Go
Saints!

Friday
March 29th, 2024
L&T Opinions Page

earl 2020 mug colorL&T Publisher Earl Watt

 

There are two Americas that can emerge from this November’s election, one that continues the trend of two parties and a back-and-forth battle of ideas to move the nation forward, or the very first steps of one-party rule that will either lead to oppression or the Second American Revolution.

I am not one to believe the rhetoric that every upcoming election is the most important in history, but the signs have shown why this election, should Democrats seize control of the White House, Senate and House of Representatives, would remake the United States into a modern socialist one party state.

 

Here is the evidence:

The Supreme Court

Republican Donald Trump has nominated Amy Coney Barrett to replace Ruth Bader Ginsburg. This will give originalists a slight advantage on the Supreme Court, which means those who actually follow the exact wording of the Constitution as the founders intended would have a slight majority on the nine-seat panel of justices.

Liberals prefer justices who believe the Constitution is a living document that can be revised by court decisions with loose interpretations and claims of outdated policies created by the Founding Fathers.

As one pundit put it, Democrats prefer the Supreme Court to be a mini Congress, more concerned with political positions rather than interpreting the Constitution.

With originalists having a majority, Democratic leaders have already proposed “packing the court” if they win the House, Senate and presidency, by changing the number of justices to 15 and allowing their Democratic president to appoint six new liberal justices all at once. This would erase the slight originalist advantage on the court and turn it into a partisan protectionistic panel.

If the Democrats win the House, Senate and presidency, this is exactly what they intend to do.

With that power, they would make every case that came to the Supreme Court conform to party dogma rather than Constitutional interpretation, turning the court into a protector of the party rather than a protector of the people.

 

The Electoral College

Democrats from large populated states are reigniting the debate on how to elect a president with the same failed argument made 233 years ago.

The United States is a republic, and from the beginning care had to be taken in making sure each state was on even footing with other states regardless of resources or population.

Democrats want majorities to always be in control where Republicans want limited controls and protections of individual liberties, even if that means to be protected from the majority.

The Electoral College is one of those protections built for a republic rather than a pure democracy.

In a republic, all states are equal.

Democrats reject that notion while Republicans, obviously, embrace it.

When the Constitution was being debated in 1787, the federal government had to reflect both the will of the majority and the will of the states.

The Great Compromise split these competing interests by having a House of Representatives representing democratic principles where each district was equal in population, favoring heavily populated states, and the Senate would represent the equality of statehood with each state receiving two senators regardless of population.

Bills would have to get the support of both legislative houses.

But how would the president be selected?

Less populated states wanted one state, one vote while large states wanted a popular vote system.

A compromise was struck to satisfy both interests. Each state would receive a number of electors equal to the number of representatives and senators that state had.

This still benefits populated states, but it lessens the advantage over the smaller states to recognize the republican balance of statehood.

Democrats want to do away with the Electoral College to give them a heavier hand in choosing the president, and they know they would never get an amendment passed since it requires the support of 38 sates.

So, they would use the stacked Supreme Court to rewrite the rules allowing states to override their own voters and pick the popular vote winner, something rejected by the Founding Fathers.

With their liberal majority, Democrats would turn America from a republic to a socialist democracy, all but erasing state lines and making all subject to the will of the larger liberally-controlled states.

 

Opposition outlawed

Without Republican opposition, Democrats would limit freedom of speech and the right to bear arms to further consolidate their one-party authority.

We’ve already seen how Democrats have allowed college campuses to become liberal-only zones, stifling, heckling and violating the civil right to free speech for Republicans.

Those will become the law of the land, and any talk of individual liberty will become sedition. Only state control and the state above the individual will be accepted.

Opposition parties will be stripped of jobs or positions of authority and reappointed by the Democratic Central Committee.

This sounds Orwellian, I know, but when the Speaker of the House calls the entire Republican Party the “enemy of the people,” and the state-run media doesn’t call her out for it, it is clear we are facing an election like never before.

Freedom is clearly on the ballot, and so far, freedom is losing.

LETTER TO THE EDITOR, Reita Isaacs, Liberal

 

From the time I found the subject for my next article [ ... ]

Read more...

MY PERSPECTIVE, Gary Damron

 

With Easter approaching, millions around the world will celebrate [ ... ]

Read more...