A Catholic website for the modern reader
James Madison
Thank You, Mr. President
21/08/20 10:09 Filed in: Presidential Achievements | Unites States Government
In his acceptance speech at the Democratic National Convention, Joseph R. Biden made reference to former President Barack Obama and said, “Thank you, Mr. President.” I think it is high time that we do the same thing for Donald Trump. It’s time to give him a break and say, “Thank you, Mr. President.” There are a number of reasons I suggest this.
For too long, Trump has been denigrated for not reading. But from the early 1900s we have used the expression, “A picture is worth a thousand words.” So what if Trump does not read? He watches television and his example has encouraged Americans to watch more TV, themselves. In doing so we are treated to constantly changing visuals, to what is now thousands of pictures, equating to millions of words in hundreds of thousands of books. That means we are smarter, now. And watching television is faster than reading a book. Thank you, Mr. President.
Besides, it’s unfair to say Trump does not read. He does. But, like many of us, he stops reading when the book or subject does not hold his attention. For example, people have said that he never read the Constitution of the United States. Well, at least he started to. But he was understandably turned off by the first three words, “We the people.” How can anyone expect him to read on? I blame James Madison. The document should have started with "I."
In his speech Biden said that love is stronger than hate. He thought that would be a zinger against Trump. But look at foreign policy. Every president since the Korean conflict has treated the Kim family with disdain. It may not be a stretch to suggest that our presidents have hated the various Kim dictators. But let me tell you, Mr. Biden, Trump also knows about love. After all, he and Kim Jong Un have fallen in love with each other. Name another president would say so out loud—especially given the undertones of that expression. But Trump does not know fear and so he told the nation with clarity and conviction that he and Kim had fallen in love with each other. That’s how you build peace. Thank you, Mr. President.
So what if Kim continues to test ballistic missiles and build nuclear weapons? South Korea and Japan are not really our allies. They don’t love Trump. At least Kim knows the way into Trump’s heart. All you have to do is say nice things about him. It does not matter how dangerous, or evil, or out of touch you are with reality. All one needs to do is “like” Mr. Trump—a lesson learned well by the crazies of the QAnon conspiracy.
There are many more reasons to thank Mr. Trump than can be included in this piece. But it is essential to list one more. This has to do with the budget of the Secret Service. This agency of the United States Government enlists officers to protect the president. As the movie “Dave” notes, a secret service agent must be willing to take a bullet for the president. But this protection extends beyond a president’s term in office. They have life long protection. Many people have questioned why. Well, consider that once out of office a former president still possesses knowledge critical to the security of the United States, including methods of obtaining intelligence information. We cannot allow that to fall into the hands of a foreign enemy. Trump has eliminated the need for life long Secret Service protection and it did not require an act of congress or an executive order. He simply brought a new reality to bear.
When Trump leaves office he will possess no knowledge having to do with the United States Government. He will know nothing about the Constitution, nothing about foreign affairs, nothing about intelligence—his or the country’s. Therefore, when Trump leaves office he will continue to trim waste by saving the Secret Service a lot of money..
Thank you, Mr. President!
For too long, Trump has been denigrated for not reading. But from the early 1900s we have used the expression, “A picture is worth a thousand words.” So what if Trump does not read? He watches television and his example has encouraged Americans to watch more TV, themselves. In doing so we are treated to constantly changing visuals, to what is now thousands of pictures, equating to millions of words in hundreds of thousands of books. That means we are smarter, now. And watching television is faster than reading a book. Thank you, Mr. President.
Besides, it’s unfair to say Trump does not read. He does. But, like many of us, he stops reading when the book or subject does not hold his attention. For example, people have said that he never read the Constitution of the United States. Well, at least he started to. But he was understandably turned off by the first three words, “We the people.” How can anyone expect him to read on? I blame James Madison. The document should have started with "I."
In his speech Biden said that love is stronger than hate. He thought that would be a zinger against Trump. But look at foreign policy. Every president since the Korean conflict has treated the Kim family with disdain. It may not be a stretch to suggest that our presidents have hated the various Kim dictators. But let me tell you, Mr. Biden, Trump also knows about love. After all, he and Kim Jong Un have fallen in love with each other. Name another president would say so out loud—especially given the undertones of that expression. But Trump does not know fear and so he told the nation with clarity and conviction that he and Kim had fallen in love with each other. That’s how you build peace. Thank you, Mr. President.
So what if Kim continues to test ballistic missiles and build nuclear weapons? South Korea and Japan are not really our allies. They don’t love Trump. At least Kim knows the way into Trump’s heart. All you have to do is say nice things about him. It does not matter how dangerous, or evil, or out of touch you are with reality. All one needs to do is “like” Mr. Trump—a lesson learned well by the crazies of the QAnon conspiracy.
There are many more reasons to thank Mr. Trump than can be included in this piece. But it is essential to list one more. This has to do with the budget of the Secret Service. This agency of the United States Government enlists officers to protect the president. As the movie “Dave” notes, a secret service agent must be willing to take a bullet for the president. But this protection extends beyond a president’s term in office. They have life long protection. Many people have questioned why. Well, consider that once out of office a former president still possesses knowledge critical to the security of the United States, including methods of obtaining intelligence information. We cannot allow that to fall into the hands of a foreign enemy. Trump has eliminated the need for life long Secret Service protection and it did not require an act of congress or an executive order. He simply brought a new reality to bear.
When Trump leaves office he will possess no knowledge having to do with the United States Government. He will know nothing about the Constitution, nothing about foreign affairs, nothing about intelligence—his or the country’s. Therefore, when Trump leaves office he will continue to trim waste by saving the Secret Service a lot of money..
Thank you, Mr. President!
The Electoral College at 205 Years of Age
16/10/12 16:37 Filed in: Electoral College | The Constitution | Democracy | Direct Election of the President
When the Constitution was adopted in 1787, one of the key concerns was the election of the President and Vice-President. Contrary to popular belief, the current electoral system was not established to provide equal representation among sparsely and densely populated states. There were only about 4 million people in the U.S. in 1787. Today the United States of America is the third largest population in the world with over 314 million.
The Electoral College, or “Electors” as it is referred to in the Constitution, was itself a compromise system. The Electoral College is an example of federalism as much by accident as by intent. One suggestion under consideration at the time was that Congress should elect the President. The risk there, of course, is that the President would be beholden to Congress, not to the people. James Madison, among others, favored a direct election by total popular vote. However, as he himself wrote, that was an equally unworkable construct due to the restricted voting rights in slave states. Thus was born a compromise known as the Electoral College.
Query: Is this electoral system relevant in today’s world? Unfortunately, it seems that this question is only raised in earnest every four years, during a presidential election. Yes, this is 2012, an election year. Yes, I am adding my voice to this issue, even though it cannot be resolved at this time.
Therein lies the paradox. It is precisely because we are in the midst of an election that the issue is of concern, and the issue will fade from view once the election is over—unless we have a repeat of the 2000 presidential election. Democrats cried foul when Al Gore won a substantial majority of popular votes, but George W. Bush was elected by a single electoral vote. Would the Republicans not have been just as vociferous had the tables been turned? Of course they would. Such is the disingenuous nature of politics. Nobody wants a repeat of that election. Now, then, is the time to seize upon a public interest, and lay the groundwork for a post-election debate.
Everyone in America is well aware of a troubling fact: There are only a handful of states that will determine the outcome of this election. In principle, every vote counts. In reality, every vote does not count equally.
The all-important swing states are created because states like California and Texas are solidly Democratic and Republican, respectively. At least for now. These two most populous states in the nation, together representing 89 electoral votes, are not “in play”. All the attention of the Obama and Romney campaigns is on nine states, each with only a handful of electoral votes: one with only four, and two with only six.
Proponents of the current system suggest that this balances the influence of smaller states; the presidential campaigns must visit these states regularly to court their votes. These states cannot be treated as “fly over” states during the election process. That suggestion does not hold up to scrutiny. There are several other sparsely populated that also possess only a handful of votes each. Yet, these are not swing states. New York and Florida each have 29 votes. Florida is a swing state. New York is not.
What would be the advantage of a popular election? Actually, it would balance the needs and interests of the entire electorate much more than the current system. Each candidate would obviously need to campaign in the large states. To begin with, even though these safe states lean predominantly one way or the other, their votes would be tallied collectively with every other state.
It is conceivable that Republican votes in a Democratic-leaning state might “swing” the election as much as the nine states do under the current system. The same holds true in reverse. The smaller states could not be ignored, because the total of their votes also might alter the outcome of the election. That evens the importance and power of every voter in every state.
I live in California. I am grateful everyday. For one thing, I am not subjected to the barrage of campaign ads that citizens in swing states must bear. And yet, whether my candidate wins or not, I want to know that my vote counts in this presidential election. I suspect that many citizens in Texas, New York, Massachusetts, Alaska, etc. think the same.
The Electoral College system may have been historically necessary, even if only to secure passage of the Constitution. This process of indirect election of the president is no longer viable. Regardless of how politically divided the country may be today, whoever is elected President of the United States must represent all the people. Maybe all the people should have a voice in who wins.
The Electoral College, or “Electors” as it is referred to in the Constitution, was itself a compromise system. The Electoral College is an example of federalism as much by accident as by intent. One suggestion under consideration at the time was that Congress should elect the President. The risk there, of course, is that the President would be beholden to Congress, not to the people. James Madison, among others, favored a direct election by total popular vote. However, as he himself wrote, that was an equally unworkable construct due to the restricted voting rights in slave states. Thus was born a compromise known as the Electoral College.
Query: Is this electoral system relevant in today’s world? Unfortunately, it seems that this question is only raised in earnest every four years, during a presidential election. Yes, this is 2012, an election year. Yes, I am adding my voice to this issue, even though it cannot be resolved at this time.
Therein lies the paradox. It is precisely because we are in the midst of an election that the issue is of concern, and the issue will fade from view once the election is over—unless we have a repeat of the 2000 presidential election. Democrats cried foul when Al Gore won a substantial majority of popular votes, but George W. Bush was elected by a single electoral vote. Would the Republicans not have been just as vociferous had the tables been turned? Of course they would. Such is the disingenuous nature of politics. Nobody wants a repeat of that election. Now, then, is the time to seize upon a public interest, and lay the groundwork for a post-election debate.
Everyone in America is well aware of a troubling fact: There are only a handful of states that will determine the outcome of this election. In principle, every vote counts. In reality, every vote does not count equally.
The all-important swing states are created because states like California and Texas are solidly Democratic and Republican, respectively. At least for now. These two most populous states in the nation, together representing 89 electoral votes, are not “in play”. All the attention of the Obama and Romney campaigns is on nine states, each with only a handful of electoral votes: one with only four, and two with only six.
Proponents of the current system suggest that this balances the influence of smaller states; the presidential campaigns must visit these states regularly to court their votes. These states cannot be treated as “fly over” states during the election process. That suggestion does not hold up to scrutiny. There are several other sparsely populated that also possess only a handful of votes each. Yet, these are not swing states. New York and Florida each have 29 votes. Florida is a swing state. New York is not.
What would be the advantage of a popular election? Actually, it would balance the needs and interests of the entire electorate much more than the current system. Each candidate would obviously need to campaign in the large states. To begin with, even though these safe states lean predominantly one way or the other, their votes would be tallied collectively with every other state.
It is conceivable that Republican votes in a Democratic-leaning state might “swing” the election as much as the nine states do under the current system. The same holds true in reverse. The smaller states could not be ignored, because the total of their votes also might alter the outcome of the election. That evens the importance and power of every voter in every state.
I live in California. I am grateful everyday. For one thing, I am not subjected to the barrage of campaign ads that citizens in swing states must bear. And yet, whether my candidate wins or not, I want to know that my vote counts in this presidential election. I suspect that many citizens in Texas, New York, Massachusetts, Alaska, etc. think the same.
The Electoral College system may have been historically necessary, even if only to secure passage of the Constitution. This process of indirect election of the president is no longer viable. Regardless of how politically divided the country may be today, whoever is elected President of the United States must represent all the people. Maybe all the people should have a voice in who wins.