Thursday, December 19, 2024

WEEK 14: THE PRESIDENT & WAR MAKING POWERS


The Department of Defense announced on November 18, 2006, the death of a soldier who was supporting Operation Iraqi Freedom. Captain John R. Dennison, 24, of Ijamsville, Maryland, died on November 15, 2006, in Balad, Iraq, as a result of small arms fire. Dennison was assigned to 5th Squadron, 73rd Cavalry Regiment, 3rd Brigade Combat Team, 82nd Airborne Division, Fort Bragg, North Carolina. 

THIS LAST U.S. PRESIDENTS CLASS IS DEDICATED TO THE MEMORY OF CPT. JOHN RYAN DENNISON, THE SON OF JACK AND SHANNON DENNISON, OLD FRIENDS OF OURS FROM MY EARLIER MILITARY DAYS. PLEASE GO HERE TO SEE MORE ABOUT THE LIFE AND FAMILY OF JOHN RYAN DENNISON.

In this our last class, we will review the constitutional framework for presidential war powers and discover that the Constitution does not provide us with authoritative answers as to how the powers of the president as commander in chief are to be exercised. In fact, the debates of the Constitutional Convention of 1787 focused on the power of Congress to declare war and specific powers over the military found in Article 1. However, the commander in chief clause found in Article 2 of the Constitution does give some specific powers to the president and this forms the basis for the debate over presidential power in times of national emergency.

This week in our class handout we will discuss the following topics:
  • A Christian Perspective on War
  • The Constitutional Framework of the President's War-Making Powers
  • Presidents and the Military Establishment
  • The Military Chain of Command
  • Presidential Use of the Armed Forces
  • Legitimizing Presidential War Making
  • The War Powers Resolution of 1973
  • Instances of Use of U.S. Armed Forces Abroad 1798-2023
In more than 400 instances, U.S. presidents have relied on their constitutional prerogatives as commander in chief to use the armed forces abroad in situations of conflict or potential conflict to protect U.S. citizens or promote U.S. interests. Fewer than half of these situations involved any prior legislative or Congressional authorization. In October 2023, the Congressional Research Service (CRS) prepared for Congress an updated report and detailed listing of notable deployments of U.S. Military Forces overseas between 1798 and 2023 (58 pages in length). To view this listing click on here. In fact there have been only five (5) times in American history when presidents have used the armed forces with congressional declarations of war.

In his 2002 State of the Union address, President Bush named the Axis-of-Evil nations in his response to the September 11 terrorist attacks. Since then, there has been legitimate debate and interpretations of the Catholic just war tradition by Christians as they formulate a responsible U.S. answer to the terrorist threat. In this 2005 article "Bush vs. Benedict", you can read here how Catholic neoconservatives grapple with their Church's just war tradition. 

Meanwhile back in 2001, after the 9/11 attack, James V. Schall, S.J. wrote an extensive commentary on the War on Terror entitled "Assessing What is at Issue in this War" and Patrick Buchanan commented on Colin Powell's remarks on Terrorism on the 6th anniversary of 9-11 in his article "Is Terrorism Really a Mortal Threat?". 

In June 2012, Mr. Buchanan offered commentary on the uprising in Syria by contrasting it to the Spanish Civil War which he describes as the Great Rehearsal for World War II in his article "Dress Rehearsal for a Mideast War?". And in November 2012, he analyzed the darkness of the still current situation in the Middle East and suggests President Obama ask himself this question, "How would America's vital interests be imperiled by staying out of this particular quarrel, conflict or war?"  See his article entitled "Is Middle East Peace a Mirage?"

Now that President-Elect Trump is poised to take over our government and foreign policy in January 2017, Mr. Buchanan last month commented in his column "A Trump Doctrine - 'America First' " that "The opportunity is at hand for Trump to reconfigure U.S. foreign policy to the world we now inhabit, and to the vital interests of the United States." Is it too much to hope that finally we may have a President who will recognize our foreign wars are bankrupting our country and morals and that it is finally time to stop fighting other countries wars, paying their bills for defense and just maybe we can truly consider the Catholic just war tradition before using our armed forces abroad in situations of potential conflict.

JR Dennison Funeral Services PHOTO
An Army Honor Guard members carry the remains of Army Captain John Ryan Dennison
during funeral services at Arlington National Cemetery Wednesday, November 29, 2006

Friday, November 22, 2024

WEEK 11: The President & the Courts


Little Rock Central High School - 1957
This week we examined the Federal Court System and the Constitutional dimension. Article 3 of the Constitution vests all judicial power in the Supreme Court and the lower federal courts. The president nominates candidates for openings to the 800+ lower-court positions in the U.S. District Courts and the U.S. Courts of Appeals and the nine member U.S. Supreme Court. These are life time positions and all of the presidential nominees must be reviewed and approved by the U.S. Senate. Because Presidents take an oath to defend the Constitution and execute the duties of their office, they have a constitutional duty to see that laws are faithfully executed - not only laws passed by Congress, but also federal court decisions. If U.S. Marshals under the Department of Justice are unable to enforce these laws and decisions of the federal courts, presidents may use Federal troops or call the National Guard to Federal service, or both.

Two examples in the 20th century of Presidents using this power to enforce Federal court decisions occurred in September 1957 in Little Rock, Arkansas when Federal troops were called up by President Eisenhower. Click on under US Presidents Useful Links the  Little Rock Nine Documentary for more details.

A second example occurred in 1962 when President Kennedy called out Federal Marshals and then Federal troops so that James Meredith could be enrolled in the University of Mississippi. Click on under US Presidents Useful Links three videos which outline events leading up to President Kennedy's decision and the events surrounding the riots at Ole Miss and the shooting of 35 U.S. Marshals precipitating the calling in of Federal troops.

And in May 1970, closer to home, the Governor of Ohio called out the Ohio National Guard to the campus of Kent State University where students, protesting the bombing of Cambodia by United States military forces, clashed with Ohio National Guardsmen. When Ohio Guardsmen shot and killed four students on May 4, the Kent State Shootings became the focal point across the country for a nation deeply divided by the Vietnam War. See a video (Kent State Ohio Shootings) of this action (Kent State Massacre) by clicking on here.  Also for a more in-depth report see the film Kent State Protests 1970: The Real Story by clicking on the video under US Presidents Useful Links.

Tuesday, November 5, 2024


2024 Presidential Third-Party Candidates


Third Parties in America - Civic Issue Blog
For Christians that are thinking of not voting in this election, let us examine the 2024 Presidential Third-Party candidates. There are more than a dozen third-party candidates in this 2024 presidential election. The only pro-life 3rd parties are the Constitution Party (https://constitutionparty.com/) and the American Solidarity Party (https://www.solidarity-party.org/).
The Ohio and West Virginia ballots will only list Jill Stein, the Green Party candidate and Chase Oliver, the Libertarian Party candidate. The West Virginia ballot will also list Robert F. Kennedy Jr. but he has dropped out and joined the Trump campaign. However, on  the Ohio ballot is listed Peter Sonski, the pro-life candidate of the American Solidarity Party. The other pro-life candidate is Randall Terry from the Constitution Party who will be a write-in candidate for both ballots.
Of interest in West Virginia is S. Marshall Wilson, a pro-life Constitution Party candidate  on the ballot for Governor.
Another website of interest that compares the stands of third-party candidates  can be found here.  

Sunday, November 3, 2024

 

History of Third Party Candidates                                                               

It was 1832, when for the first time in American history, a third party challenged the major two political parties.The Anti-Masonic Party carried 8% of the popular vote and one state. In 1848 former Democratic President Martin Van Buren was the presidential candidate of the anti-slavery Free-Soil Party. He wins 10% of the popular vote and is credited with taking enough votes away from the Democratic candidate to help Whig candidate Zachary Taylor win the election. And in 1856, another former president Milliard Fillmore runs as the presidential candidate of the Know-Nothings and Whig Party remnants (American Party) and wins 22% of the popular vote and 8 electoral votes.
In 1912, former Republican President Theodore Roosevelt formed the Progressive (or Bull-Moose) party. It was the first time in American history that a third-party candidate receives more votes (electoral and popular) than one of the major two parties when Roosevelt received 88 electoral votes and the incumbent Republican President William Taft received just 8 while the Democratic candidate Woodrow Wilson received 435 electoral votes.
In more modern times, three recent presidential elections were probably decided by third-party candidates. In 1968, Richard Nixon, a Republican, narrowly defeated Democrat Hubert Humphrey by less than 1% in the popular vote as many Southern Democrats supported Governor George Wallace of the American Independent Party who won 13+% of the popular vote and 46 electoral votes. In 1992, Democrat Bill Clinton won the presidential election with only 43% of the popular vote over the incumbent President George H.W. Bush because businessman Ross Perot of the Reform Party wins 19% of the popular vote and takes votes from President Bush.
And finally in 2000, George W. Bush, the Republican candidate won a disputed election over Democrat Al Gore who won the popular vote but lost the electoral vote by 4. Green Party candidate, Ralph Nader, took 2.74% of the popular vote that may otherwise have been cast for Gore.
See the next entry for the 2024 election third-party candidates.

Friday, November 1, 2024

Why the Founding Fathers Were Right About the Electoral College

Dec. 16, 1940: New York State electors, part of the Electoral College, cast votes at the state capital in Albany.

Dec. 16, 1940: New York State electors, part of the Electoral College, cast votes at the state capital in Albany. "All are unidentified," according to The Associated Press.

On Tuesday, December 17, 2024, electors from each of the states will meet in their respective States to cast their votes for President and Vice President of the United States.

We can expect after the count of ballots this November that there will be repeated calls to abolish the Electoral College especially if one party wins the popular vote but loses the presidency.

Let's look back at the 2016 Presidential Election when these calls were the loudest.The  popular vote in the chart below shows Mrs. Clinton with a 2.8 million plus vote lead over President-elect Mr. Trump. Because of Mrs Clinton's dramatic popular vote lead, the mainstream media, Democrats, progressives and political pundits from academia were all calling for getting rid of the Electoral College. In their mind Mrs. Clinton's popular vote victory proves who the country and its citizens really selected to be President of these U.S. except for this antiquated Constitutional system we call the the Electoral College.

Presidential
Candidate

Political
Party

Popular Vote*
Electoral Vote
Donald J. Trump
Republican
62,913,088
46.1%
306
56.9%
Hillary Clinton
Democratic
65,756,948
48.2%
232
43.1%
Others
Others
7,731,591
5.7%
0
0.0%
Total                                          136,401,627
           538

But before we get on a bandwagon to repeal or replace the Electoral College, let’s take a closer look at the 2016  presidential election results.


State
Clinton
Trump
Popular Vote Margin
U.S. Total
65,756,948 (48.2%)
62,913,088(46.1%)
Clinton  +2,843,860
California
8,719,198
4,463,932
Clinton  +4,255,266
New York
4,227,211
2,690,285
Clinton  +1,536,926
Illinois
3,090,729
2,146,015
Clinton  +   944,714
U.S. Totals minus California, New York
 & Illinois
49,719, 810 (45.3%)
53,612,856 (49.0%)
 Trump    +3,893,046


The three blue states in the chart above  gave Hillary Clinton her biggest margin in her popular vote victory: California with a popular vote margin of 4.255 million votes, New York with a margin of victory of 1.537 million votes and Illinois with a margin of victory of ~ 945,000 votes. Altogether, those three states provided Hillary Clinton with a margin of victory of 6.7 million votes. However, if we remove those three very populous states, the U.S. totals of the other 47 states and the District of Columbia give President-elect Trump, a margin of victory of 3.893 million votes.

Looking even closer below at the largest cities in those three states, Los Angeles County, Chicago Cook County and New York City, those cities together delivered a margin of victory for Mrs. Clinton of 3.871 million votes. And once again if we remove those three cities from the U.S. totals, President Trump wins the popular vote by 1.027 million votes.

City
Clinton
Trump
Popular Vote Margin
U.S. Total
65,756,948 (48.2%)
62,913,088(46.1%)
Clinton  +2,843,860
Los Angeles County
1,893,770
620,285
Clinton + 1,273,485
Chicago (Cook) County
1,528,582
440,213
Clinton + 1,088,369
New York City
1,969,920
461,174
Clinton + 1,508,746
City Total
5,392,272
1,521,672
Clinton  +3,870,600 
U.S..Totals minus  Los Angeles, New York City & Chicago
60,364,676
61,391,416
Trump   + 1,026,740

Some may look at this and conclude that the strength of Mrs. Clinton and the Democratic party is in key states which have concentrated blocs of liberal and progressive voters in large cities which will always contribute significantly to the popular vote for a Democrat candidate. But as the Electoral College results show in this election, the votes from these three key states and cities should never override the wishes and votes from the other 47 individual states both large and small in our Union. Switching to the popular vote only in future Presidential elections  will guarantee that these three cities and states may most likely determine a long line of future liberal and progressive Presidents.What do you think? As for me and my house, long live our Electoral College.

Thursday, October 31, 2024

RIGGED VOTES, ELECTIONS & OTHER MISCELLANEOUS CHARGES



American voters and news media like to believe that this 2024 election is far worse than other past elections with charges and counter-charges flying back and forth between both candidates. However, disputed Presidential elections go all the way back to the 1800 Presidential election which resulted in an Electoral College tie with one presidential candidate's supporters threatening armed rebellion.
    In preparation for next week's class on Election Day, November 5,in which we will study and examine the Electoral College system and break down the current election season and how the U.S. Senate and House of Representatives races are shaping up around the country, examine Ohio and West Virginia state, local elections and issues on the ballot and finally see what the pundits are predicting for the Presidential race and the those so-called important "battleground states".  Before we delve into that cauldron of emotions and opinions, students will be expected to read the article "Disputed Presidential Elections Are Nearly as Old as the U.S. Presidency" as part of their homework assignment. The article can be clicked on here.
    

Monday, October 28, 2024

2024 President: Consensus Electoral Map

As of October 26, 2024

This map tracks the consensus forecast for the 2024 presidential election. It is a composite of ratings by several forecasters

Only seats rated safe by a large majority of forecasters are shown in the darkest shade of red or blue. 

As a result of Census apportionment, some states have a different number of electoral votes in 2024. Use the buttons above the map to see what has changed.

The map is interactive; use it as a starting point to create and share your own 2024 presidential election forecast.

October 26: No changes

To compare this map to a map based just on polling, go here >

Source:  https://www.270towin.com/