The thought of someone who was not educated or had not in some ways contributed to the Revolution as a leader in some capacity being the President would have never occurred to them.   

Today, this nation is in a far different place than the famers could have envisioned.  Today, it is evident that a candidate for the Presidency have governing, diplomatic, or law making experience at the Federal level.  An Electoral College would benefit by having each state's senior Senator be that state's Elector with the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court serving as the Dean of the Electoral College.  

The purpose of the Electoral College would be vetting all party nominated candidates for President who had won at least one state's open primary election (received the most popular votes)*.  Failure to win a state's primary election would automatically eliminate a nominee from being a candidate.  An eligible nominee's party would ensure that their nominee would submit the nominee's financial, health, tax, and voting records, diplomatic service record, and/or legislation signed into law or vetoed if a governor of a state to the College.  The College would require a current background check by the FBI of all eligible nominees.  The nominee's party platform would also be subjected to a constitutional review by the College.

The College might also interview all the nominee's to determine their understanding of the nation's needs and their personal vision for the nation if elected.  In a closed session the College would vote on each nominee's eligibility to be a certified candidate for the Presidency by securing a simple majority of the electors' votes.  Should a tie vote occur, the Dean of the College (normally a non-voting position) could cast the deciding vote.  Any nominee who passes the electoral college's review will have her or his name added to the list of eligible candidates for the Presidency to be determined by popular vote in the national election.   Should a nominee fail to pass the Electoral College's review, the nominee would be excluded from the list of eligible candidates in the national election.  The Electoral College's ruling on eligibility would be final.

The above suggestions would require significant amendment to Constitution.  As suggested earlier in this post, there are other areas of the Constitution that need adjustment after 235 years.  I will address some of these in future posts.

Norm

* The concept of an open primary allows every registered voter to vote once for whichever potential nominee a party would allow on a state's primary ballot.  The electoral college would limit its interest to those who would or gather the majority of a state's primary election.

"WE THE PEOPLE"

                 THE PREAMBLE TO THE CONSTITUTION

                       

                        We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union

                        establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, 

                        promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and

                        our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

"WE THE PEOPLE"

Actually, "We the People" had no direct input into writing the Constitution.  It was framed behind closed doors by a few people selected by their state legislatures to represent their interests and who were sworn to secrecy to the extent that no other officials outside of this group or people of importance were informed of its deliberations.   Beyond that, "the People" had no direct role in ratifying the Constitution as each state held its own ratifying convention attended by elected or appointed representatives.  Nevertheless, the "We the People" statement was placed at the start of the Constitution on our behalf by its framers.

Some delegates attending their state's ratification convention questioned the validity of saying "We the People," suggesting that the Preamble state "We the States" as the voting populace were not directly involved in ratifying it.  Although ratification was not subjected to a popular vote, "We the People" stuck and was ratified, an under appreciated and overlooked fact.  In Article I of the Constitution, the framers wanted to emphasize that they were thinking in terms of all the people residing within the territory of the thirteen original states, including the enslaved black and the indigenous Indian   

Slaves were not mentioned as such but are included in the "three fifths of all other persons" clause in order to secure the slave states ratification.   Indians who roamed the territories were not taxed; as such, they were not included in the population count.  It is important to realize that these clauses validate that "We the People of the United State," implies every person living within the United States.  No person outside of the Philadelphia Constitutional Convention in 1787 had a vote or any say in its development giving "We the People" broad application.  There were only fifty-five delegate from twelve original states (Rhode Island did not send any delegates) who attended that convention.   Of the fifty-five delegates only thirty-nine signed it.  

The Constitution was never ratified by "We the People of United States" but rather by the delegates sent to the ratifying conventions of the original thirteen states.  The point being that Federal Republic was designed to be a representative democracy in which the vast majority of the voting public had little to no direct say in choosing its federally elected officials.  

CONSTITUTIONAL INTENT

It is hard to determine intent when it comes to what the framers of the Constitution were thinking.  We know that the three branches of the federal government were intended to function as a check and balance to each other.  We know that the framers were concerned about detrimental effects partisanship and populism; that the "hoi polloi"  (the common masses who were too ill-informed and prone to partisan entanglement) could not be relied on to choose leaders, qualified and virtuous enough, to lead the nation as a whole.  To that end they established a limited electoral processes regarding the three branches of government.  

Originally, Article I of the Constitution addressed the legislative branch consisting of a House of Representatives elected by the voting public of each state for a two year term. The number of representatives was based on the size of a state's population.  Senators were originally elected by state legislatures for a six year term, with each state having two senators.  Senators were not chosen by popular vote until the Seventeenth Amendment in 1913. 

Article II of the Constitution addressed the Presidency, the highest singular office in the government.  To elect the President, the framers came up with the idea of state electors based on the number of their federal representatives and senators, although no representative or senator could be chosen as an elector.  The current selection of electors remains prone to sectionalism and partisanship by quashing the minority vote in each state, a result of most state electors being chosen by a nominee's party.   

Article III concerns itself with the judicial branch of the government.  In choosing Supreme Court justices, it is the President who nominates a justice and the Senate who confirms the justice.  The voting public has no direct say who will serve on the Supreme Court.  Supreme Court justices are appointed to life terms. 

THE DANGERS OF PARTISANSHIP AND POPULISM

While the founding fathers and the framers of the Constitution were wary of partisanship and populism dominating the newly minted republic's affairs, they also knew they could not prevent partisanship from occurring.  Such concerns were addressed in the Federalist Papers published in New York in 1787.   People gravitate towards like-mindedness in the form of partisan loyalties.  Democracies readily succumb to partisan politics and populism.  Political parties are prone to vie for whatever political flavors the voting public seems attracted to at the moment.  They may even create political issues to attract the attention of the voting populace.  Partisanship has a tendency to turn politics into a metaphorical blood sport that can put the Republic at risk of engaging in actual blood-letting.   

The concept of three branches of government serving as a check and balance to each other is the Constitution's attempt at immunizing the Republic from imbalances caused by overt partisanship and populist endeavors where loyalty to party and following the crowd is more important than loyalty to the Constitution.   I believe there is value in reducing the footprint of overt partisanship and extreme populism from the affairs of government.

The dangers of partisanship and populism is that they are prone to distort and erode the Republic's democratic processes at the federal level by diminishing the importance of the roles democratic processes have at the state and local level where the people have a direct voice in shaping the nation's political agenda at a foundational or root level.  Who we elect to serve at the local, county, and state levels ultimately has a direct effect on who governs at the federal level. This is evidenced by statistics that show voter participation at the local or state levels drop significantly when there is no one running for an elected federal position, like a seat in the House, the Senate, or the President.  

What seems to have been the intent of the founding fathers and Constitution's framers was for the authority of the federal government to stem from the outcome of elections at the local level and state levels where the people had a direct voice in electing those who served at such levels.  In turn, those elected at the state level had a voice in determining who served at the federal level.  Originally at the federal government was intended to become increasingly representative of "The People" with a state's representatives being the only elected federal officials directly elected by the people of a given state.  Originally those who served in the Senate, the President, and the justices of the Supreme Court were not elected by a popular vote.   The conundrum the framers appear to have struggled with was how to ensure that the best minds and the most virtuous individuals were chosen democratically to govern the nation on behalf of all the people residing in the United States. 

BARGAINING CHIPS

The framers knew what they were up against when it came to securing the Constitution's ratification by the original thirteen states who largely saw themselves independent of each other and only loosely bound to each other as a confederation.  "We the People of the United States" was largely understood as we the people of the various states, who owed allegiance more to their states than to the loosely defined union of the states.  There were all sort of potential blockades to ratification; sectionalism, the slavery issue, and ensuring that each state had an equal voice in the governance of the federal republic.  There would undoubtedly have to be some bargaining amongst the states and the framers to ensure ratification.

The biggest bargaining chips dealt with how to deal with choosing the number of representatives each state was entitled to in congress.  This, in turn, determined how many electoral votes each state would have in choosing the President.  The 3/5th's Compromise allowing southern states to compete with northern states in representation where slavery was less of an issue was an important one that led to tragic results.   The issue of slavery would eventually become a partisan issue that would thrust the nation into a civil war, something the framers feared most and Congress attempted to avoid through compromise until it was unavoidable.  In the end, the Union was saved and the slaves were emancipated and granted citizenship rights including the right to vote. 

Unfortunately partisanship was deeply entrenched in the public's mind by then and there seemed to be no interest in reviewing or revising the structural flaws (earlier compromises) that continue to haunt the Republic to this day.  By the twentieth century there was an increasing effort to ensure white voter supremacy at the poles while attempting to increase a direct say who serves in Congress by choosing Senators by popular vote in all of the states.   State electors were chosen by a nominee's party and most states as noted above had chosen to adopt a winner-takes-all approach in determining who would win the electoral votes in a state's election for the President of the United States. The exception to a winner-takes-all approach are the states of Maine and Nebraska.

  

These developments further entrenched partisanship as the dominate force driving the Republic's political decisions.  While these developments certainly gave people more of a direct voice in the political affairs of the United States at the federal level, they also opened the door for more partisanship in political affairs and divisiveness caused by populist sentiments to the point that in the twenty-first century the union is once again at risk.  This due to an abandonment of the Preamble's promise.  Justice continues to be largely biased by race. Domestic tranquility,  the common defense, and the general welfare of the people is largely perceived as a sham because partisanship has distorted their meanings.

Having a greater say by the majority of people in the United States is becoming the nightmare envisioned by the founding fathers.  It is increasingly clear that the majority of the people are not intellectually astute enough to critically assess the vast amount of information it is exposed to on a daily basis.  For the Republic to stand firm and be constitutionally sound requires that from THE PEOPLE emerges an elite few who are broadly knowledgable, have a critical understanding of the nation and the needs of its diverse population, and who are devoted, above all, to forming a more perfect union securing the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, 

In my next post, I will examine amending the failures of the past.  

  

Norm

OUR DEMOCRACY'S ELECTORAL DILEMMA

"OUR DEMOCRACY"

One of the common concerns in democratic countries today is whether democracy is sustainable.  In the United States, the concern most commonly referenced is in regard to"Our Democracy."  The term, "Our Democracy," is a bit confusing.  I'm not sure what that term actually is means.  Democracy is a tool used by governments to elect who is imbued with decision-making power and the responsibility for its use.  

Properly defined, the United States of America is a representative, federal republic.  The United States is not nor was it ever conceived to be a pure democracy where the majority rules.  Most of the founding fathers shuddered at the thought of majority rule and populism.  Their concern was not creating a pure democracy but rather a constitutional republic which utilized democratic processes. 

Another issue that many of the founding fathers lost sleep over was the notion of partisan politics.  Although impossible to avoid, they wished to limit its impact on the collegial decision-making within and between the Congress, the Presidency, and the Supreme Court.  They attempted to do this by defining how members of the three coequal branches of the Federal Government would be chosen.  

At the time the Constitution was being framed, the states had larger role in choosing who would serve in Congress and who would be elected as the President of the United States.  The voters of each state elected who would serve in their state legislators and who would serve as their representatives in House of Representatives, but it was left up to state legislators to decide who would serve in the U.S. Senate. Although senators were  originally chosen by state legislatures, this changed in 1913 with the Seventeenth Amendment to the Constitution  which changed the Constitutional language from “chosen by the Legislature thereof” to “elected by the people thereof.”  I consider this a grave political mistake that created a partisan dilemma with regard to how the Republic's constitutional processes were intended to work. 

AN ACHILLE'S HEEL

When it came to electing a president, each state would choose electors based on the number of its congressional members in the House and in the Senate. These electors would then cast their votes for the President.   Today most states have a winner-of-the-popular-vote takes all approach to casting its electoral votes.  Only Maine and Nebraska have a proportional electoral votes based on who wins congressional districts.  Electors in most states are chosen by a state's political parties. This is where the flaw in the electoral process regarding the Presidency resides because it renders choosing the person to the serve in most powerful office in the United States a partisan process which, in turn, is subject to majoritarianism and populism, the nightmare feared most by the founding fathers.  

Unfortunately, the electoral college concept was used as a pawn to entice states to ratify the Constitution who could determine how its electors were chosen.  As noted above, most states utilized the electoral college process as a winner take all concession to a state's popular vote outcome in a presidential election. This fact strikes me as incongruent with how members in the Senate were originally chosen and what the framers might have privately envisioned with regard to the role of the electors. 

More than any other national election, it is a presidential election that engages the majority of the voting public in the  United States, which has become an increasingly chaotic process for some time.  I understand that the framers of the Constitution wanted the state's to have a direct say in choosing the president because that was the only way for the states to buy into the Constitution.  Using the electoral college as a bargaining chip in amongst other only resulted in creating the Constitution's "Achille's Heel."  Presidential elections have driven the United States to extreme partisanship that led to a civil war and the extreme political divisiveness within the United States today.  

Extreme partisanship is once again ruining the United States, just as the framers of the Constitution feared it would.  What interests me about the Constitution is that the framers began by creating an electoral model that began by keeping the voting population engaged democratically at the local or state level, but at the federal level, the foot print of the voting populace became increasingly sparse.  As noted above, members of the House of Representative were the only federal officials elected by the voting public of their state.  Senators were originally elected by state legislators and  Supreme Court justices were nominated by the President and confirmed by the Senate, as were other officials within the federal government.

What is inconsistent with an attempt to avoid partisan politics, is that the highest office in the United States relies on state electoral votes determined by a state's popular vote.  Logically, based on how Senators and Supreme Court justices were chosen, the idea of an electoral college should not have been dependent on a state's popular vote. The electoral college should have served as a barrier to partisan politics, similar to what the Conclave does in choosing the Roman Catholic pope. 

DROPPING THE BALL

I am not sure what the framers of the Constitution had in mind when they came up with the idea of an electoral college.  Was it always their intent to have the states choose who their electors would be?  If that was so, why didn't they let the states choose electors for the Supreme Court Justices also?   

There is an inconsistency in what started out as political processes aimed at limiting the influence of partisan politics at the highest levels of government.  It is not that the voting public didn't have a role to play in electing federal officials, but rather that their role was reflected in those elected a state level and for the House of Representatives  Why would the office of the President, the single most powerful office in the United States, be subject to a direct popular vote when senators and justices of the Supreme Court were not?

I perceive that most voters in the United States today would prefer that the President be elected by the popular vote (depending on a given elections outcome).   I disagree.  The popular vote, I believe, was never intended to dictate who serves in the highest offices of the United States.  I believe the framers were very wise not to elect the President by a popular vote.  Where they dropped the ball was in letting the states choose who would be their electors, thus resulting in making it a partisan undertaking.  

The winner-takes-all concept sidesteps any practical role electors having in choosing the President.   Their role is largely ceremonial.   Technically speaking, an elector can choose to cast a vote against his or her party, but in some states they would face fines or be replaced. In seventeen states their votes would be voided.  Regardless of how a state would handle that situation,  such an elector would most likely be considered pariah by their party.   Very few have attempted to do so.

If the framers of the Constitution wanted to limit partisanship from dominating the Republic's political structure, the presidency, above all else should have been placed beyond the reach of partisanship.  Likewise, the Seventeenth Amendment should have never been enacted.   To be clear, I'm not amongst those who claim to be constitutional originalists.  What fascinates me about the Constitution's framers is that they did not, in my opinion, follow through on an electoral pattern they established when choosing senators and Supreme Court justices.  

In my next post, I will examine how some of the pitfalls of the electoral processes of today could have been avoided if the framers had not dropped the ball.  

Norm  

EQUANIMITY, KENOSIS, AND THE UNIVERSE

What interests me about equanimity and kenosis is that while they are largely associated with spirituality, it seems they have a basis in or a correlation to the physical forces found in the universe. I sense a correlation between equanimity with gravity and kenosis with the constructive and deconstructive forces within the universe.  I have talked about kenotic activity expressed in Christian literature where kenosis is talked about in terms of Jesus emptying himself of his divine nature in order to fully participate in our salvation as one of us.   In past posts, I have also associated kenosis with the creativity of God; of God expending self to expand self or, in other words, the creative forces of the universe expending energy in order to expand.  

What I have not talked much about is equanimity.  In retrospect, I believe I have implied it when defining the meaning of peace as the absence of that which disturbs and disrupts.  In terms of the physical forces in the universe, I would equate equanimity with gravity.  Scientifically, gravity is considered a weak force that keeps our solar systems and other systems in relative balance as the universe continues to expand, the result of a kenotic force which expends its unlimited energy in order to expand the universe.  

In ancient times, astrology provided a direct connection between human activity and the movements of the stars and planets, between time and space as it were.  In European culture, prior to Copernicus, Galileo, and Bruno, astrology was  used a way to discern God's divine will.  Kings, bishops, and popes had their astrologers with the emergence of astronomy which began as a offshoot of astrology, the Renaissance, and the Reformation there was a disconnect between us and the forces of nature.  While I don't personally use astrology to help plot my life course, I believe that what happens in the universe both far and near has an effect on our lives the same way the gravitational pull of the moon causes ocean tides and changes in atmospheric pressure can effect one's moods.

Life on this planet is a direct result of the forces found throughout our universe.   Our awareness of these forces is the direct result of being a product of them.  As a result we can deduce, at the very least, an intelligent universe to the extent that we are intelligent, just as life on this planet suggests life on other planets.  

It is no wonder then that our sense of equanimity and kenosis proceeds from experiencing the forces at work in the universe.  As such, when it comes to equanimity and its correlation to gravity, equanimity might be considered a weak force that lightly holds our experiences and perceptions in balance.   An essential part of meditation also involves kenosis, letting go of that which can disturb and disrupt in order to expand one's sense of interconnection to the ALL. 

Equanimity and kenosis form a paradox; in that, while equanimity holds in balance, kenosis creates a release, an imbalance that results in expansion.  There are many approaches to contemplation and meditation.  If the goal of such activities is to gain inner peace by attaining equanimity, then one must engage in a process of emptying oneself of thought by consciously attempting to silence and slow one's stream of thoughts by examining them and letting their influence on one's perception go in order to expand one's sense of equanimity thus lessening one's anxiety and preoccupation with the particular.

* * *

Given the tenuous times we are no living in today, I know how easy it is to get caught up in the particulars that disrupts and disturbs one's sense of inner peace.  The divisiveness caused by ideological certitude and the fear of the opinionated other has created a situation that can easily erupt in violence and war.  Getting caught up in the particulars is easy to do, as we are daily exposed to what feels unbalanced and unnecessary; the disruption of people's lives and the disturbing rhetoric that assigns blame without justification. There is much to be concerned about and it can take a toll on a person's mental and physical health.  The sense of urgency to do something about what one perceives as the causes of the times we find ourselves in adds the dimension of frustration regarding what one can or should do. 

The bellicose language by the strongly opinionated to "fight" the identified causes of that which is  perceived as disrupting and disturbing us is more than hyperbole; especially, when people are left to their own designs on how to do that without resorting to violent rhetoric or actions.  Personally, I can feel the tug to engage in such rhetoric and feel appalled when I succumb to using it, hence the need to write this post to remind myself of the futility of doing so as it only results in my becoming more anxious and frustrated.   I cannot speak for others what works for them, but I know that I feel compelled to step back and seek equanimity through kenosis, to embrace my infinitely small place in the universe and recognize that such times are the merest blip that will pass when seeking to embrace the ALL.   At this time, the best I can do is not add to this ages disruptive and disturbing particulars.

Norm

  

  

THE GOD PARADOX

There are many ways to describe God, none of which are in themselves adequate or come close to a definitive description.  Christians, for the most part, are all over the place when trying to define God.  I tend to equate the term God with the scientific Theory of Everything; as yet, an incomprehensible force  and process which resulted in us and the universe we live in.   In past posts, I have described God as a Verb, Light, and Love.  As such, these terms seem more comprehensible or at least relatable as some form of activity rather than a paradox. 

We humans have trouble relating to the concept of a paradox; that contradiction of terms or statements regarding their being simultaneously true.  As such, I understand God as the ultimate paradox.   Consider the following statement from Psalm 139:12,"Yea, the darkness hideth not from thee; but the night shineth as the day: the darkness and the light are both alike to thee."   If darkness and light are alike, does that mean God doesn't care or is there something more mysterious going on?  

Consider the claim, "God is good."  The contradiction to God is good is that God is evil.  Consider how God comes across in dealing with Job or the Egyptians in Exodus and any number of small Canaanite kingdoms where God is depicted as demanding the Israelites to engage in complete genocidal warfare.      

Darkness and light in bible-talk are interchangeable with good and evil.  With that in mind Psalm 139:12 can be paraphrased as, "Yes, that which is evil cannot hide from you; evil is as illuminated as good to you; in that, evil and good are both counterparts of each other to you."   So much for the theodicy argument.  

Paradox as God's modis operandi can be unsettling to those who wish to see their idea of God as strictly being on the good/love side of the proverbial coin. The counterpart to love in scripture is fear which results in hate.  Love accepts and embraces, fear avoids or fights; as such, we can find both love and fear operative when it comes to depicting God's activity in scripture. 

The irony is that when God does something considered evil by us,  God's evil action is always considered good because God is not accountable to any higher power, as God is the highest power.  Should we commit an evil that God would entertain, we would not only be accountable to whatever justice system we live under but also to God.  The fear of God is not only the beginning of wisdom but also the bedrock of any justice system.  "May God have mercy on our souls."

* * *

Pushing moral arguments aside for the moment, good and evil are always at work when it comes to creative processes.  For example, there are many reasons that could be attributed to most humans being afraid of change.  Change always involves, at some level, a deconstructive process in order to create something new.  Sculptors chip away at stone or wood.  Food requires the destruction of animal or plant life.  For the human these are good things, but for the tree, the mountain, the animal and the plant, if they were cognizant in the way we are, such events would be considered evil.  

If one doesn't like change, the following line from Revelations 21:5 has to send shivers up one's spine, "Behold, I make all things new."  To make all things new means the destruction and elimination of all things old.  On the other hand, if one considers making all things new a good thing, it necessitates in engaging in what some would consider an evil; as in, the destruction of the comfortable or familiar.  This could explain why Episcopalians and other traditionalist denominations take issue with the Book of Revelation as they would prefer a God who "changes not" (Malachi 3:6), as opposed to a God who makes all things new.

* * *

If paradox is accepted as alike by God, is God capricious or hypocritical?    Thus we are back to entertaining the theodicy question.  Paradox does not involve capricious or hypocritical behavior.  God or the universe's approach to paradox is one of equanimity.  God is morally equanimous.  The difficulty for us mere mortals is that we are not.  We struggle with paradox, just as we struggle with morality because we not naturally equanimous beings; in that, we differentiate good from evil, this from that, and differentiation is the cause of much of our human suffering.

Take for instance, Jesus warning in Matthew 7:1-2, "Judge not, that ye be not judged. For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged."  Judging is what we do.  We discriminate.  We discern.  We seek difference so that we can identify same until sameness bores us and we seek difference.  In this sense humans are not equanimous.  It is far easier to forgive than it is to avoid judging others.  Forgiveness is a response to judgment.   In fact, there are those who would withhold forgiveness unless one would except the judgement of whoever might offer such forgiveness. This is the human conundrum:  We are doomed to judge and, according to Jesus, in judging others we are doomed to be judged.   Thus, we become the arbiters of our fate.

* * *

Seeking equanimity is part of many contemplative and meditative practices.  Very few, if any, have ever reached the paradoxical equanimity by which the universe (God) operates.    There is much violence and creativity in the universe.  We can witness with our own eyes (via telescopes) the destruction and creation of stars, solar systems and galaxies, which often result in new forms of existence.  What we are will be no more.  What our death (destruction) will give birth to is consigned to God's, the universe's, creativity.  Death and life is a paradoxical construct. We begin dying the second we are born and it is possible that that in dying that which we were will give birth to new life.

Norm

 

IN A TIME OF REFLECTION

I am nearing four months since leaving church.  I would be less than honest in saying that I don't miss it at times.  What I miss most is the people in the congregation and, of course, playing the organ.  Some in the congregation know why my wife and I left but others do not or have not heard the full reason for leaving from me.   Few have directly asked for a reason which leads me to believe they have come to their own conclusions.  

My intent on not giving reasons was twofold.  The first was to avoid getting into a battle about or with the priest which would do a fragile congregation little good.  The second reason is related to the first reason, I no longer felt I could honestly worship in the prescribed manner of its liturgy, which I feel portrays Jesus wrongly and tries to define the indefinable creative force referred to as God in outdated language as many mainline denominations do.  

As some of you may have noticed, I have taken a break from posting.  I tried several times, but I found myself deleting what I wrote.  It didn't feel right, because I wasn't feeling right.  I admit that I struggle with having left a church I served as a lay preacher, worship leader, and organist for almost 30 years and no longer being a part of a congregation of peculiar people to which most Episcopal churches lay claim.  I liked its peculiarity because I felt at home with peculiarity but there was a part of me that urged me to let go and take time to reflect on my life and life in general.   

My wife and I still consider ourselves Episcopalian and we continue to attend services at home by watching the services at Washington National Cathedral on YouTube and occasionally I watch services at Trinity Wall Street in NYC.  I feel more at home within those contexts than I do in the local Episcopal church.  In those larger churches there is sense of open-mindedness with regard to scriptural interpretation, the use of liturgy,  and I feel they both exhibit a truer commitment to the teachings of Jesus than to a strict adherence to the apostolic teachings about Jesus that evolved after Christianity became the official religion of the Roman Empire.  

The local priest in my parish and the bishop of the diocese are both concerned about keeping strict adherence to the liturgical forms in the Prayer Book, the church's canons, and its doctrines than emphasizing the teachings of Jesus and their relevance in today's chaotic world   I see such a stringent  approach to doctrine as Christianity's Achille's Heel as they are more about control through indoctrination than taking an opportunity to explore a broader understanding of who we are, not only in the light of ancient scriptures, but more importantly in the light of our increasing knowledge of the universe and the role we humans play in creating the chaos that has the potential to destroy ourselves and the world we live in.  

* * *

I am sure that many of you have heard about or have listened to Bishop Mariann Budde's sermon at the National Cathedral during its National Prayer Service after President Trump's inauguration in which she directly addressed President Trump regarding the fears brought about by his administration's agenda regarding immigrants, LGBTQI individuals and asking that he show mercy on them and on all people feeling disenfranchised and fearful.   I was not surprised by her doing so and it gladdened my heart that she did.   The National Prayer service included clergy from Native American, Buddhist, Hindu, Jewish, Sikh, African Methodist Episcopal, Baptist, Lutheran, Mennonite, Methodist, Mormon, and Presbyterian religions and denominations.  

Bishop Budde was very pastoral in carrying out her prophetic duty in reminding the President of God's Executive Orders as in Rev. (Sen.) Rapheal Warnock put it in his sermon at the cathedral this past Sunday.  The National Prayer Service also served as a reminder of what this nation has long honored by placing  this diverse group of religious leaders on equal footing in an inclusive (DEI) setting which as Rev. Warnock also pointed out that Dei is Latin for God.  

* * *

I try not to watch too much TV.  The national news is depressing.  I do not understand what has happened to the citizens of this nation that has made them so cynical about our nation and the world as to entertain the thought of electing those who have dictatorial aspirations.  There are always things that need adjustment, but adjustments or realignments in a constitutional republic such as ours requires much thought and careful management.  Above all, the apparent reckless disregard for people's lives by the current administration seems to be a recipe for moral decay and disaster on a national and worldwide level.

Now that I'm in my seventies, it seems odd that I should leave things that have been part of my life for most of my life.  I have to confess I don't have a clue as to where this leaving is leading me, if anywhere.  Even my digital piano which I loved playing is not functioning well largely because I probably played it out.  Thus, I don't have that relief from the loss of playing a pipe organ.  It would appear that I need to let that go also.  

What I enjoy is reading and that is what I mostly do.  I am trying to get back into painting, but that is proving to be a slow process as my hands are not as steady as they used to be nor my eyesight as good as it was in my twenties. When the weather permits, I go for walks to get fresh air and take in the world around me. 

In past posts I have talked about the "pauses" in one's life.  I believe this is such a moment for me.  My past experiences with such pauses has taught me that a willingness to let go might result in finding a deeper meaning to life or even a new or a renewed sense of purpose to my life.

Norm