An election cycle that I’d like to stop
I didn’t go to law school, but I’m sure that discerning what goes into any U.S. Supreme Court decision is likely a fool’s game. But I can’t help wondering about the justices’ focus in its state presidential ballot question, as issued Monday, March 4.
Back when presidential inaugurations were conducted on March 4 every fourth year it was generally recognized that most state parties advanced their candidates for the highest office through political conventions. How many of us have watched television to hear, “The great State of Virginia casts its 54 (not a real total) votes for A (or B).” Indeed, the USA has twice seen its president chosen by the House of Representatives — in 1800 and again in 1824. Might such procedures and occurrences suggest that it is by the states that a chief executive is elected? Note that the Electoral College is conducted and tabulated by state.
I have generally favored a popular vote for the presidency. But now the highest court kicked the fitness-for-office can back to Congress. I know we have a (supposed) republic; Ben Franklin called it. But a truly federal system may not harbor most of its electoral process within the states. So it is with some confusion that I consider what the court really intends here. If these elections are governed by state ballots (and those instances where a president is chosen by the House grant one vote to each state), from where does this court’s reading of the 14th Amendment rise? As for the “insurrection” question, which the court sidestepped, how clear would the sight need to be when across the street people are ravaging the Capitol after being told, “And you have to get your people to fight”? What can anyone draw from that remark, as televised nationwide? Yes, the congress itself (small “C” now) couldn’t come to grips with that reality when it had a chance through a second impeachment trial in 2021. Perhaps Norma Anderson and a few other states brought their petitions under the incorrect issue?
Is America truly no longer great? What made her great? Start with the unselfish, teamspirited innovation and dedication of her people. People who joined others and endured the Great Depression, two world wars, the Spanish Flu epidemic, the Civil War, the Joseph Mccarthy (real) witch hunt, the Cold War, scandals, crime waves, lies, and miscalculations. No nation becomes great — great “again” — until and unless it has surrendered all its underlying and incomprehensibly indefatigable qualities. All of them. No one would think we are perfect, least of all me. I’ve been a cynic since I was in high school. But I don’t subscribe or adhere to any complaint useful only as a campaign slogan tag line. My price is much higher.
Does anyone else feel like we the people are being carried along like corks in a river while the forces of darkness converge to bring us to a low point in our political system — indeed, a cliff’s edge? Pardon me, but I favor “Cliff Notes” for less weighty subjects.
If the appellant in Supreme Court Docket 23-719 should regain the Oval Office I am relatively certain of at least one thing in store for Colorado: Count on Space Command packing soon for the Heart of Dixie. If politics teaches anything, it is pay your dues. Or find another line of work. Even if you’ve been adjudged a fraud and must sell assets to pay for your sins. And what kind of leader can find nothing nice to say about anyone who doesn’t kiss his feet? Josef Stalin and Julius Caesar would not have been on my phone’s “contact” list, either.
On average, about once every 50 to 60 years or so we get the chance to take the democracy test. Or there is at least a high (low?) point in the effort to keep the lamps lit in this “city on a hill.” The election of Abraham Lincoln followed George Washington’s retirement by 61 years. Grant preceded FDR by 60, and Theodore Roosevelt was about 59 years earlier than JFK. Then there was Nixon, who was elected 54 years ago. Can we safely and honestly get past this cycle?