Tag: political parties

#OnThisDay: U.S. Supreme Court on Abortion, 1973

Before I address today’s topic, I need to apologize for an error I made in my January 15, 2024 blog post. I stated that Dr. Gregory Davis was the first African-American president of Central Piedmont Community College. That, of course, is not true! What I meant to write and thought I wrote was that he was the first African-American student body president at Central Piedmont Community College. My eagle-eyed sister, Marie, found the mistake and brought it to my attention. I have corrected that post, but I wanted to make sure those of you who read the original post knew about the error.

Points of View

Before I launch into Roe v. Wade, I will share two quotes I happened upon last night while reading a blog post about how to write a novel with multiple points of view. I had already written today’s post and scheduled it. It was worth opening it up to add these quotes. Although they were intended to help me be a better writer of fiction, they dovetailed nicely with the true theme of today’s post — which isn’t abortion. Abortion is just an example of the issues over which U.S. citizens are deeply divided.

“You never really understand a person until you consider things from his point of view.” ~ attributed to Harper Lee.

“If there is one secret to success, it lies in the ability to get the other person’s point of view.” ~ attributed to Henry Ford.

Fasten your seatbelts. I’m getting ready to step on some toes.

Roe v. Wade

It was on this date in 1973 that the U.S. Supreme Court ruled on the case of Roe v. Wade. It was believed by the Court then that a woman had a constitutional right to obtain an abortion as a protected right of privacy.

In summary, the lengthy Roe v. Wade written decision ruled that in the first trimester a woman had the right to get an abortion and the right to seek advice from her doctor. In the second trimester, the law could impose reasonable restrictions related to the woman’s health. In the third trimester, when the fetus is recognizable as a human being and not completely dependent upon the mother for life, the law had considerable authority to regulate abortion.

Overturning the Roe v. Wade decision became a goal of the Republican Party in 1980. That goal was achieved on June 24, 2022 when the U.S. Supreme Court published their six to three decision to reverse the 1973 ruling.

That reversal left each of the 50 states to adopt laws regarding abortion and left women in many of those states once again being relegated to the pre-1973 back- alley abortions in unsanitary conditions that put their future fertility and very lives at risk.

Sadly, some of the new state laws have forced women to continue to carry a dead fetus because the medical procedure necessary to deliver the dead fetus is now illegal. Whether that was a conscious decision made by legislators or due to their ignorance probably varies from state-to-state. There was a case of that in my own family in the 1950s, and the trauma of that experience is still talked about.

It baffles me that “the party of family values” / “the party of ‘Let’s get the government out of the bedroom’” thinks treating American citizens like this in 2024 is just fine and dandy.

A hijacked segment of Christians and a hijacked political party?

It has always baffled me that people who most-adamantly say they are pro-life because they are Christians are against all government programs designed to make sure those babies have sufficient food and basic healthcare once they are born. I think they should more accurately say they are anti-abortion instead of saying they are pro-life.

The Jesus I follow is all about His followers taking care of the poor and downtrodden. The Jesus I follow is all about forgiveness and compassion. The Jesus I follow is all about loving your neighbor as you love yourself.

I don’t see any of that in the people who wear the MAGA caps, so maybe it’s time for the Christians who support the hatred spewed by that segment of today’s Republican Party to be honest with us and with themselves. It appears from the outside that they have lost sight of Jesus in their zeal to crush anyone who gets in their idol’s way.

I don’t understand why they think it is acceptable to be a racist, misogynist, or a xenophobe and would support a politician who proudly falls into all three of those categories. Jesus is certainly none of those things.

There is something very wrong today if Democrats don’t think Republicans can be Christians and Republicans don’t think Democrats can be Christians.

I miss the America of my younger days when most people did not know and did not care about another person’s political affiliation because most people understood that our democracy thrives when we have choices and two imperfect but relatively healthy political parties.

I miss the America of my younger days when in polite society in the United States you did not talk about religion or politics to a stranger, much less threaten to kill another person if they dared to hold opinions that differed from yours.

I miss the America of my younger days when you could have a civil conversation with a friend or relative with whom you disagreed about politics.

I miss the America of my younger days when I did not realize how very fragile democracy is.

My intentions for my blog

I did not set out to use my blog as a political platform; however, I have been blogging for more than a decade and I think God expects me to use my blog and my freedom of speech — which I will have at least until noon on January 20, 2025, when I just might lose all my rights.

Since my last blog post

I have struggled more than ever before with the writing of a blog post because I know some of the toes I’m stepping on are the toes of some close friends and relatives.

The topic of today’s blog post is complex. There are no easy answers, so I pray that both sides on the issue will try to keep their minds open to differing views and scientific facts as they wrestle with the matter.

The overturning of Roe v. Wade is, no doubt, not the last word on this issue. If we are a democracy after January 20, 2025, this matter will continue to be debated in the United States. I just hope it is debated with more compassion and open-mindedness than it was over the last 51 years. I hope people will stop hating the people whose beliefs on this subject and anything else do not match theirs.

Until my next blog post

I hope you have access to the medical attention you need.

I hope you have a good book to read.

I hope you pay close attention to politics on all levels and practice your responsibility to vote, if you have that right.

I hope you and I will continue to be friends, and in the Presbyterian way, “Agree to disagree agreeably.”

Remember the people of Ukraine during their miserable winter and how cherished freedoms can disappear in the blink of an eye.

Janet

#OnThisDay: “Blog about the 12th Amendment,” they said. “It’ll be fun!” they said.

If not for the 12th Amendment to the US Constitution, Donald Trump could now be president and Hillary Clinton could now be vice president. Talk about an unworkable state of affairs!

The ratification of an amendment to the US Constitution deserves a blog post on its anniversary. Unfortunately, the 12th Amendment gets into the Electoral College – something that has always baffled me. I’m probably the last person who should be trying to explain the 12th Amendment to you, but I’m going to plow my way through it.

#Vote #PresdentialElection #12thAmendment
Photo by Element5 Digital on Unsplash

As soon as I started doing the necessary research so I could write today’s blog post, I ran into conflicting dates. I’m going with June 15, 1804 as the date the 12th Amendment to the United States Constitution was ratified. I’ll address the conflicting date later in this post

What is the 12th Amendment about?

The 12th Amendment to the US Constitution determined how every US President and Vice President have been elected since 1804. It mandates that electors in the Electoral College vote for president on one ballot and for vice president on a separate ballot.

Presidential Elections Prior to the 12th Amendment

Under Article II, Section 1 of the US Constitution, each state was entitled to appoint a slate of electors equal to the number of US Senators and US House Representatives the state had. Each state had (and still has) two Senators. The number of Representatives a state has is based on population.

Every four years those electors, now known as the Electoral College, chose the president and vice president. Each of them could vote for two people; however, they couldn’t vote for someone from their state of residency.

The highest vote getter became president and the one with the second highest number of votes became vice president, as long as their total votes exceeded one-half the number of appointed electors. Therefore, the president and the vice president weren’t necessarily from the same political party.

If not for #12thAmendment, Trump could be president and #HillaryClinton could be VP! http://www.JanetsWritingBlog.com

If no one got a majority of votes, or if two candidates received the same number of votes, the House of Representatives chose the president and the person with the second highest number of votes became vice president.

#ElectoralCollge #USConstitution #12thAmendment
Photo by Luke Michael on Unsplash

Political Parties

In the 1790s, differences of opinion on domestic and foreign policies became pronounced enough that two political parties formed. The founders of the United States had not anticipated the formation of strong political organizations/parties. The two parties were known as the Federalists and the Democratic-Republicans.

Yes, it’s very confusing to us in 2020 when there are two major political parties in the US:  Democrat and Republican.

The Federalists wanted a strong central government that was friendly to Great Britain. The Democratic-Republicans wanted strong local governments and were more in line with the French Revolution.

The Early US Presidents

Without opposition, George Washington was elected the first US president in 1788 and again in 1792. He announced he would not seek a third term. He became increasingly aligned with the Federalists, although he saw the dangers inherent in factionalism. John Adams was Washington’s vice president. He identified himself with the Federalists. Thomas Jefferson was Washington’s Secretary of State until 1793. Jefferson became the leader of the Democratic-Republicans.

The 1796 election was the first time candidates for president ran from two political parties. John Adams and Charles C. Pinckney were the foremost Federalists running against Thomas Jefferson. John Adams won a majority of votes, but Thomas Jefferson was elected vice president. Remember, they were from opposing political parties and ideologies. Such a situation is difficult for modern Americans to imagine.

Moving on the 1800 election, John Adams ran for reelection and Thomas Jefferson ran for president again. The political parties had gotten stronger and electors divided their votes between “only” five candidates. John Adams received 65 votes. In order to avoid a tie vote between Adams and Pinckney, one of the electors from Rhode Island voted for John Jay so Adams would have a one vote advantage over Pinckney.

But Democratic-Republicans Thomas Jefferson and Aaron Burr each received 73 votes. The Federalists thought they had an edge in the House of Representatives that would result in the election of the more conservative Aaron Burr, so they weren’t worried. They thought they could work better with a President Aaron Burr than a President Thomas Jefferson.

In order to be elected president, a candidate had to receive nine votes from the 16 states. Eight states favored Jefferson, six aligned with Burr, and two states were divided in how to cast their votes. Voting on the floor of the House of Representatives continued for six days and 35 ballots!

#ElectoralCollege #12thAmendment #USConstitution
Photo by visuals on Unsplash

Although he personally favored Burr, Delaware elector James A. Bayard let it be known that he would vote for Jefferson after Senator Samuel Smith assured him that Jefferson would not undo the accomplishments of the Washington and Adams administrations. In the end, 10 states voted for Jefferson, electing him the third US president.

The 1800 election proved to the Federalists and the Democratic-Republicans that the electoral system was deeply flawed.

On December 9, 1803 Congress proposed a 12th Amendment to the Constitution.

What the 12th Amendment did

The 12th Amendment didn’t change the structure of the Electoral College but, in order to understand the purpose of the amendment, one needs to have some knowledge of the Electoral College.

Whereas the Constitution had required each elector to vote for two people for president (yes, you heard me right!), the 12th Amendment required each elector to cast one vote for president and one vote for vice president.

If no one receives a majority of votes for president, the House of Representatives will choose the president under the rules of the original procedure as set forth in the Constitution, except they will choose between no more than three candidates instead of five, as was stipulated in Article II, Section 1 of the Constitution.

In case no candidate receives a majority of votes for vice president in the Electoral College, the US Senate chooses the winner from the top two vote getters. However, if there is a tie between multiple candidates, the Senate will choose from all those in the tie.

Additionally, the 12th Amendment requires a two-thirds quorum for balloting procedures. It also provided for a remedy should a president not be chosen by March 4. That remedy was that the newly-elected vice president would act as president until the election of the president could be settled. (March 4 was the first day of a presidential term until the ratification of the 20th Amendment in 1933 which established January 20 as the first day of a presidential term.)

Under the 12th Amendment, if no president or vice president have been elected by January 20, Congress will appoint a president. We almost got into that situation in the 2000 election, but that’s a whole other story, #HangingChads.

The Pros and Cons of the Electoral College

I’ve read various reasons and speculations about why the framers of the US Constitution provided the Electoral College as a way to elect the president. I’ve read that it was to ensure that people who had wisdom (in other words, that knew about politics, had some education, and understood this new form of government) would have enough sense to elect a president.

I’ve read that they didn’t want people living in the population centers of the nation to have an advantage over the citizens in the backcountry because the people in the cities would be more likely to know the candidates. (They obviously didn’t foresee the advent of the radio or television.)

There is much confusion over the Electoral College. As a political science college student, I was more interested in the administration of government than its political aspect. I made a conscious decision not to take the senior-level Political Science course called “The Electoral Process.” Looking back, perhaps I should have taken that class.

#college #class
Photo by Sincerely Media on Unsplash

With practically every presidential election, pro-Electoral College and anti-Electoral College opinions rise to the surface. There are people who would prefer the candidate receiving the majority of the popular vote (the votes of all citizens) to be president, while people who like the idea of the popular vote in each state being sifted through the Electoral College electors of their state want us to keep the Electoral College.

I’m going to go out on a limb today and say that I would like to see the Electoral College ended. I think each American’s vote should count equally to every other American’s vote. The people in favor of the Electoral College typically fear a populous state such as California or New York could influence an election by the sheer number of voters who live there.

Americans stand in line to cast their votes for president on the first Tuesday in November every four years, and then the electors who make up the Electoral College meet in their states on the first Monday after the second Wednesday in December and cast their votes.

Since we elect the president and vice president via the Electoral College, in 2016, Donald Trump became president even though Hillary Clinton had some three million more popular votes than Trump. There are other elections in which the top popular vote getter lost the election, but I think that one example suffices.

I think it’s time to rethink the electoral process, but I’m not impassioned enough about it to lead the campaign to amend the 12th Amendment.

Ratification of the 12th Amendment

#USConstitution #Preamble #ElectoralCollege
Photo by Anthony Garand on Unsplash

On June 15, 1804, 189 days after the 12th Amendment had been proposed by Congress, it was ratified by 14 or the 16 states. North Carolina was the first state to ratify it, doing so on December 21, 1803. By the end of February 1804, it had been ratified by nine states.

By mid-May 1804, Delaware, Massachusetts, and Connecticut had rejected the amendment. New Hampshire ratified the 12th Amendment on June 15, 1804, meeting the requirement that in order to be adopted, a US Constitutional amendment must be ratified by three-fourths of the states.

What about the conflicting dates I found?

Technically, when three-fourths of the states have ratified a US Constitutional amendment, it is officially ratified and becomes law. That’s what happened on June 15, 1804 with the 12th Amendment. That’s why I went with today being the anniversary of the amendment’s ratification.

Secretary of State James Madison sent a letter to the state governors on September 25, 1804, declaring the 12th Amendment as ratified. Some history books use September 25, 1804 as the date of ratification.

Since my last blog post

I opened my blog with some trepidation last Monday. I didn’t know how my blog post that morning would be received. I was very pleased with the response the post got. As of last night at 10:00 pm, last Monday’s post, “I can’t breathe!”, has had 147 visitors from 15 countries. That’s a record for my blog. It has received more comments than any of my other blog posts. My thanks to each reader!

Until my next blog post

If you still have questions about the 12th Amendment and the Electoral College, please research them. I’ve said all I know about the subject, and I’m still a bit confused. Perhaps I should have gone with the September 25 date. That date doesn’t fall on a Monday (the day I blog) until 2023. After more than a little frustration, I wish I’d postponed today’s post until then!

I hope you have a good book to read. I’m reading The Book of Lost Friends, by Lisa Wingate.

If you’re a writer or other artist, I hope you have lots of creative time.

Be safe. Be well. Wear a mask in respect for other people.

Don’t be shy. Share my blog!

#12thAmendmentRatification 216th anniversary. #ElectoralCollege http://www.JanetsWritingBlog.com

Janet