Ever since the 2016 presidential election, political rhetoric and the volume to which it is bellowed has been staggering.
Journalists, pundits, rabble-rousers, and those afraid to turn off their favorite radio or TV commentator in fear the next big development in the polarizing playground of news today, have been on a ceaseless mission to either reverse, or prevent a repeat in 2020.
However, instead of finding and supporting a candidate who fits the values of their party and striving to earn victory on the merits of doing what is best for this country, Democrats have also started focusing on ways to usurp constitutional credence for nothing more than expanding their scale of power, all in the name of “winning.”
It is no mystery to even the political window shopper that President Trump has brought about extreme emotions from the country, be it rabid disdain or angelic worship.
However, more troubling than extremism is the disallowance of the citizenry to take positions anywhere other than on the far ends.
With 2020 fast approaching, we are seeing some interesting, sad, and constitutionally indifferent proposals that should make you cringe no matter your political position.
First, Democratic presidential candidates are calling for the expansion of the Supreme Court. Not because they believe nine judges can’t sufficiently handle the trials and tribulations seen in those hallowed halls, but in case a Democrat president and Senate come to power, liberal judges could be appointed to offset the recent confirmations of Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh.
It is an incredibly sad statement that every time a Supreme Court case is decided, the news articles simply stay if the case was a win for liberalism or conservatism. The Supreme Court was never intended to be about political wins, but for the ability for justice to be separated from personal and political feelings, and be weighed on constitutional merits alone.
Making an issue of expanding the court for political gain would simply take the blindfold off lady justice…which should be both disheartening and terrifying to us all.
In 2016, for the fifth time in American history, a president was elected without a plurality of the popular vote. Since the takeoff of digital media, Al Gore and Hilary Clinton were the Democratic nominees who won the popular vote, but lost the vote of the Electoral College, and thus the presidency.
Now, the war cries of many, including Elizabeth Warren, are calling for the abolishment of the Electoral College to make way for a more “fair” voting method for presidential candidates. Calling the Electoral College “outdated and antiquated” seems to be the phrase of the day, leading some people to automatically conclude it has to go.
The purpose of the Electoral College was nothing short of necessary when our constitutional republic was founded to protect against simple majority democracy. If factions of the citizenry grow so large they encompass more than 50% of the population, then the rights and liberties of the rest of the country could be sacrificed.
Alexander Hamilton discussed in the Federalist Papers that the Electoral College would preserve “the sense of the people,” but could still have the ability to decide on another if deemed necessary by the electorate.
To date, at least 15 states have begun the process to forfeit their constitutionally given abilities to limit federal power centralization.
States have the ability to decide how they apportion their electors. Most states simply established a winner-take-all methodology within the state. But now, states are joining what’s known as the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact, where the member states are pledging to give all their electoral colleges to the winner of the national popular vote, not the state vote!
I cringe to think what our founders would say watching states come together and willingly sacrificing their electoral privilege to the national popular vote. Constitutionally removing their existing constitutional protections from majority rule seems quite confounding.
Let’s look at the current members of this compact: California, Washington, Illinois, Maryland, New Jersey, Colorado, New Mexico, New York, Vermont, Massachusetts, Connecticut, Rhode Island, Hawaii, Washington D.C., and Delaware.
The common denominator? The vast majority of these states are consistently “blue” in a presidential race. Sacrificing liberty and states’ rights appears to be the undertone of the Democrat’s message.
Collectivism, one-voice one-vote, and progress are all words to describe a movement that is less about positive change, and more about crushing individual freedom. I implore all of use to cherish and respect the rights we have been afforded, and not ante them up as bargaining chips to party victory.
Jason Gibbs is a Santa Clarita resident. “Right Here, Right Now” appears Saturdays and rotates among several local Republicans.