Bill Clinton’s catch phrase that helped get him elected was, “It’s the economy, stupid.” That certainly could be dusted off and used again today. However a most pressing priority is the future makeup of the Supreme Court.
Who gets elected president will determine interpretations of the U.S. Constitution for generations. Shortly after Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia died on Feb. 13 President Obama put forward his nominee, Judge Merrick Garland. Republicans have refused to act on the nomination of this liberal candidate, and rightly so, as confirmation would guarantee 5-4 votes on key pending issues such as illegal immigration, abortion, death penalty, euthanasia, marijuana legalization, gender, religion, Second Amendment and other high-profile issues that will be put forth before the court in the coming years. The current justices have already split 4-4 on decisions, four liberals, four conservatives
Assuming a majority Republican Senate, the 4-4 stalemate could continue indefinitely.
While the U.S. constitution does not mandate just nine justices (a 1869 law fixed it at nine), a permanent change to the size of the court would require an act of Congress, signed by the President.
It is possible that the number could decline to seven or six, which would present the possibility of 4-3 or 3-3 rulings depending on which justice positions are vacated and not filled.
Donald Trump put forth the names of 11 potential candidates. Trump and these individuals believe in the literal interpretation of the Constitution, that the laws received their legitimacy “from the people,” not the government. They believe that the words simply say what they say.
Hillary and Obama believe that interpretations of the Constitution evolve over time to meet the social norms of the day. That is like saying the Ten Commandments evolve over time to meet the morals of the day. That has been tried several times over time. It didn’t work out too well, did it?
Strict interpretations do not evolve to give or deprive the people of rights to which the founders’ “we the people” had not given consent. Changes to the Constitution are made with amendments, of which there are 27 (1-10 are the Bill of Rights). This requires a lengthy process with the historical practice of the consent of two-thirds of both the House and Senate (“we the people”), which does not require the approval of the President.
All of the above being said, what are the grave implications of this presidential election?
If Hillary Clinton is elected, you will be guaranteed a liberal Supreme Court with majority decisions based on an evolving-over-time constitution. For example, the founders of our nation really didn’t mean that the people have the right to bear arms, that the founders really didn’t mean that the United States has sovereignty rights to well-defined protected borders.
A harbinger of things to come with a Hillary Clinton presidency: Democrat Congressman Ted Strickland of Ohio commented on the passing of Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia, claiming that his death “happened at a good time” for the Democrat agenda. The late New York Democrat Daniel Patrick Moynihan said:, ”We have allowed ourselves to define down deviance.” Hillary Clinton succeeded him. They don’t make Democrats the way they used to.
If Donald Trump is elected, we will pretty much be guaranteed a majority conservative Supreme Court with decisions based on the words in the Constitution meaning what they say. It’s your choice.
Michael Velsmid
Peachtree City, Ga.
