Richard Neustadt, after serving as an advisor to the President, felt the need to convey the reality of the presidential power. He felt many Americans over-exaggerated the Presidents formal power, and I’d like to explore the informal powers and their influence in our lives. Fortunately we have a strict system of checks in balances that prevents the President from taking full control, and this is the primary reason as to why the President doesn’t have significant power. A growing issue today is the bellicose rhetoric our President is spewing out towards the rogue state of North Korea. Many people today are worried the presidents actions will result in a war. In reality the President can not formally declare war without the consent of Congress, however he can most certainly instigate one. Trump may very well be “kicking the hornets nest” with his onslaught of insults towards the North Korean leader. Trumps words have caused increased military build up along the demilitarized zone of North Korea, and as commander in chief he ordered a carrier fleet to be deployed right of the coast of the rogue state. There is now a very real possibility of armed conflict be it nuclear or conventional, and a primary source is the presidents reaction to the growing nuclear threat. Whether or not his actions are appropriate or not is of no consequence to the issue being discussed. We can see very clearly that by simply making a few comments very real actions take place. The increased tensions allow us to see how the President acts as a key diplomat. By touring through Asia and talking tohis peers across the ocean Trump has increased relations between several Asian countries. Simply by visiting he is able to bring diplomatic change. He is responsible for how other nations perceive us which could change anything from our economic status to whether or not we have allies in a potentially very bloody conflict. This power doesn’t derive from the constitution, but from the informal power the President carries. He’s what Americans elected to be a key representative. He’s someone the United States feels best reflects their beliefs. He’s shown the entire world the he, along with the rest of the nation, will no longer tolerate increased aggression and will meet any such aggression “with fire and fury.” The world is left to believe that we as a nation completely agree with his statements. The international community sees the entire nation not because of our policies, but just by the presidents way of speaking. His incredibly informal tweets may be what sends the world into a third world war where millions of lives are to be potentially lost. Several nations would be engulfed in a bloody and vicious war if his statements were to provoke an aggressive response. Earlier this week Trump made inaccurate comments about the United States nuclear arsenal. He claimed we had hidden nuclear silos(there’s no reason, once the missles launch it doesn’t matter from where they launch) and that a standard Air force bomber was capable of carrying nuclear warheads. Unfortunately those bombers are used frequently in exercises along the Korean border. There is a very real possibility that North Korea would see this as a possible nuclear attack and war would break out almost immediately. Every word Trump tweets is heavily analyzed and the possibility of misconstruing his statements is very high(or just taking them too seriously). Trumps words have increased tensions and turned up the heat on international tensions showing that by simply making statements the President receives an informal power that can be used to make real changes.
Tag: politics
Voter registration or voter restriction?
Voter registration (or enrollment) is the requirement that a person otherwise eligible to vote register (or enroll) on an electoral roll before they will be entitled or permitted to vote. Such enrollment may be automatic or may require application being made by the eligible voter. Because the registration process actually set some limit to the citizens of United States of America, people started to question this process. “why you should have to register to vote. Can we make this easier?”
“why do we need those photo I.D. laws? Well, I was missing the point. The point was they wanted to restrict the right to vote,” said Rep. Keith Ellison. Voter ID laws in the United States requires a person to provide some form of official identification before they are permitted to register to vote. And some claim this to be obvious racist and intended to suppress minority voting. Basically using photo I.D. to determine weather if you can vote is nothing different than poll taxes, literacy tests fifty years ago. They are choosing those people they think to be able to vote, giving power to them only. the voting process suppose to emphasize the right of every single citizen in this country, giving them equal power to decide their own president. However, the photo I.D. law ripping the power of part of the voters away from them, restrict their right to vote, making this process unfair. Also not the photo I.D. law are restricting the voters, for those of who cannot read is also unable to vote simply because there is no way they can do the registration. Some might argue that those people aren’t suppose to vote because they can’t even read their vote would be irresponsible. However, although they are not able to read, but still they can hear the informations from the others and having discussion and great insight on the presidential election. shutting the down is also turning down a great proportion of voices in United States of America.
Normally, voter applications take 30 days to process once they have been received and approved. This is something that is clearly very complex and not convenience for the voters. Just like the college application needed three weeks to deliver your SAT and TOEFL scores, which does not even make sense, it truly limited some better test score to be able to be submitted. Some dates require to register for the voting in states, what if thirty days before the election day the person is still outstate doing work and other important things that not able to be back to register for it. It’s reducing some of the voice because of this inconvenience progress.
To sum up, the voter registration not only give us inconvenience on voting but restricting the power on part of the voters. I my opinion such bias process should be banished so we can have a better condition for voting.
Picture source:
http://news.hamlethub.com/swyonkers/politics/2159-st-day-for-votes-registration
http://officeofstrategicinfluence.com/issues.php?issue=voterids
https://tcf.org/content/commentary/voter-suppression-by-the-numbers/
A President’s Power v.s. A Citizen’s Assignment
As America has grown, and continues to grow, it is important that our government grows with it. Presidential power is a key part of our government, and influences us in ways we may not even be aware of, and a President’s personal conviction may be just as impactful as the scope of their control. Just as William Taft’s idea of Conservatism competed with Roosevelt’s Stewardship theory throughout time, we see how our leaders have taken a system designed to protect our citizen’s rights of “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness”, and changed it into a game of power. But the leaders are not alone in this scheme. Citizens are also assigned their own civil duties within this process, and must rise up to the task, or see their rights fade. And as a Citizen must balance their voice with the governments control, a President must balance their own voice, with their own control.
William Taft says, “We are all imperfect. We can not expect perfect government.” This quote represents his Conservative presidential theory, where the President doesn’t actively change things, but instead, just facilitates what is already in motion. But perhaps this lack of action is what holds America back from progress. On the other hand, Roosevelt’s quote, “Do what you can, with what you have, where you are,” encapsulates his Stewardship theory, where a president does, “everything in his power,” to create an ideal government.
While it is important to be constantly moving forward, like in Roosevelt’s theory, at what point does the President’s power become too much? In the last several years, most Presidents have abided by the Stewardship theory, making outrageous promises during campaigning, but then failing in this theory as they fail to actually enact these changes. We have learned that most politicians are acting in a way to promote their party, and to get their party re-elected, but where is the shift between social justice, and a system of control?
Conversely, looking at active citizenship, we see our citizen’s not practicing enough “stewardship.” There are many debates on whether voter registration laws should be eased to encourage voting, and how the “filter bubble,” confines our information. A citizen, even though they are tasked with Roosevelt’s call for action, may not actually be able to enact any change. On this age-old issue, Martin Luther King Jr. in his Letter to Birmingham Jail says, “One has not only a legal, but a moral responsibility to obey just laws. Conversely, one has a moral responsibility to disobey unjust laws.” In trying to balance Roosevelt and King’s motivation with Taft’s self suppression, at what point does a President’s civic responsibility turn into an abuse of power? At what point is a lack of action failing in their duty? 
Today’s Presidents may have one of the toughest challenges we’ve seen in the White House yet. As a CQ Press Researcher says, “The power of the Presidency is such that it may no longer be meaningful to classify Presidents as ‘weak’ or ‘strong.’ In the modern era, the President is virtually forced to be a strong executive.” This battle forces the President to choose whether to fall prey to your internal voice, or to allow your position to walk all over you. How our current President deals with this, while it may be a never ending process, sets the tone for many Presidents to come. In our ever changing, modern world, how will our leader balance self with image? How will our leader manage opinion and action? And how will our President manage his position of power with his civic responsibility?
Sources:
library.cqpress.com/…earcher/document.php
washingtonpost.com/…/bd572426-27fa-11e6-8329-6104954928d2_video
americanforeignrelations.com/…/Presidential-Power-The-stewardship-theory
Supreme Court} http://www.cagle.com/2014/06/presidential-power …
Theodore Roosevelt’s Little Texas
Political Laryngitis: The Stifled Voice of the American Voter
“We The People”, the three words that serve as the foundation for our country’s most important document, could not be less accurate when discussing how our elections are set up. As everyone reading this knows, the current leader of our country represents a minority of the popular vote, making him our 2nd minority president in 5 elections. Regardless of political affiliation, we can not deny that the will of the people is not currently decided in our country’s federal elections, but how do we fix this discrepancy? The altering the electoral college would be an easy answer, but there are other problems that could rise in altering the system.
First off, the college was set into the framework of the constitution, so getting rid of it would take an immense amount of work. First off, both sections of Congress would have to pass an amendment abolishing it by three-fourths majority, which would be near impossible considering that the controlling party in both just won an election because of the system. It would be possible, however, for state governments to change how their electoral votes are counted. Most states use a winner take all system for votes, however both Maine and Nebraska award votes, “according to district as well as statewide results”(Schlesinger). So why haven’t more states switched to a method that splits the vote more like the population? By giving all of their electoral votes to one candidate, it “augments their power”(Schlesinger), essentially making state opinion’s count more than national opinions in the voting.
I highly doubt that this alone would fix the system anyways. In a study done by Jeff Singer of The Daily Kos, he found that, “Despite losing the national popular vote by 2.1%, Donald Trump carried 230 congressional districts and Hillary Clinton just 205.” Even if every state voted in the manner that Maine and Nebraska do, Trump would have acquired 230 votes through congressional districts and 60 more votes by winning 30 states outright, giving him 20 more votes than he needed to win the election. It might surprise people that this would be the case (it certainly surprised me), but it makes sense politically. Trump ran as a republican, the party that currently controls the House of Representatives, meaning that most of the congressional districts would align themselves with him.
These districts bring their own political problems to the table, however. These districts are zoned by state legislators, meaning that whichever party controls the state government, also has the power to effect the representation of their party in Congress. As a matter of fact, David A. Lieb of the Associated Press “found that Republicans won as many as 22 additional U.S. House seats over what would have been expected.” So, if, hypothetically, every district were rezoned to give candidates a more equal chance at congressional representation, There would be 22 more Democratic districts. In the situation that every state divides electoral votes out like Maine and Nebraska, this might have caused Trump to get 22 less votes, preventing him from clinching the presidency by 2. Of course this is not a perfect system, but it is much closer than we currently are.
Can I have some asthma medication? I may have to see your prescription please…..Can I have a Gun? Right away, Sir!
As hotly debated as of a topic it has always been and will be until something is done about it, gun control issue has been all over the news since the last horrific mass shooting in Las Vegas. Though the Second Amendment evinces that “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” But there is definitely a need to control the extent and quantity of the arms one can bear. You may feel safe with just one gun in your holster or may feel still insecure even after possessing a whole barrage of machine guns. A perfect balance between constitutional rights and effective society management is to call for gun control. Would you prefer to live in a place where it is harder to get a cronut than a gun or in a place where guns are just as hard as to get a bite of cronut?
In a country, where to buy a cronut, it takes almost 2 and 1/2 hour, but whereas for a gun, it just takes less than 22 minutes to buy a .22 rifle, I believe every person needs to be vetted before they can buy a gun. Approximately, 3 million American civilians carry guns today, that is 1 percent of the entire population. Though the percentage may seem less at the start, when you look at the bigger picture, America has had the most gun murders per 100,000 residents in the year 2015 than the following 7 countries combined. With almost one mass shooting averaging per day, 291 mass shootings have had happened in the last twelve months out of which 154 alone happened in this calendar year, 6,880 gun-related deaths have taken place due to mass shooting.
Repealing the Second Amendment and therefore taking guns away from everybody is going to be tough as 30% of the Total Percentage of Individuals owns a Firearm, but we can at least try to amend it by getting the Congress to pass a law to have just as diligent checks as getting a passport for the first time requirements. During the time when the Second Amendment had just been passed in 1791, the latest technology in the gun industry were muskets, which had a reload time of 15-20 seconds. Today with the advancement in technology has come so far, to empty a whole clip of a semi-automatic rifle it takes 15-20 seconds. At that time it seemed like a sensible idea for everybody to have a gun for their safety and not worry about people going on a rampage of mass shooting, but today a refined gun control is imperative for the safety of the people and for the country as a whole.
Looking at the recent unfortunate mass shooting at Las Vegas country music festival, 59 people were killed and about 525 were injured. According to the Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department’s sheriff, 23 guns were found in Stephen Paddock’s room. If anybody can so easily buy more than 20 guns in America itself, than what is the use of having a travel ban to restrict terrorist attacks!
Therefore, if we make the Second Amendment refined now, that way we will have no Paddock who can kill 58 innocents. Though we may still have some shooting here and there, this is perfect time to carefully review the lackadaisical process of buying arms. Its time we make the amendment refined and make the process of getting a semi-automatic rifle just a tough as buying a Kinder Eggs and unpasteurized milk to make brie. Let us stop lighting the candles for the victims, and light the will of fire in people to amend the Second Amendment for betterment of our posterity.
Image-1 source: Cronut vs gun (picture edited according to the preference).
Image-2 source: Gun Murders per 100,000 residents.
Is Democracy Crumbling? You Won’t Believe the Answer
In 2017, America is the most politically divided it has ever been. The legislative branch of government has become unable to make any decisions because of the stiff polarization between the two major political parties. We have lost our sense of compromise and driven our country apart. We must change the way we think of politics and respect the ideals of Democracy.
It is a popular belief that Political Extremism stems from misunderstanding. This is important to keep in mind when you look at the recent popularity of the Alt-right and Antifa. Both of these groups see injustices in their communities and want change. However they have had to resort to violence, because we live in an age where hurling insults comes before discussion. People don’t want to sit and talk anymore, they want their way. Though this may not be true for everyone who identifies with these groups, it is prevalent in their public affairs.
The internet has created echo chambers of like-minded individuals on both sides who have been protected by the anonymity of a screen name. If you do a quick google search of any of these new political parties you will find highly populated forums, websites and posts. Which may seem surprising to a non-member of these communities. They have found safety in numbers, getting riled up behind their keyboards and arranging public events to meet beyond the false invincibility of their monitors.
The creation and popularity of these political parties speaks to the state of our country. So many people from both the left and right have locked themselves into place, and those who really want change have had to be bigger and louder than those in Washington. However they have also gravitated towards exaggerations of what these parties have stood for, and developed new political identities.
Democracy works best when compromise is reached. Because not everyone can be satisfied with the state of the government, compromise ensures that we can reach a median. We are no longer one people of one nation, but a divided people who are struggling for power over the other half.
Part of our problem is how we see politics. We are told to not discuss politics when we meet new people, because it has become such a sensitive issue. This train of thought makes politics very personal, so when someone doesn’t agree with you, it almost like an attack on you as a person. Which is absolutely ludicrous. If we are going to label political discussion as a taboo we are impeding on our own freedom of speech and progression as a nation. Without responsible, and respectful political discourse nothing can be done in our country.
We should value our say in the decisions of our government, but we should also value our disagreements between us as a people. We should see that challenging what we believe to be right or wrong is what made America into the global superpower that we are today. We have lost these ideas in the clouds of mace and useless violence. We can not be reunited as a nation until we can see someone else’s perspective and respect their right to have an opinion. We must push forward as a people through compromise.
The Roles of Our President: Too Little or Too Much Authority?
The course that our country takes, whether it is good or bad, is based off of the role that our President takes on. The United States is made up of many branches and parts such as the Judiciary, Legislative, and Executive branches. The politicians that work in these government branches, and the common citizens that work and run businesses, are the backbone of our country, but the President is what are country is judged by. The decisions, remarks, and actions by the President are constantly being judged by those inside and out of the United States, and it is these judgments that can allow or prevent our country from making strides to peace.
President Obama has the responsibility to maintain the status as the United States’ leader, and is forced to make important decisions at any time. No one knows when our Commander-in-Chief will be called into action to make an address to the country or another country, but what we do know is that our President must be able to do it successfully. This has not always been this way though. The Founders of the Constitution wanted to make sure that an executive would not have too much power, so they put in checks to keep the power under control. Over the past century, however, the power of the executive power has expanded. With society and government evolving in the United States and the world, the President had no choice but to expand his role as a leader to continue to display his positive authority. To expand on this issue of the roles of the President, Cornell political scientist Clinton Rossiter, offers his views that a President must be willing to embrace the roles and power that comes with being President in order for the authority to be embraced correctly. In his work, The American Presidency, Rossiter explains the roles that he believes the roles of the President include Commander-in-Chief of the Army and Navy, Chief Executive, World Leader, Chief Legislator, Protector of the Peace, Chief of State, Manager of Prosperity, Chief Diplomat, Voice of the People, and Chief of Party. While all are important roles of the President, my opinion is that the most important role is Commander-in-Chief because it deals with the safety and well being of the nation. The United States was founded on principles that guarantee the protection of citizens and their rights. Since these fundamentals are the backbone of the country, protecting them is essential. There is no better person to be in charge of these priorities than the person the country elects and trusts as their leader: the President. The role of Commander-in-Chief is most important to the people, and is the most important role of the President (Modern Presidential Roles).
This role is mainly associated with the category of military, and while the President has advisors and other politicians to help with running the nitty-gritty parts of government, this is a role that gives the President to make decisions, and no one else. Rossiter explains that, “ In peace and war he is the supreme commander of the armed forces, the living guarantee of the American belief in the supremacy of the civil over military authority” (Rossiter 201/1). In any time of war, the President has the call of where, when, and how many soldiers will be sent into battle, no matter the size, to defend the Constitution and our freedom. On the other side of this coin, the least important role of the President, in my opinion, is that of Chief of Party. This role seems to be less important because, it is just an obvious fact that requires minimal attention by the President himself. If the candidate that wins the election is a Democrat, it would only be logical that he his also the leader of the Democratic Party. While the President still controls the selection of other party leaders, serves as a motivator, the President also has many others people that help him in the running of the party, so the President may address other more important issues. Though the party of the President partakes in a major role in the government of the United States, it is not always fully on the shoulders of the President to make sure the party runs smoothly, but also along others who are appointed in the party to continue those duties. The role of the Chief of Party is just a small block in the foundation of the President’s duties that serves its own importance, but is the least important of all of his roles as President” (Modern Presidential Roles).
While this is still a necessary role to the President, it seems to slip in importance because is can be handled by other people besides the President, but nonetheless, the President must still make the, “selection of top party officials” (Rossiter 207/3). While the President may not have the power to address all issues that may arise, the roles he does have suggests that most situations should fall under the place of at least one of them.President Obama has endured a traumatic presidency starting with the beginning of the recession, and most recently the shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary School. The roles that he has obtained by being the leader of our country has allowed him to make decisions and actions, with the help of others, to continue to persevere through it all. Only the continued usage of all of his roles can ensure that the United States is in proper form to face any obstacles that may arise in the country, and only a strong leader can be capable of managing/assessing the situation, and making the decisions that will continue to lead our country onward to liberty and freedom.
Guns in America: The Rise or Downfall of American Society?
Whether we like it or not, gun violence is everywhere. It is in the movies or TV shows we watch, the video games our children play, and worst of all, it is right outside our homes. Now don’t get me wrong, police and military must use violence to protect and serve our country, but it is still violence nonetheless. According to Science Daily, more than 30,000 people are killed yearly in America by guns, which is about 85 people per day.
Some people have gone to the radical side and say that guns need to be removed from American society as a whole. This is not a rational and plausible solution to solve gun violence for two reasons. The first, and most important, is that is a second amendment right. The Constitution clearly states that, “ the right to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed” (Amendment II). It is also not reasonable because in order for the public to be protected, the proper authorities (i.e. police, military, etc.) must have access to guns for them to have sufficient power over criminals. The other side of this coin is that other people are demanding even looser gun restriction laws in America. While people do have the right to have guns in America, there must be certain rules and restrictions that come with trying to possess one of these killing machines. While there is still a lot of negotiating to be done regarding guns in America, the only way to come to a plausible solution is to compromise from both sides of the equation.
The argument that involves a person’s right to own a gun is not the problem that we are facing today. The second amendment protects a person’s right to bear arms, and if a gun is their choice, they have the right to own it. This is a common point that the NRA (National Rifle Association) and many Republicans use to protect their right to own guns. While not necessarily pointing towards eliminating guns completely, President Obama and Vice President Joe Biden have headed a special teams of experts working on solving this ever-growing problem of gun violence.
The Democratic side has leaned towards more of a “cutting back” approach, rather than a “fully cut” method for a solution. Jeff Mason of Reuters explains some suggested ideas this team have included, “including the assault weapons ban, and a measure to ban high-capacity magazine clips” (Reuters). This idea would not only help reduce gun violence that is based off of these particular aspects, but could also start a movement to have even more restrictions on guns in order to prevent more horrific tragedies that are caused by guns today. Without a doubt, there is an uphill battle for new gun control laws to be passed in Congress, but that only way to make it happen would be for both Republicans and Democrats to come to a median, and do what is best for the safety of our country, and not what is best for each party in the upcoming elections. The Republicans in the House of Representatives and the Democrats in the Senate along with the President will have to sacrifice some of their own beliefs, and conform their policy around something that they may not feel comfortable with in order to create some sort of solution, or to at least engage in a stepping block to get there. Mason also refers to the democrats will try to compromise by the reason that , “Obama will need to get his proposals passed” (Reuters). The proposals that Obama has begun tinkering with, besides the reduced magazine clips and assault rifle ban, are the increased background checks. These new and improved background checks will be more strenuous in their processes and will give more support to the efforts in keeping some of the world’s deadliest machines out of the hands of those who are not fit for them.
The increase of gun usage in America stems from the core of what we believe in as Americans. Since we have the right to bear arms, many Americans have decided to exercise this to the fullest, and purchase way more guns than any human being would need. Others have decided to stay away from guns because they have seen what they can do. According to Slate, 1,793 people have died from guns since the shooting in Newtown. The aftermath, though, has been quite astonishing. While the politicians and gun experts are trying to solve this gun issue, more guns are flying off the shelf.
The weeks following the Newtown shooting have brought some of the biggest times of profit for gun stores and exhibitions. While most people believe and buy these guns for protection and recreational use, the other reason is because they know that in the near future, they may not be able to buy these guns. They know that at some point the United States government is going to restrict their rights, and they want to be prepared for it. These people are exercising their fundamental rights and beliefs in order to protect themselves from not only criminals on the street, but also the government that has sworn to protect them. The citizens of the United States must learn to live with guns because whether or not we like them, we will be seeing, hearing, and responding to them in the time to come.
Justice Antonin Scalia: Legal Philosophy in the 21st Century Court
It is not often that a Justice from the United States Supreme Court agrees to an interview on national television, or an interview of any kind for that matter. So when a Justice does come forward, it is a great opportunity to get a glimpse into some of the inner workings of the highest court in the land.
Article 3 of Section I of the United States Constitution states that “The judicial Power of the United States shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish.” With this statement combined with multiple amendments, acts of Congress (specifically the Judiciary Act of September 24, 1789 (1 Stat. 73)), and countless landmark decisions, the Supreme Court has become what it is today. Operating under 28 U. S. C. §§ 1-4105, the Supreme Court has the duty to serve at the top of the judicial branch as a vital part of the “checks and balances” system, a concept created by Montesquieu and incorporated into the structure of American government by the Constitutional Framers.
One of their longest serving distinguished justices and a strong believer in the practices and intentions of the Framers of the Constitution within the Supreme Court is Senior Associate Justice Antonin Gregory Scalia. Born March 11, 1936, in Trenton, New Jersey and appointed by President Ronald Reagan in 1986 to fill a seat vacated when Justice William Rehnquist was elevated to Chief Justice, Scalia displays legal brilliance in his aggressive yet witty oral and written opinions, especially when he dissents. He is the talkative one on the court, asking more questions and making more comments than his peers. Dahlia Lithwick of Slate has described Scalia’s performances saying:
Scalia doesn’t come into oral argument all secretive and sphinx like, feigning indecision on the nuances of the case before him. He comes in like a medieval knight, girded for battle. He knows what the law is. He knows what the opinion should say. And he uses the hour allocated for argument to bludgeon his brethren into agreement.
His written arguments are also famous for the sheer number of concurring opinions and dissents that he has had the privilege to author. Another Slate reporter, Conor Clarke comments on his writing style:
His writing style is best described as equal parts anger, confidence, and pageantry. Scalia has a taste for garish analogies and offbeat allusions—often very funny ones—and he speaks in no uncertain terms. He is highly accessible and tries not to get bogged down in abstruse legal jargon.
Described by many as the premier legal thinker of his generation, his role on the court is that of the scholarly anchor of the 
conservative majority. Aside from his brilliant legal career and well-known conservative philosophies, Scalia prides himself in his devout Roman Catholic points of view. He is a family man with nine children, nearly thirty grandchildren, and a lifelong mate, Maureen McCarthy.
Thus, in the midst of this today’s hot political atmosphere with the influence of the Supreme Court ringing throughout the nation’s ears, Justice Scalia, somewhat of a political celebrity, put aside his reluctance to conduct interviews and sat down with Chris Wallace for “Fox News Sunday.” In the half-hour interview, aired July 29th, 2012, Scalia and Wallace discuss a broad range of topics.
Justice Antonin Scalia Interview with Mike Wallace, “FOX News Sunday”
Three major points that stand out to me are enumerated below:
I. Legal Philosophy
Referencing Justice Scalia’s new book, Reading the Law: The Interpretation of Legal Text, Wallace opens the discussion with Justice Scalia on the topic of judicial philosophy, specifically originalism and textualism. According to Scalia, one who subscribes to the practice of textualism believes that one should be accountable to the text alone; neither the perceived favorability of the outcome nor legislative and judicial history should bear any influence in one’s decision. As a sort of subset of the this philosophy lies the concept of originalism—the idea that the text should be interpreted under the context of when it was created, that “if it was the Constitution written in the 18th century, you try to find what those words meant in the 18th century” (Scalia Interview).
Moving to the opposite side of the spectrum, Wallace asks Scalia about another judicial approach called purposivism. Describing it as “probably the most popular form of interpretation in recent times,” Scalia explains purposivism as “consulting the purpose of the statute and deciding the case on the basis of what will further the purpose.”
At its root, this is the basis of the liberal “Living Constitution” theory, which maintains that the interpretation of the Constitution must change as the values and desires of society change. As President Woodrow Wilson believed, our nation is “a living thing . . . modified by its environment, necessitated by its tasks, shaped to its functions by the sheer pressure of life. No living thing can have its organs offset against each other as checks and live.”
As observed through his response to the video clip of Justice Breyer subscribing to the idea of this “Living Constitution,” Scalia’s conservative judicial philosophy lies in stark opposition to these more progressive perspectives. As Scalia states, “What originalism means is that you give the Constitution the meaning that it had with respect to those phenomena that were in existence at the time, say, the death penalty.” For those phenomena that did not exist at the time, Scalia posits that while interpretive decisions must be made, the criterion for the interpretations must be based in the understood interpretations of the applicable statutes at the time. Essentially, while the electric chair did not exist in the times of the Constitution, death by hanging did, and it was not considered cruel and unusual. In deciding the case, originalists would question whether the electric chair is more cruel and unusual than hanging. For Scalia, there is no way that it is as it was adopted in the first place to be less cruel.
Most conservative originalists understand that the Constitution is imperfect and that society changes. Yet, the idea of an evolutionary Constitution is quite antithetical to the point of having a constitution: a document that places unchanging limits on the powers of the government to preserve the people’s social contract. For judicial conservativists, the only legitimate way to incorporate societal changes into the Constitution is through the amendment process as it ensures that changes are only made for those matters of the utmost importance. It safeguards the integrity of the Constitution while preventing simple reinterpretations at the momentary public whim.
II. Gun Control
In light of the recent “Dark Knight” shooting in Colorado, Wallace also brought up the issue of gun control, a topic that has made its way into the media an increasing number of times in the past several years. In the 2008 majority opinion of District of Columbia v. Heller (No. 07-290) 478 F. 3d 370, Scalia stated, “The Second Amendment protects an individual’s right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home.” Declaring the handgun ban in the nation’s capitol as unconstitutional, this landmark Heller decision was the first United States Supreme Court case to confirm that the Second Amendment protects the rights of individuals to keep and bear arms.
Scalia makes clear, however, that the right as stated in the Second Amendment in the United States Bill of Rights is not unlimited. “It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose” (Scalia in Heller opinion). In the interview, he also emphasizes the fact that the Second Amendment obviously only applies to those weapons that can be hand-carried, that one can “bear.” Even so, with technological advances allowing smaller weapons to cause immense damage, the extent of what limitations should be considered “permissible” will be up for discretion in future cases. Scalia, as a textualist, states that “My starting point and ending point probably will be what limitations are within the understood limitations that the society had at the time. They had some limitation on the nature of arms that could be born. So, we’ll see what those limitations are as applied to modern weapons.”
These comments shocked many ardent supporters of American’s right to “lock and load” as they questioned where the Scalia was that wrote the landmark gun control case. They would argue that the Second Amendment emphatically states that “the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed,” namely, that the people’s individual right to be armed ought to be respected and that the resulting armed population will be secure against tyranny, invasion, and crime. Thus, outrage immediately sprang up on the Twitter and Internet feeds as supporters saw the door opening for future gun-control legislation. Those in support of Scalia, however, would say that he was simply discussing the principles the court should apply in deciding the contours of the right to “keep and bear arms” in the various settings where a case could surface, just as they guided his majority opinion in Heller and Justice Samuel Alito’s opinion in McDonald v. Chicago in 2010.
III. How Political is the Court?
The third major point of interest in the Chris Wallace interview revolves around the Supreme Court and its interaction with politics. When questioned about the politics of the court, Scalia responds that he does not believe that the court is political at all. For him, the facts that conservative judges vote for conservative outcomes and liberal judges vote for liberal outcomes as well as the 5-4 split votes with Republican-appointed judges on one side and Democrat-appointed judges on the other is all based upon their judicial methodologies. If Republicans are looking for originalist conservative judges and Democrats are looking for the opposite, then “Why should it be a surprise that after, you know, assiduously trying to get people with these philosophies, they end up with this philosophies?” (Scalia Interview).
I too believe that the court is not overly “political” but for reasons beyond Scalia’s argument that the court typically splits based on judicial methodologies. If one looks at history, dissents are not always along party lines. Thus, ideology does not always drive the dissent rate, but the types of cases heard by the Supreme Court drive the outcomes. As cases have become more complex, polarized, and controversial, dividing the Court of Appeals, they tend to make their way to the highest court in the land. Easy cases at the lower court levels with 8-1, 7-2, or similar outcomes rarely are heard on appeal. Thus, by nature and based upon historical data, future courts will have comparable divisions based upon the cases they choose to hear.
Yet, realistically, it seems to be impossible for the court to be completely independent from party affairs. In his 2010 State of the Union address, President Obama publicly criticized the Supreme Court’s decision in Citizens United stating, “I don’t think American elections should be bankrolled by America’s most powerful interest, and worse, by foreign entities. They should be decided by the American people, and that’s why I’m urging Democrats and Republicans to pass a bill that helps to right this wrong.” Scalia describes the State of the Union as a “juvenile spectacle” that is inappropriate for justices to attend. In my opinion, the President’s swipe at the Supreme Court was a lack of respectability and represents what is bad in Washington politics. While Scalia was present in seven of the first nine addresses after being appointed to the court, he hasn’t been to one since. (NY Times) Just as Scalia isn’t attending, recent addresses have seen a decrease in attendance among other court members, indicating that some are uncomfortable being put in such a “partisan” position.
Even when presented with a quote from Obama pressuring the court during the Affordable Care Act proceedings, Scalia remains restrai
ned stating, “I don’t criticize the President publicly and he normally doesn’t criticize me.” He does give a brief comment on the court and politics continuing, “What can he do to me? Or to any of us? We have life tenure and we have it precisely so that we will not be influenced by politics, by threats from anybody.”
Furthermore, when Wallace questions Scalia about whether the unprecedented nature of the court—an unelected group—to overturn an act passed by congress (had the Affordable Care Act (ACA) been declared unconstitutional), Scalia engages on an explanation, and a very eloquent one in my opinion, of the role and function of the Supreme Court in American society:
Look, the most important role we play and the reason we have life tenure is precisely because now and then, we have to tell the majority, the people that they can’t do what they wanted to do. That what they want to do was unconstitutional and therefore go away. Now, that’s not going to make us popular. And you can say, oh, it’s very undemocratic and in a small sense it is. In the larger sense, it isn’t however, because it’s the American people who gave us the power. It’s the American people who said, no, there are some things we’re not going to let future legislators do, even if they want to do it. And we are simply applying the judgment of the American people over time.
Ever since Marbury v. Madison in 1803, the high court has overturned countless acts of Congress; it is the duty of the Supreme Court to do so. At the core of his statements, Scalia is describing how the Supreme Court is not and should not be accountable to the people, but to the Constitution alone. Their one and only role is to protect its integrity and in doing so protect the social contract of the people.
The interview concluded with a lively exchange concerning the question of his retirement from the bench. When Wallace asked about Scalia timing his retirement to give the appointment to a conservative President, Scalia reluctantly answered the question stating, “No, of course, I would not like to be replaced by someone who immediately sets about undoing everything that I’ve tried to do for 25 years, 26 years, sure. I mean, I shouldn’t have to tell you that.” For sure, Scalia is concerned about his legacy and the hole in the “originalist” philosophy that might result from his departure. However, Scalia made it clear, he doesn’t seem to be ready to say farewell to the law or his legal career just yet.
President Obama Supports Gay Marriage: Why He Did It and What It Means
Recently, it has made headline news that President Barack Obama has announced his support for the marriage of a LGBT couple. I know that a lot of my fellow classmates have already spoken about this but hopefully I will be able to keep this interesting and shed some light on the subject. In our government studies this year, several topics have caught my eye but one has been the use of campaign commercials and the relationship of the political parties. Hopefully I can examine the reasoning behind his decision to support gay marriage.
Vice President Joe Biden also came out and supported gay marriage three days earlier than . When I heard President Barack Obama’s comments, I had a few thoughts. I thought that maybe Barack Obama felt pressured into also supporting gay marriage just because his vice president supported as well. I also thought that maybe Vice President Biden stole President Obama’s thunder by supporting gay marriage just days before the President. It turns out that both the former and the latter might be true. According to The New York Times, Vice President apologized to President Obama for, “hastening him into an endorsement of same-sex marriage, several people briefed on the exchange said Thursday, even as the White House sought to capitalize in the campaign on Mr. Obama’s long-awaited expression of support” (1). The campaign of President Obama really wanted to be progressive and support gay marriage but Biden called a press conference first and his views were much different than Obama’s views. Even though President Obama’s support has been highly analyzed, Biden made the headlines first and some people have questions about President Obama’s motives. I don’t doubt that President Obama supports gay marriage, but I think he was forced into saying it by his fellow party members.
President Obama is now the first President of the United States to support gay marriage, but it does not necessary mean anything for the legalization in America of gay marriage. Sean Eldridge, senior adviser at Freedom to Marry, told Yahoo News, “Today is more about moral leadership and less about policy. I don’t think his statement will immediately translate into policy since marriage still is for the most part a state issue” (2). Eldridge brings up some good points. If marriage is mostly a state issue, it would take a while to make the 6 states that allow it to become 50. The President has shown support of LGBT in the past; this statement didn’t come out of nowhere. He ended the ban of openly gay members to be in the military. He also, “supports the repeal of the Defense of Marriage Act, and he ordered the Justice Department last year to abandon the law’s defense” (2). Now that President Obama supports gay marriage, he is the best hope for the LGBT community to earn the right to get married. Although it could be just a political ploy, it seems like President Obama is trying his best to allow gay marriage in America even though he may not be ready to cope with the thought of it yet.
Obama said that he recently changed his mind when he spoke with openly LGBT members of the military. He has a track record with being supportive of gay rights and equality for all, but it is still unclear whether this is a political ploy or a truthful acknowledgment. Well, it’s both. The timing is good for his campaign and Joe Biden also came out and supported it, both signs that it could be a political act. His track record, however, proves that he does in fact support gay rights. Honestly, it is up to the reader to decide what his ulterior motives are and what he truly believes.
2. http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/OTUS/obamas-gay-marriage-views-policyabout-moral-leadership-advocate/story?id=16314661#.T7JenZ9YthM
21st Century Citizenship 