Hatred
Harbinger
Hope
By Stephen L. Wilmeth
These
aren’t the best of times.
It probably
isn’t the worst of times, but it is knocking on the gate as a candidate for the
least likely to succeed contest. It has historical parallels.
For example,
in 1876, a trainload of investors had been ruined on Wall Street. The Indian
Wars had resumed in Montana, the Dakotas, and Wyoming Territory, and western
farmers were being devastated by another grasshopper plague following one of
the toughest winters in history (delighted by that outcome, the climate change
progenitors were no doubt meeting in some Washington hotel planning things to
come).
The
political parties did nothing to allay the fears of the public. It was an
election year, and they were posturing for preferential positions. Both
parties, Repubs and Dems, were promising reform.
Actually,
those characters should have been watching the western wars with a bit more
interest. A saga was being played out that mirrored the chronic antagonism of
that current crop of misguided and misled citizen leaders. The actors were the
Sioux and the Crow nations who, previously as one nation under their various gods,
were divided over jealousies and perceived rivalry.
The split
occurred when they migrated westward from Iowa toward Montana. Their dress,
language, habits, customs, and appearance remained nearly identical, but the
antagonism they developed for each other made them rivals. They became sworn
and mortal enemies.
If such brouhaha can be put into
context, it is the mirror image of our political parties.
Hatred
Witnessing the nomination process
of a conservative Supreme Court candidate has become no less violent than a
public display of drawing and quartering an enemy of some medieval royal court.
This week’s ritualistic verbal murder was not a thing of grace. The process
reminded the nation that there are cases and issues that divide us more than
unite us.
Further, the major debate points including
abortion, immigration, Obamacare, and the current, sitting president are far
from settled. Certainly, the fact that the nomination process has continued in
the days before the 2020 election has contentious overtones. The catcalls range
from the will of the people being subverted to the demand to honor the wishes
of the recently departed member who spawned the nomination by the president in
the first place.
Each can be debated, but what cannot
be debated is the fact the Constitution clearly sets forth the authority of the
president to make Supreme Court nominations. Article II, Section 2, Clause 2
(known as the Appointments Clause) empowers the president to nominate and, with
the confirmation of the Senate, to appoint justices of the Supreme Court.
[2] He shall have Power, …(to)
appoint … Judges of the Supreme Court …
A closer review does not reveal any
timeline. It doesn’t say the president can be expected to make such
appointments on his first day in office or his last day. It doesn’t say first
month, only the second year, or the second month of the third year, either. It
says he has the power to appoint judges of the Supreme Court.
Similarly, there is not a single
line suggesting that any Supreme Court justice has the authority to set the
conditions of his or her departure. It does set forth the fact that those that
are appointed shall hold their Offices during good Behaviour, and
shall, at stated Times, receive for their Services, a Compensation, which shall
not be diminished during their Continuance in Office.
Their pay is protected by
constitutional mandate in times of pandemic, war, or federal holidays!
Hope
It is unfortunate there is not a
requirement in such historical protocol to set time aside for the nominee to
ask judicial questions of the senators themselves.
For record, it could be termed Roundtable
Time. It could suggest further debate and actions on the matters of justice
that need to be addressed for the health and the longevity of the evolving
system. If that were the case, a legitimate question could be conceived as to
the validity of the tag team approaches of the WWF inspired progressive verbal inquisitions.
From a citizens’ constitutional perspective, the question has fundamental legitimacy.
Where is your authority, under
the Constitution, to act on behalf of a mob rather than individual citizen
leaders?
Further, that mandated matter of good
Behaviour has implications that should be discussed in much greater detail.
If issues of the day must
include immigration, abortion, Medicare for all, and unbalanced budgets, why
not make the value and efficacy of political parties a primary debate topic
unto itself?
The question and the demand have
very fundamental merit. The Framers expected the citizen leaders to act on
their own behalf rather than marching in lock step under general orders from
party headquarters. As such, they, too, could act on both the first and last
days of each administration.
Harbinger
The Sioux and the Crow phenomenon
is interesting.
Even if the fissure of their
relationship was created by the aggression of the warring youth, the elders
were incapable of fending off the inevitable. Their divided house did neither
side of the conflict any lasting good. They failed by ultimately declining to
support one another. Their animosity was too great. Principle overruled logic
and what was best long term for both groups.
Where are they today? If
reservation life is the model and historic result, they are not in a good place
is where they are.
Divided houses have consequences
each and every time they are manifested. Washington is a most important test
and should be arrayed alongside other pertinent divided houses in history. If
there is a metric of highest consequence, the leadership of the three highest
ranking chiefs should be considered. The big three from the right side of the aisle
have 52 years of combined Washington dirt under their nails. Without
constitutionally mandated compensation, the Dems have collected donations for
119 years.
Stephen
L. Wilmeth is a rancher from southern New Mexico. “Debate won’t fix this.”
No comments:
Post a Comment