An Attempt to Limit Presidentil Power

A One-Vote Oddity

The founders of the country and the writers of the Constitution knew first hand that government can be burdensome and corrupt—because they understood the nature of man. Therefore they built into our system of government a delicate and purposeful set of checks and balances to the various functions of government (Legislative, Executive and Judicial).
Inevitably, those balances would be challenged by the changing situation of the country and the malleable personalities of those in office. Such was the case in 1789.

The Constitution was clear. The President could make certain appointments after the senate had given “advise and consent.” But could the President dismiss appointees without the “advise and consent?” The Constitution was silent. Many in the Congress greatly feared Presidential power—executive privilege. Some senators feared that if the President had the ability to dismiss those that they (the Senate) had approved, that a future President with less character than Washington might abusively fire those appointees who turned out not to agree with him. Madison opposed them.

James Madison of Virginia claimed that if the Founding Fathers (of whom he was one) had intended to give this power to the Senate, they would have expressly included it in the Constitution. But since they did not do this, the right of removal was part of the general grant of power to the executive … Moreover, Madison argued, the President had the responsibility for the administration of the executive branch, and if he could not dismiss the head of a department without the Senate’s approval, the President would be “no longer answerable” for what might occur in the branch of government he headed.59

When the issue came to a vote in the Senate, it deadlocked at 10-10. The vice president cast his vote breaking the tie and the measure went down to defeat. Actaully, any measure ending in a tie in the Senate is automatically defeated. If a single vote had changed, the measure would have passed 11-9.

Pick men and women for office who know how to think well. They may be casting votes that last for decades--or longer.

Footnotes
59. Lindop, 14.

Supreme Court Makeup

A One-Vote Oddity

In 1973, The Vote Was 7-2. In 1986, the Vote Was 5-4. In 2010?

 

In the 1973 Supreme Court decision Roe v. Wade, a Texas law banning abortion was struck down making abortion legal in all 50 states. By a vote of 7-2, the ruling in that original case made abortion legal through the second trimester of pregnancy. Another less known case that same year, titled Doe v. Doe, made abortion legal all the way up to birth and is relevant to the partial birth abortion debate of the present day.

In 1986, the Supreme Court ruled on a Pennsylvania law requiring doctors to tell patients of the possible detrimental physical and psychological effects of abortion and to provide information related to agencies that could help if the patient opted to give birth. By a 5-4 vote, the law was struck down.

Abortion advocates counted the vote as a success, but abortion opponents rejoiced that the margin was only one vote. Right-to-life supporters were also encouraged by the language of the dissenters.

 

Chief Justice Warren Burger called the ruling in the Pennsylvania case “astonishing” and suggested that Roe v Wade (which he had supported in 1973) should be “reexamined.” In another dissent, Justice Byron White, joined by Justice William Rehnquist, described the 1973 decision as “fundamentally misguided” and urged that it be overturned. Justice Sandra Day O’Connor echoed this philosophy when she said that Roe v. Wade had proved “unworkable.”⁵⁷

 

Both the advocates for abortion and those opposed to abortion drew the same conclusion from the shrinking margin of support for Roe v. Wade: a one vote shift in the Supreme Court could make abortion illegal again. Proverbs 24:11 shows us the path of our responsibility:

 

Deliver those who are being taken away to death,

          And those who are staggering to slaughter,

         Oh hold them back!

 

Think about the make up of the Supreme Court when you cast your vote. It may be the most important thought you have.

Footnotes

57. Lindop, 122. 

I'm Glad Seward Wasn't Afraid of Criticism

A One-Vote Oddity

Seward’s Folly or Seward’s Legacy?

 

In 1867, U.S. Secretary of State William H. Seward started negotiating with Czarist Russia before the President had given him permission to do so! Seward was a supporter of territorial expansion of the United States. He saw the acquisition of new territory as part destiny and necessity. He believed the nation needed to be able to protect itself from sea to sea and that required an expanded western coastline.

Seward offered the Russian government roughly 2.5 cents an acre or $7.2 million. The Alaskan purchase was ridiculed in Congress and in the press as "Seward’s Folly" and "Seward’s Icebox." Some called it “President Andrew Johnson’s polar bear garden." Seward was undaunted. He forged ahead, believing that the purchase was a wise investment for the nation. He became the butt of popular jokes in the press throughout the nation. When he was asked what was the most significant act of his career he replied, "The purchase of Alaska! But it will take a generation to find that out."

He was right. Despite a slow start in convincing citizens to settle in the new territory, Alaska began to increase in population and with it, exploration. Gold was discovered in the 1880’s, and then in 1898, the great Yukon River Gold Rush started and rapid population growth soon followed. New settlers found the environment both beautiful and harsh. But they also found the Alaskan territory to be rich in natural resources of coal, timber and furs and fish.

Twenty-two years after it was purchased and labeled “Seward’s Folly,” Alaska began to pay huge dividends for the country and its citizens. In 1946, Alaskans approved statehood, and in 1955, adopted a constitution. Finally, in 1959, President Eisenhower announced Alaska as the 49^th state in the Union.

But it almost never happened.

Back in 1867, when jokes were flying about “Seward’s Folly” and President Johnson’s “polar bear garden,” there were powerful forces working against the Alaskan purchase. The Congress would have to appropriate the funds and the Senate would have to ratify the Treaty before the purchase could be consummated. On July 14, 1868, the House voted 113 to 43 (with 44 members not voting) to release the funds. The vote in the Senate was much closer.    (Continued on page 130)

The Responsibility of the Voter

A One-Vote Oddity

Liberty Means Responsibility

 

The National Court Reporters Association Website reports the following One Vote anomalies:

 

In 1993, more than fifty of the state of Missouri's municipal elections ended in a tie.

 

In 1997, South Dakota Democrat John McIntyre led Republican Hal Wick 4,195 votes to 4,191 for the second seat in Legislative District 12 on election night. Naturally, a recount was asked for and granted. The recount showed Wick the winner at 4,192 votes to 4,191. (He gained one vote and his opponent lost four.) The State Supreme Court, however, ruled that one ballot counted for Wick was invalid due to an overvote. This left the race a tie. After hearing arguments from both sides, the state legislature voted to seat Wick by a vote of 46-20.

 

In 1998, Donald Sherwood was elected to the House of Representatives from Pennsylvania by a margin of 515 votes, less than one vote per precinct, making this election the closest House of Representatives race in 1998.

 

A wise man once said, “Liberty means responsibility...this is why most men dread it.”  Your liberty to vote was purchased by the blood of generations that have gone before you and some who, perhaps before you finish reading this sentence, will give their today. Do you dread and run from your responsibility or do you delight in and embrace your responsibility?  How important is your vote? Important enough that others have died to give it to you.

Your vote is yours to cast. No one can do it for you. Make sure you vote. Make sure that your vote is counted this election. Do your duty. Make a difference. Vote.

When one vote made a difference

A One-Vote Oddity

More One Vote Oddities

I hope these candidates read Proverbs 16:33!

1973    One vote would have prevented the drawing of straws to determine the winner in the tied race for La Honda-Pescadero Unified School District.

1981    The same thing happened in a school district election inBelmont, CA. One vote would have prevented the drawing of straws to determine the winner of Chon Gutierrez over his opponent Stanley Langland.

Is this really the guy you want to advise the governor?

1988    One vote lost the election for the Democratic candidate for the Massachusetts Governor's Council, Herbert Connolly—his own! He arrived too late at the polls to cast his own vote. 

Somebody voted for these guys!

1991    One dissenting vote among members of the board of directors of an anti-poverty agency in Sullivan County, New York, spared them the dubious distinction of tossing the First Amendment into the trash can.

 

The town has some real problems!

1996       One vote, was all that was cast as none of the town officials in Loretto, Kentucky qualified as candidates for re-election. The single vote was cast by an absentee elector. He was in the military stationed at Scott Air Force Base, and had the only write-in votes cast in the entire election for the Loretto town council.

 

        Could this happen in your town? How does it happen in any town? It happens when people assume their vote doesn’t count and are “absent without excuse” on Election Day. Don’t let it happen in your town. Go to the polls. 

Feeling Good About Your Vote

A One-Vote Oddity

What if?

 

The Vanderbilt University Virtual School Website tells of an election occurring in 1950 that was decided by one vote. A state senator from Garrett County, Maryland was elected by one vote. The winner had 3,080, the loser, 3,079. I don’t know the name of either. I don’t know if one had a distinguished career as a public servant or if the other came back and later won a race for public office.

I just know that, according to the website, one man lost an election because another man had 3,080 to his 3,079 votes. I wonder what became of him—the loser that is. Did he move on to other things? Was the defeat so crushing that he retired from public life altogether? Was the state of Maryland better off without him in their senate chambers?

If he had won and his “stage” had been bigger, might he have become a U.S.Representative or Senator, or vice president or even President? The questions are endless aren’t they? The questions could go in any direction, positive or negative, endlessly. That is part of the fun and the frustration of playing “what if”? We don’t know, but we can play the speculation game forever.

What we do know is this: every election is an opportunity to cast a vote in an election that could be as close as that election in Maryland for the state senate in 1950. Two questions:

 

1) How would you feel if the man or woman sitting in office was not the man or woman you thought was best—but there they sit, by a one vote margin?

 

2) How would you feel if the man or woman you thought was best won, and the margin was one vote—your vote.

 

There is only one way to “feel” right about the election either way—go vote. Then you can say, you did your part to make your city, county, state or country better. That’s the privilege of living in a democratic republic. Don’t take it for granted

But really, does one vote matter?

A One-Vote Oddity

The Only Time One Vote Doesn’t Count…

Is When It Isn’t Cast

 

1800’s In 1829, the election for the U.S. House of Representatives in Kentucky’s 2nd District Andrew-Jackson-Democrat, Nicholas Coleman defeated National Republican Adam Beatty 2,520 to 2,519.

            In 1847, the election for U.S. House of Representatives in Indiana’s 6th District, Whig candidate George G. Dunn defeated Democratic candidate David M. Dobson 7,455 to 7,454.

            Also in 1847, Whig Thomas S. Flournoy defeated a Democratic candidate named Treadway 650 to 649 in the race for the U.S. House of Representatives in the 3rd District of Virginia.

            In 1854, the election for the U.S. House of Representatives in the 7th District of Illinois, Democratic candidate James C. Allen bested Republican William B. Archer 8,452 to 8,451.

 

1900’s 

In 1977, Just One Vote … was the difference twice! Vermont State Representative Sydney Nixon was seated as an apparent one-vote winner, 570 to 569. After a recount however, Mr. Nixon resigned when the State House determined that he had lost to Robert Emond, 572 to 571.

            In 1984, Just One Vote ... elected Maurice Nichols mayor of the City of Athens, Alabama.

            In 1992, Just One Vote ... decided a town council seat in Trinity, Alabama.

            In 1992, Just One Vote ... decided the Democratic nomination for the Madison County Commission, District 2.

            In 1996, Just One Vote ... could have elected a member of the Limestone County Board of Education, District Number 5.

 

2000’s 

In 2002, Just One Vote … passed the City Budget for Oxford,Massachusetts.

In 2003, Just One Vote … elected W. Meek Duvall over Brenda Hughes to the Bellaire, West Virginia Board of Education seat.  (Duvall 1,048 votes; Brenda Hughes 1,047 votes)

 

Make sure your vote counts. Register and vote on Election Day.

Due Process Part 1

A One-Vote Oddity

One Vote Denied U.S. Citizens of their Right to Due Process for Fifty-two Years. (Part 1)

“All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”

It is called Section 1 of the 14^th Amendment to the Constitution and it was ratified in 1868. Sometimes called the “due process” clause, it was designed primarily to protect former slaves from the injustice of discrimination. Three years later, its chief author, Congressman John A. Bingham of Ohio, wrote that while protection of blacks was its initial impetus and primary focus, it was intended to protect all U.S. citizens.

Its extended application was first put to the test in 1873. A law in New Orleans had been passed by the carpetbag Louisiana legislature that gave a monopoly to one company on meat production. The law effectively put 1,000 New Orleans butchers out of work. The butchers alleged that their right to “due process” had been violated. The cases associated with this issue came to be known as The Slaughterhouse Cases of 1873.

When the case made its way to the Supreme Court, many of the justices were caught off guard. Seemingly, they had never considered the ramifications beyond the protection of recently freed slaves from southern whites. By a vote of 5-4, they sided with the state of Louisiana and denied the butchers petition. There was dissent of course. Justice Joseph P. Bradley concluded,

“It is futile to argue that none but the persons of the African race are intended to be benefited by this Amendment. They may have been the primary cause of the Amendment, but its language is general, embracing all citizens, and I think it was purposely so expressed.”

(Continued page 98)

Due Process

A One-Vote Oddity

One Vote Denied U.S. Citizens of their Right to Due Process for Fifty-two Years. 

(Continued from page 94)

 

Another justice wrote that the court had overstepped its bounds by limiting the scope of the Fourteenth Amendment. In language that sounds surprising familiar to debates in our own time, Justice Noah Swayne wrote, “Our duty is to execute the law, not to make it.”  His argument continued: 

The protection provided [by the 14^thAmendment] was not intended to be confined to those of any particular race or class, but to embrace equally all races, classes and conditions of men.”⁴⁸

                                                             

Nevertheless, the 5-4 decision of the court held for 52 years. This one decision effectively limited the application of some portions of the Bill of Rights to all of the citizens of theUnited States. Finally in Gitlow v. New York (1925), the Supreme Court reversed itself and ruled that the Fourteenth Amendment secured due process for all of the citizens of the United States.

Presidents, senators, and congressman come and go but a Supreme Court decision lives long past the demise of the men and women who argued it.

What kind of men and women does our country need on the Supreme Court right now in this historical moment?

Think and pray about your answer. Who you vote for will have a part in nominating or giving “advise and consent” to the President on the makeup of the Court. Make sure that your vote is rooted in the importance of the historical moment, in the righteousness of His word and the with an eye to the future.

Footnote:

48. Cited in Lindop, 56

Muhlenberg University's Name Sake

A One-Vote Oddity

One Vote Leads to a Stabbing!

 

The John Jay Treaty of 1795 negotiated with Britain (see p. 58, and 86) was passed, but there was still one more hurdle to overcome. To put the Treaty into effect, $90,000 was needed.

The Constitution is clear that all money bills must originate in the House of Representatives. Those opposed to the Treaty were determined to not release the money, thereby undermining the Treaty through neglect.

The debate in the house was heated. Federalists favored it. Democratic-Republican’s in the main were against it. But the Republican’s had the upper hand. On April 28, 1796, and ailing Congressman (Fisher Ames) gave an impassioned plea for ratification. He warned the Congress that the Treaty was all that was keeping war from breaking out. If war did come, the Unionwas almost certainly doomed to collapse. Ames drew special attention to the American settlers in the Northwest (Ohioregion). He drew the picture of frontier settlers …

“… in the daytime your path through the woods will be ambushed; the darkness of midnight will glitter with the blaze of your dwellings. You are a father—the blood of your son shall fatten your cornfield. You are a mother—the war whoop shall waken the sleep of the cradle. … By rejecting the posts we light the savage fires, we bind the victims.”⁴⁵

 

Vice President Adams, sitting in the gallery, later said that there was hardly a dry eye in the House. Still the vote was close. When the count was taken, the formal vote was 49-49 with one vote to be cast, that of Republican Frederick Muhlenberg, distinguished congressman from Pennsylvania. Going against his party, he cast his vote for the Treaty.

When Muhlenberg returned to his district, his own brother-in-law, a rabid Republican, stabbed him! He recovered from his wounds but his political career was over. He lost his next election. The Treaty passed. War was averted. Today, Muhlenberg has a college named after him. Belated thanks from Pennsylvania and the nation for a courageous vote that changed history. We need more of such men and women in our elected officials.

How will we get them if we do not vote for them?

Footnotes

45. Cf. Walvoord, J. F., Zuck, R. B., & Dallas Theological Seminary. (1983-c1985). The Bible Knowledge Commentary: An Exposition of the Scriptures.Wheaton, IL: Victor Books.

Treaties and Supreme Court Justice

A One-Vote Oddity

Chief Justice John Jay (Continued from page 58)

Jay defended the treaty as the best that could be garnered under the circumstance.⁴⁰  President Washington was also displeased with it but agreed with the Chief Justice. It would keep the country from an ill-timed war and would eventually lead to a resolution of the problems between Britainand America.

Washington tried to keep the terms of the treaty secret for fear of the criticism it might arouse. For its part, the Senate also tried to keep it under wraps. For two weeks the debate raged between the Federalist who supported the treaty and the Democratic-Republicans who wanted no part of it.

Ratification of treaties requires a two-thirds majority in the Senate.  Both sides knew that the vote would be close. On June 24, 1795, the treaty was approved by a vote of 20-10.

 

All eighteen Federalist senators, one independent, and one lone Republican senator approved the measure. If any of these senators had defected, one of the most important treaties in our nation’s history would have been rejected by a single vote!⁴¹

 

The President and Senate hoped that the treaty could be kept under wraps until after it had been signed officially by the British. It was not to be. A Republican senator leaked the treaty information to a Philadelphia newspaper and in a short time the news spread to all of the states. The Secretary of the Treasury, A. Hamilton, who favored the treaty, was pelted with rocks at a speaking engagement in New York. In Kentucky, a senator who had voted for the treaty was beaten and nearly drowned by a mob.

But it was John Jay who received the most abuse. It was said that John Jay could walk from one end of the country to the other “and find his way by the light of fires burning him in effigy.”⁴²

But the John Jay brokered treaty of 1795 bought the tiny nation of the United States the seventeen years it needed to grow strong enough to fight and win the war of 1812—and it all came about because of one vote! Remember that on Election Day.

   

Footnotes

40.  One Massachusetts’ man wrote the following on his fence for all to see. “Damn John Jay! Damn everyone that won’t damn John Jay! Damn everyone that won’t put lights in his windows and sit up all night damning John Jay!” 

41. Lindop, 17-19.

42. Lindop, 20.

Women's Suffrage (part 2 of 3)

A One-Vote Oddity

Women’s suffrage continued (part 2)

 

There was some encouraging—though painful—news. Another member of the House, Thetus Sims a democrat from Tennessee, was in excruciating pain from a broken arm which he refused to have set until he had voted in support of the amendment. And Republican House Leader James Mann of Illinois, in the hospital for the last six months, refused to be kept away from the vote. Feeble and hardly able to stand, he returned to the House floor to cast an “aye” of support.

Two other sick democrats (Henry Barnhart, IN, and Robert Crosser, OH), one on a stretcher, showed up for the roll call vote. And New York Republican Frederick Hicks left the deathbed of his wife to honor his promise to her to cast his vote for a woman’s right to vote. Every one of those votes was needed. The final vote was 274-136 for the amendment—just enough to reach the two-thirds majority.

If any one of those five (Sims, Mann, Barnhart, Crosser or Hicks) had failed to show up and cast his vote, the amendment would have failed to achieve the two-thirds majority needed to pass.

They were sick, but they knew they had a duty. One was in extreme pain but his resolve held. One’s wife was dying, but he knew he had a duty deepened by a promise.

 These brave men took both their privilege and their duty seriously. They are models for how each individual citizen in our country should respond on Election Day.

Unfortunately, that is not the end of the story. The battle for a woman’s right to vote was not yet over. The Senate lay ahead and the story was not yet over.

(Continued next post)

The Story of Woman's Suffrage and One Vote

A One-Vote Oddity

Women’s Suffrage and One Vote

 

The battle for a woman’s right to vote was long, arduous, and filled with an amazing number of near-sighted men. But women proved equal to the challenge and finally won the day. Supporters of women’s suffrage, starting in 1849, introduced constitutional amendments at every session of Congress for half a century. But it wasn’t until the territory of Wyoming in 1869 that the movement began to take off.

The next year the Utah territory followed. In 1890,Wyoming became a state and became the first state to enfranchise women. In 1893, Colorado let women vote, followed by Idaho and the new state of Utah in 1896. Washington, 1910; California 1911; Arizona, Kansas and Oregon 1912 were the next states to allow women full partnership as citizens.

But all of these victories were in rural western states, west of the Mississippi River. Illinois, in 1913, was the first industrial state to jump on board. At President Wilson’s inauguration 5,000 women showed up to petition and marched for the right to vote. They were not well received.

 

“Police had granted a permit for the parade, but they did little to protect the determined women. … [who] had to fight their way from the start and took more than an hour to advance the first few blocks. They were spat upon, shoved, slapped, tripped, and sometimes knocked to the ground. Their banners were mutilated, their hats were pulled off, and their clothing was torn. Many of them were in tears from the assaults and insults screamed by male chauvinists who lined the route”²⁷

 

The incident hit the headlines and fueled the engine for a new constitutional amendment for women’s suffrage. Eventually, President Wilson weighed in with his support. On January 9, 1918, the House of Representatives was scheduled to vote on the amendment. The women’s advocates knew that the vote would be close, and many were worried. At what seemed the worst possible time, it was learned that four of the measure’s supporters were ill. In addition, another voter was at the bedside of his dying wife and could not be counted on.

(Continued in next post and at OneVoteOddities.blogspot.com)

Footnotes

24. P.J. Achtemeirer, Harper and Row, P., & Society of Biblical Literature (1985). Harper’s Bible Dictionary. “justice,” includes index. (1^st ed.). SanFrancisco, CA: Harper and Row.

25. Let me be perfectly clear. I am not claiming to be “righteous” in the existential sense. I am a sinner who knows only too well my tendency to wickedness and rebellion against God. But I am, and others are “righteous,” when we stand for the standards of a righteous God. To proclaim truth is a “righteous” thing to do.

             There is another type of righteousness that is the most important of all. That is the righteousness that the Apostle Paul speaks of in the book of Romans, a “declared righteousness,” given to all those who place their faith in Christ (3:21-26). That  “imputed” righteousness (read the fourth chapter of Romans), produces a change of life, without which “no one will see God” (Hebrew 12:14). In January of 1974, Christ gave me His righteousness and it (His righteousness) is my ONLY hope of glory.

26. Christianity Today “Mark Hatfield Taps into the Real Power on Capital Hill,” (October 22, 1982), 22.

27. Lindop, 72-73