In the run up to the 2020 Presidential Election there was much discussion about the make-up of the Supreme Court, Packing the Court, and Expanding the Court. All would be inappropriate and were hopefully hollow threats. When we are outraged by the actions of an opposing party, or perhaps the actions of a rogue element of our party, the best measure of validity of a proposed response should be to ask ourselves, “would I agree with this idea if another party implemented it?” If we would disagree if the action were taken by others, we should probably think again.
If one party were to increase the number of Justices on the Supreme Court to gain a political advantage, would we continue to add seats to the bench each time the majority party changed? What we commonly criticize as impediments to government progress, are essential protections built into our democratic republican system of government. We might dismiss or downplay the importance of the framers’ incorporation of these checks and balances because times have changed. Our founders could be criticized as being overly sensitive about abuses by a foreign king or local tyrant. We might argue that these issues are no longer factors in our lives. In reality, here we again see genius in the framers’ work.
Our Founding Fathers considered the rights of the minority and knew that they could be abused, not only by a king, but by a tyrannical majority. At the Federalist Convention, in 1787, James Madison argued that any time a majority is united, the rights of the minority are threatened. Checks and balances prevent this abuse. In Federalist 51, Hamilton or Madison wrote that “If men were angles, no government would be necessary.” The author went on to point out that it was important to protect the people not only from “the oppression of its rulers, but to guard one part of the society against the injustice of the other.” Though we may not be dealing with a king, we need to constantly protect our minority. Majority rule does not mean that a minorities’ inherent rights are invalidated. The balance of power and checks intentionally slow change that may prove to be whimsical. We could speak about immigrants, racial or religious minorities, or just a political minority. At a time where our political party is willing to give up on all that made it great to appease a lame duck president, there is serious potential for abuse. A political appointee might pressure a government employee or agency to take an action inconsistent with the best interests of at least some of the people. A president might want to circumvent Congress and issue an executive order because he or she felt that he had been personally mistreated by a newspaper, a company, or a social media platform. When all who disagree are dismissed as part of the deep state or labeled as a traitor, we should be grateful for checks and balances. What do you think?
Reading Recommendations:
Berkin, Carol. A Brilliant Solution: Inventing the American Constitution. Orlando: Harcourt, 2003.
Henry, Patrick. The Anti-Federalist Papers. Newburyport: Dover Publications, 2020.
Jay, John, James Madison, Alexander Hamilton. The Federalist Papers. New York: Skyhorse Publishing, 2019.
Ketcham, Ralph. The Anti-Federalist Papers; and, The Constitutional Convention Debates. NY, NY: Signet Classics, 2003.
The Constitution of the United States of America. Washington: U.S. Govt. 1787. https://www.senate.gov/civics/resources/pdf/US_Constitution-Senate_Publication_103-21.pdf
