Williams: Let’s change the rules
One Man’s Rant
During the course of my life, I’ve noticed that when children don’t get their way, they want to change the rules. Of the game at hand. Or of life, in general, when things just aren’t working out to their satisfaction.
Since the presidential election of 2016, there’s a striking parallel between the behavior of adolescents and of Democrats. Seemingly, Dems still can’t accept the political verdict that the American electorate delivered almost three years ago.
For example, Democrats want to change the rules and eliminate the Electoral College. Since 2016, anguished cries from the Dems point out that Hillary Clinton won more popular votes than did President Trump and, therefore, she should be president and that we should abolish the Electoral College.
It’s disturbing that so many supposedly educated adults don’t understand the purpose of Article II, Section I of the Constitution which states that the Electoral College is the “…formal body which elects the President and Vice President of the United States.”
The primary purpose of the Electoral College is to prevent high-population centers from dominating the national vote. If our forefathers had favored the popular vote, New York City, Chicago, Los Angeles, San Francisco and other heavily-liberal urban precincts would decide the president and vice president every four years, nulling the voice of millions of citizens who live in “fly-over country.” Honoring the popular vote over the Electoral College would be tantamount to awarding a baseball win for the greatest number of hits instead of the greatest number of runs scored.
Since 2016, Democrats also want to change the rules by adding more Supreme Court Justices. Since the Judiciary Act of 1869, the Supreme Court has consisted of a Chief Justice and eight Associate Justices. Now that President Trump has the opportunity to appoint conservative judges to the bench, Democrats are crying foul.
Packing the high court didn’t work for President Franklin Roosevelt, either. The Judicial Procedures Reform Bill of 1937 was proposed by FDR to stack the Supreme Court with more Democrat justices who would rule favorably on his New Deal legislation. His efforts were nixed by members of both parties, including Vice President John Garner.
Among Democrats who advocate stacking the court are Sens. Kirsten Gillibrand of New York, Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts and Kamala Harris of California. Supporting such a move is also supported by former Attorney General Eric Holder and former Rep. Beto O’Rourke.
Again, since 2016, Democrats want to lower the national vote age to 16, in hopes of picking up more votes for their party. Their argument is that 16-year-olds should have a voice in how their country is run. On the other hand, 16-year-olds are not allowed to legally enter a contract, purchase alcohol or cigarettes or play the lottery. That’s for good reason. In most cases, 16-year-olds are not mature enough to make reasoned decisions.
I see the distinction every time I substitute at the high school between students who are 16 and those who are 18. The adolescent brain develops a great deal during those two years.
More recently, Democrats now want to change the rules again by demanding full disclosure of the Mueller report, that found no Russian collusion and provided no decision regarding charges of obstruction.
Funny, it was Attorney General Janet Reno, a Democrat, who changed the rules of transparency following Independent Counsel Ken Starr’s report on President Clinton. Her ruling gives full authority to the sitting attorney general to decide how much of the special prosecutor’s reports should be given to Congress and to the public.
Leading Democrats, again, like children, want to change the rules when thing don’t go their way.
To comment on this column, email firstname.lastname@example.org.