Political Independence

People often ask me whether I am a Democrat or Republican. My answer is as it has been for many years that I am neither because while I tend to be fiscally conservative I am an internationalist. In my view, the sustainability of the Republic has always been dependent upon the ability of both parties to compromise and moderate their stances on issues, especially those issues that politicians view a
s constitutional.

The increasing partisanship that characterized the eight years of the presidency of George Walker Bush and his successor President Barack Hussein Obama troubles me. Partisanship and its attendant factionalism have forced many centrists to retire or resign from their elective offices rather than seek reelection, which in turn resulted in the major parties moving away from the political center and retreating to more conservative or liberal positions. Unchecked partisanship, unwillingness to compromise, and an inability to moderate positions in an effort to find the common good for all its citizens regardless of gender, sex, race, sexual preference and ability on several occasions brought the Republic near the brink of failure. I can name at least six instances, historically, that nearly destroyed the republic:

1. The crisis over the Judiciary Acts of 1801 and 1802 that resulted in the Supreme Court not sitting from January 1802 to February 1803;
2. The attempted Impeachment of Associate Justice Samuel Chase in 1804-1805, and the trial of Aaron Burr in 1805 politically motivated attempts to alter the stance of the Supreme Court by embarrassing them;
3. The economic challenges brought about by the War of 1812 that led the Federalist to call the Hartford Convention of 1814-1815 and ultimately led to the dissolution of the Federalist Party;
4. The period from 1820 to 1877 was marked by a level of partisanship and hatred that reached a crescendo with the Civil War, 150 years later we are still suffering from the wounds which led to and resulted from this war;
5. The attempted impeachment of President Andrew Johnson in 1868 in which Congress attempted to assert primacy over the Executive Branch;
6. The Court Packing plan of 1937 that President Roosevelt and his allies attempted to use as a cudgel to leverage the Supreme Court into reversing its stance on the New Deal.

Our sociopolitical history demonstrates that Ishii Itaro was correct when he asserted, “in diplomacy, as in politics in general, compromise is essential; the interests of the opposition cannot be ignored. Give and take is crucial. One must think in terms of fifty-fifty, not seventy-thirty."

Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States Robert Houghwout Jackson highlighted the centrality of compromise and moderation to the sustainability of the Republic in his work published posthumously in 1955 and reprinted in 1963 entitled The Supreme Court in the American System of Government. In his discussion of President Lincoln’s suspension of the Writ of Habeas Corpus and Chief Justice Taney’s response in Ex parte Merryman, 17 F. Cas. 144 (C.C.D. Md. 1861), Justice Jackson contended that neither the President, nor the Chief Justice accorded the concerns of the other with the weight they deserved, and in effect unintentionally caused further damage to a nation rent asunder by war.

Had Mr. Lincoln scrupulously observed the Taney policy I do not know whether we
would have had any liberty, and had the Chief Justice adopted Mr. Lincoln's
philosophy as the philosophy of the law, I again do not know whether we would
have had any liberty (Jackson 1955, 76).

The Founders intended the Constitution to be an organic document capable of addressing itself not only to their concerns, but as a document to protect succeeding generations. However, we must remain vigilant and guard against any interpretations that render the text too expansive or too restrictive such that it becomes useless and meaningless.

Now it is argued that these cases are distinguishable, because they arose under an act of Parliament which was not limited by any Constitution. So, indeed they were, and if our Constitution embalms inflexibly the habits of 1789 there may be something to the point. But it does not; its grants of power to Congress comprise, not only what was then known, but what the ingenuity of man should devise thereafter. Of course, the new subject-matter must have some relation to the grant; but we interpret it by the general practices of civilized peoples in similar fields, for it is not a strait-jacket, but, a charter for a living people. Reiss v. National Quotation Bureau, Inc., 276 F. 717 (S.D.N.Y., 1921).