The word "republic", actually an adjectival form "republican", occurs only once in the Constitution, where the states are guaranteed a republican form of government. It was assumed that the federal government would by extension be a republic as well. But what is a republican form of government? A republic is nothing more and nothing less than "not a monarchy". The details of this "not a monarchy" they were making up as they went along. The founders were skeptical regarding the wisdom of the people. They feared the power of the mob, the were wary of factions, they were worried that a charismatic yet unscrupulous leader could fool the common man. They had a pretty good idea who could be trusted to make the big decisions and it wasn't Joe the Plumber.
Then, as now, voting was the province of the states, and the requirements for the franchise differed from state to state, but in general it was white, male property owners who had the privilege of voting. Indians were not even considered persons according to the law. Slaves, despite what most people today believe, were not considered three-fifths of a person, the were considered zero-fifths of a person. Three-fifths was how they were counted for census purposes as a sop to the slaveholding states. Other than in the census they were property. But even among that exclusive club of property owning white men, when it came to federal elections, it was only for members of the House of Representatives that they had a direct vote. Senators were not directly elected until the passage of the Seventeenth Amendment in 1913. Before that they were appointed by either a state's governor or the state legislature. I'm sure the setup of the Electoral College needs little explanation. It was set up in order to protect against "the people" making the wrong decision.
Yes, things have changed. Any citizen aged 18 or older can vote. Electors are required to vote for their state's choice for president. Senators are elected by the voters. But it's obvious that this isn't the way things were originally set up. Why am I even bringing this up? The Supreme Court and the "Great Replacement" theorists.
Legal theory aside, what drives the rejection of democratic aspects of our government is the realization by the dwindling majority that they're heading into minority status. They see down the road to where "those people" will be in charge. That's why there's the push to gerrymander, to throw up roadblocks to voting, to change census rules where non-citizens are counted, to make mail-in voting virtually impossible. The Supreme Court majority is cool with it all.
The current Supreme Court majority is unshakably originalist in their constitutional interpretation, even occasionally strict constructionist textualists. They are adamant in their position that cultural changes in attitudes and mores should have no bearing on interpretation. They have created a new standard where new laws must have an 18th century analogue in order to be legitimate. What's to stop a slate of electors from voting in opposition to their state's voters' will? Or a state legislature substituting more compliant electors? Sure, we saw Trump's "Stop The Steal" try tis in 2020, but is it so far outside the realm of imagination that the Supreme Court majority would rule that the Constitution does not prohibit this? Don't forget that three of them were willing to nullify the Fourteenth Amendment (four, if you count Kavanaugh, who was opposed to it based on a statute, not the amendment).
Can we be sure that the Supreme Court would stop the steal attempt this time around?
No comments:
Post a Comment