It is clear, especially after our reading of Chapter 13, that the President holds far too much power during the appointing of all federal judges, including within the Supreme Court. I believe the largest reason for the imbalance of power that so drastically favors the President is due in large to the Senate itself. In the course of conducting debates in the Senate, one side or the other of the political aisle have taken turns growing in frsutration with the process to the extent of being willing to absolve themselves of power. In American politics, the filibuster is treasured. I have read that the concept of a filibuster, holding a discussion on a topic to the extent that the topic itself cannot be decided upon and not incidentally but as a decision or action in and of itself, is relatively unique to America. Embodied within the ability to filibuster is the concept that debate and discussion are welcomed in politics, even when they occur endlessly and without resolution. In some ways, the filibuster analogizes to the Greek phillosophers quite nicely, the legislative session being a human life and the discussion without resolution being a life of philisophical debate. In this way, both seem to actively achieve nothing but themselves represent a closeness to enlightenment and the value placed on dialogue.

When the Senate grew weary of their opponents making use of this virtuous political tool they willingly conceded this power. This removed, to a large degree, the Senate’s ability to provide oversight of judicial nominees and especially so from the minority party. This, interestingly, was precisely why they removed this power from themselves. The Senate, therefore, is rapidly losing power in the judicial nomination process but we see, at least in this specific instance, or both instances when considering the Supreme Court and lower court procedures as separate procedures, that they are intentionally losing power. They have removed their own voice in an attempt to remove their opponents voice. In both cases, they have willingly silenced their body in a short sighted effort to surmount today’s obstacles and weakened the one of the protections enjoyed by the Judicial branch against politicization and radicalization.

In the Supreme Court we have recently seen this issue play out through the Cavanaugh hearing. Although I had not paid careful attention at the time, it was relatively clear that one side of the Senate clearly held the view that this judge may have acted very poorly early in their life. Whether this should have prevented an individual from serving on the Supreme Court decades later I cannot say. I can say that it does not appear that the Senate arrived at a conclusion on that issue, rather it was decided by the majority of the Senate who happened to populate the same political party as the President who nominated the Justice and who appeared to have not been concerned over the allegations.

It is often noted that the Constitution is a form of living document, growing with time and the changing requirements of society. However, this is not a reason to break from appropriate precedence and understanding. From the onset, the constitution has been understood to delineate war powers between the branches of government. The Commander in Chief is tasked with directing and producing policy to guide the armed forces only after Congress has issued a decision to declare war on a foe or enact wartime powers. Without initiating these wartime powers, the President of the United States is merely the head of the executive branch, not yet titled Commander in Chief. Without these powers being granted to him, the President simply has no authority over the armed forces.

The path toward the executive office’s thievery of the power to declare war from Congress was a very slippery slope. A caveat in the rule was established that the Executive would be allowed to take immediate action when the United States was in danger. What was left ambiguous was what exactly could be considered the United States. Since its inception America had largely been isolationist, concerning itself with its own continent. This was solidified in the Monroe Doctrine. This document called for other world powers to refrain from encroaching upon the American hemisphere. This position dissolved at a time when the world was more connected than at any other point in history. As America entered the world stage a tangled web of alliances bound the globe together and polarized the world into us and them. A view of the world through this lens is simply not literally accurate. We are not us, an all-inclusive term that includes our allies, we are the U.S., an acronym denoting our solitary nation. An attack on or threat to our allies does not constitute an attack on the United States and so does not call for an immediate response from the Executive to defend our nation and constitution. An attack on an ally is an attack on a foreign nation with which we have a treaty of mutual defense. A treaty is ratified by Congress and so enforcement should be reviewed by Congress as well.

When we developed our constitution communicating meant sending a messenger to ride for several hours, perhaps days, before the message could be delivered and a response would take just as long. Mobilizing troops was a matter of walking or riding horseback to the location the army was needed. In these circumstances every moment counts and sending the first messengers to round up Congress instead of the military is nonsensical. In our modern time, Congress can be roused with a phone call and on a face-to-face zoom meeting in five minutes time. These luxuries allow us to call for more congressional oversight of our military endeavors, not less, especially when many of our defenses are practically automated. A missile defense system hardly needs to await a Presidential order before grounding a missile on its way to the mainland, or at least I hope this is the case.

After reviewing the course material, I would hold that Byron E. Schafer has the better position in electing the American President. I think the president should be elected through the electoral college because the American Presidency is not intended to be a popularity contest. The American President serves to execute their duty as designated by Congress. In this arrangement, Congress designates what the laws will be and the Executive executes those laws in a constitutional manner. In this way, it is almost irrelevant whom the people believe will be the best President and more prudent for representatives of the Congressional members, embodied in the Electoral College, to decide who will best lead the country and enforce its laws.

If we leave the decision of choosing the most capable President in the hands of the population with no filter in place between them and the final decision we will only receive popular individuals with polarized perspectives. Moving the masses to the polls does not require intellect or reason but rather emotional instigation. If politicians are instructed to move the masses they will do so with pleas to emotion rather than well-thought-out platforms. This will result in either a politician who is able to rouse the masses with emotional rhetoric or, worse yet, a politician who believes and practices emotional rhetoric. Neither individual would then be suited to working with Congress to operate the country nor effective at selecting responsible members of the Judiciary. We must use the Electoral College, not to override popular opinion, but to temper it with reason.