Difference between revisions of "American Government Lecture Nine"

From Conservapedia
Jump to: navigation, search
m (Unprotected "American Government Lecture Nine": For BrianCo to edit)
 
(34 intermediate revisions by 3 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
'''American Government'''
+
{{Government Lectures}}
 
+
'''Political Parties, and a Look at Famous Trials'''
'''Ninth Lecture - Interest Groups'''
+
  
 
== Introduction ==
 
== Introduction ==
  
The public has flexed its muscle the past few weeksPublic outrage forced CBS to withdraw from its network its biased film about former President Ronald Reagan.  Public outrage also forced the [[Florida]] legislature to pass a special law to save the life of Terri Schiavo-Schindler.  A court had ordered her feeding tube removed based on statements by her estranged husband that Terri did not want to live anymoreThis special law gave the feeding tube back to Terri.
+
We have learned that there are many key components of government and politics.  Government consists of three branches: legislative, executive and judicial.  Government also has several different types:  federal (national), state and local.
 +
 
 +
It is easy to think that government officials are the leaders, and the people follow.  But as we have seen, there are many other players in this "game" that are as important, if not more so, than government officials, such as:
 +
 
 +
*the media
 +
*interest groups
 +
*lobbyists
 +
*big financial donors to "Super PAC"s
 +
 
 +
What is missing from the above list?  Political parties, which have an enormous influence on elections.  And there is another category in shaping our society that is sometimes more important than elections:  trials in court.  We look at those two very different pieces of the overall puzzle in this lecture.
 +
 
 +
== Political Parties ==
 +
 
 +
Remember that politics is a team sport, and the biggest teams are the political parties: Republicans and Democrats.  There are third parties too, such as the Constitution Party, the Libertarian Party, the Green Party, and others.  But they seem to be losing strength as time goes by.
 +
 
 +
The Republican and Democratic Parties are controlled by a small group of people who meet in what was once called the "smoke-filled room," which in the old days consisted of a few powerful men smoking cigars as they made all the important political decisions within each political partyThen the orders go out to everyone else in the party to obey, or else lose support from the party for reelection.  Today most people do not smoke, but the political parties still are controlled by very few people.
 +
 
 +
At the top of the party structure is its national committee.  For the Republicans, it is the Republican National Committee, which raises enormous sums of money and otherwise sets direction for the party.  Its Chairman, Reince Priebus, can be seen frequently on television news programs stating the views of the Republican Party.
 +
 
 +
Whom the party decides to "back" (support) can have a big effect on who wins.  There are some exceptions, however.  The folks in control of the Republican Party never liked Ron Paul, and tried to defeat him when he ran every two years for reelection in Congress.  But Ron Paul has always been very popular among his "constituents" (the people whom a politician represents, such as residents in the congressional district represented by the congressman).  In most cases, however, when a political party's leaders decide a particular candidate should win the party's nomination rather than someone else, then that person favored by the party insiders typically does win.  That is because he usually wins more endorsements and obtains more financial support for his campaign if his party "bosses" support him.
 +
 
 +
Let's learn more about the Republican Party Committee, which is the formal structure of the Republican Party(The Democratic Party Committee works in a similar way.)
 +
 
 +
=== RNC procedures ===
 +
 
 +
The Republican National Committee (RNC) has its own set of rules that govern how it operates and picks its leadership.  Each of 56 states and American territories has three representatives who are members of the RNC, and they meet twice a year.  Their next meeting is in January 2013, when they will elect the Chairman for the next two years, until January 2015.  Its current Chairman recently announced that he is running for reelection.
 +
 
 +
The nomination and election procedures are governed by the RNC's "bylaws", which is the name given to the rules that govern how any organization or corporation is run internally.  In this case, nominations for the office of Chairman are made by the vote of a majority of the delegates from at least 3 states or territories.  Several candidates for the office are typically nominated, and then the RNC members vote on whom they prefer.  It often requires multiple ballots to reduce the number of candidates to two or three, whereupon one candidate finally wins the race by receiving a majority of 168 votes (85 total votes).
 +
 
 +
For example, on the first ballot there may be five candidates who win 50, 40, 25, 20 and 15 votes, with some members absent and therefore not voting.  The candidates who received only 20 and 15 votes may then drop out, such that on the second ballot the other three candidates receive more votes each.  This process is repeated until a candidate receives a majority of the votes.
 +
 
 +
=== When Are the Next Public Elections? ===
 +
One aspect of politics that many people like, while others dislike it, is that politics never stops.  The day after an election, the focus begins on the next election.  Most politicians never take their eye off their approval ratings or the next election.  Already the RNC and DNC (the committees for the two major political parties) are planning ahead for the next elections in 2013, with the hope of winning them.
 +
 
 +
New Jersey and Virginia are unusual in holding major elections in odd-numbered years, so in 2013 there will be campaigns and elections in these states.  Why do New Jersey and Virginia do this?  Probably to give greater power to the political machines, keeping them influential all the time.
 +
 
 +
Governor Chris Christie's stands for reelection in 2013, and the massive Democrat majority in New Jersey makes it difficult for him to win.  His opponent may be Newark mayor Cory Booker, a rising star among Democrats who may one day run for president himself.
 +
 
 +
Christie and Booker must first win their party's primary in June in order to qualify for the ballot in November.  There will almost certainly be other Democrats who oppose Booker for that party's nomination.  Will anyone run against Christie in his primary?
 +
 
 +
There will be other state races of importance in 2013 in New Jersey.  There will also be special elections as congressional seats open up around the Nation.  It is expected that Obama will appoint John Kerry to be the new Secretary of State after Hillary Clinton resigns, and that will create an open U.S. Senate seat from MassachusettsRepublican Scott Brown, who recently lost reelection for his U.S. Senate seat, would then likely run to replace John Kerry.
 +
 
 +
Already congressmen must begin thinking about their races for reelection 2014, and the race for the next presidential election in 2016 has quietly begun too.  On the Republican side, it is expected that Jeb Bush will seek and win the nomination, while Hillary Clinton seems likely to be the Democrat nominee.
 +
 
 +
== Next: A Look at the Judiciary ==
 +
 
 +
With all the talk about politics and elections in the media, it is easy to think that elections are the only events that shape the future of America.  But do not forget that elections directly affect only two out of three branches of government in the federal (and New Jersey) government.  Federal judges never stand for election, and their work is done independently from the political process.  Federal judges are nominated by the President and confirmed by the U.S. Senate, and in New Jersey the judges are nominated by the Governor and confirmed by the NJ Senate, but these judges continue to decide cases for many decades afterward without any reason to be concerned about elections.
 +
 
 +
Judges, courts and trials are not what most people think about when they hear the term "government", but courts and public trials may be as important in deciding the future of our nationElected politicians like to avoid the difficult issues, leaving it to courts to decide what really matters.
 +
 
 +
The most important trials in Anglo-American history have been by juries, and they have decided many of the fundamental issues that we take for granted. In trials, there are rules of evidence that limit what can be said or claimed.  Most of what politicians says, and much of what is taught in public school, would not be considered reliable enough to present in a court of law at a trial.  Demagoguery is not allowed; neither are most types of "hearsay", which is repeating what someone heard somewhere else.  The basic rules of evidence have developed over hundreds of years to promote a truthful result. 
 +
 
 +
The Salem Witch Trials, which are not on this list (but perhaps they should be), reached results considered to be unjust because witnesses were allowed to say in court that they had a dream or vision ("spectral evidence") convincing them that the defendant was guilty.  Today that would be prohibited by rules of evidence.
 +
 
 +
Would you like to become a trial attorney one day?
 +
 
 +
==The Top Ten Trials in American History==
 +
 
 +
Here is a list of the ten most important trials affecting the United States, all of which were by some kind of jury (not necessarily a public jury):
 +
 
 +
1. William Penn (1670)
 +
<br>2.  John Peter Zenger (1735)
 +
<br>3.  Supreme Court Justice Samuel Chase (1804)
 +
<br>4.  President Andrew Johnson (1868)
 +
<br>5.  Boss Tweed (1873)
 +
<br>6.  Sacco & Vanzetti (1921)
 +
<br>7.  John Scopes (1925)
 +
<br>8.  Colonel Billy Mitchell (1925)
 +
<br>9.  Alger Hiss (1949)
 +
<br>10.  President Bill Clinton (1999)
  
These were not acts of political parties, though the Republican Party did play minor roles. This was the public at large, acting through “interest groups” and as individuals, that forced action. Today we will talk about “interest groups.
+
How many of these jury trials can you describe? For the impeachment trials (3, 4, and 10), the "jury" was the entire U.S. Senate.
  
This past week there was also a tremendous achievement by a single-issue interest group: the signing into law of the ban on partial birth abortionsNational Right to Life and other pro-life groups have been working on this for nearly ten years.  It takes that long when opposition is fierce.
+
Both Thomas Jefferson and John Adams felt strongly that jury trials were the best defense against government.  Thomas Jefferson considered “trial by jury as the only anchor ever yet imagined by man, by which a government can be held to the principles of its constitution. John Adams said it was a jury’s “duty ... to find the verdict according to his own best understanding, judgment, and conscience, though in direct opposition to the direction of the court.
  
We also had an election last Tuesday, and we will take a moment to look at the results.
+
Half of these important trials resulted in convictions; the other half resulted in acquittals. Here is my summary of the cases and their influence:
  
== What is an Interest Group? ==
+
'''1.'''  '''William Penn''' joined the Quakers in London, a religion disliked by the King.  In 1670, Penn held a worship service and was arrested for allegedly disturbing the King’s peace.  At trial, the jurors heard testimony, and the judge, as is still the custom, delivered jury instructions prior to its deliberations.  The jury instructions included an order to find the Penn guilty.
  
The term “interest group” is defined in your glossary, p. 309It is an organization of people who agree on an issue, and try to influence government policy on that issue.  Examples are pro-life groups, pro-environment groups, pro-gun rights groups, pro-gun control groups, and so onHow many can you name?
+
But the jury refused to find Penn guilty.  The judge angrily sent them back to continue deliberations. The jury returned again with its same "not guilty" verdictThe judge demanded “a verdict that the court will accept, and you shall be locked up without meat, drink, fire, and tobacco....We will have a verdict by the help of God or you will starve for it.”  The jury went out three more times, and returned with the same verdict each timeThen it refused to deliberate any more and the judge fined and imprisoned them.  Penn was also fined and imprisoned on a scurrilous new charge invented at trial (for donning a hat in the courtroom).
  
Interest groups are very different from political parties.  Members of interest groups usually come from multiple parties and independents.  Interest groups cut across party lines.  Both Democrats and Republicans belong to pro-life groups, for exampleThe same is true for virtually every other interest group.
+
On appeal, the jurors won their independence and were released from jail, though that did not help Penn.   
  
The motivation for an interest group is to work with both parties towards a specific goalIt focuses on only one issue, or a small number of connected issues, and thus channels all its energy towards that endIt is unconcerned with many other issues affecting political parties.
+
The impact of the Penn trial has been enormous in two respectsFirst, it established freedom of religion, which Penn brought to America in founding Pennsylvania a decade laterPhiladelphia became the most populous city in the colonies, and the location for drafting the Constitution.
  
For example, the National Right to Life does not take a position on taxes, immigration, the environment, Social Security, etcWhen asked whether it supports the Equal Rights Amendment (ERA), it responded that it would if the Amendment were changed to make sure it did not authorize abortion or funding of abortion.  That is its issue, while others oppose ERA for many other issues, too.
+
The case also established the principle of “jury nullification,” whereby a jury’s decision is final and dispositive even if it rejects the lawJury nullification has been used frequently, as in acquitting defendants accused of violating the Alien and Sedition Act and the Fugitive Slave Act.
  
Both Democratic and Republican candidates can seek the support of the National Rifle Association (NRA), which is a large and particularly powerful interest groupIt sends a questionnaire to candidates to see if they agree with gun rightsIt can help candidates become elected by endorsing them or raising campaign money for them.
+
'''2.'''  The '''John Peter Zenger''' trial in 1735 is the most important case ever for the media, particularly newspapers.  He was a publisher accused of the crime of harshly criticizing the colonial New York governor.  Zenger’s defense was that he (and everyone else) has the right to print the truthBut the judge instructed the jury that the law did not recognize truth as a defense to the chargesUnder the law at the time, the jury had no authority to acquit Zenger based on the truth of his statements.
  
The Sierra Group is a famous pro-environment interest groupThere are also pro-abortion interest groups and other interest groups for just about any issue imaginable.
+
The jury acquitted him anyway, thereby establishing freedom of the press (and also a type of freedom of speech)This was another important example of jury nullification.  To this day, England does not have the full freedom of speech and the press that Americans have because of the Zenger trial.
  
About a hundred years ago, there was an interest group that grew so powerful that its single issue was inserted into the Constitution by amendmentCan you name that issue?  (Prohibition – abolishing all alcohol. It was passed as the 18th Amendment, and later repealed during the Depression as the 21st Amendment.)
+
'''3.  By 1804''', Jeffersonian Democratic-Republicans had control of Congress and set their sights on removing Federalist Supreme Court Justice '''Samuel Chase'''. The House of Representatives impeached him, and trial began with the Senate as the jury.  His prosecutor was John Randolph, a partisan Jeffersonian who was distantly related to the Federalist Chief Justice John Marshall25 out of 34 Senators (more than 2/3rds of the U.S. Senate at the time) were Jeffersonians, so conviction and removal of the Federalist Chase for his political biases seemed likely.
  
== Comparing Interest Groups to Political Parties ==
+
But the effort failed.  During the trial Randolph himself criticized Jefferson over a separate issue, the infamous Yazoo land fraud in Georgia, an issue that split Jeffersonians.  Meanwhile, the case against Chase amounted to little more than some intemperate remarks he made while sitting as trial judge in a grand jury proceeding.  The Senators were unimpressed, and at most 19 out of 34 voted to convict on any of the charges, far short of the requisite 2/3rd.
  
Some people prefer to work in political parties, while others prefer to work in interest groupsLet’s compare the two.
+
The independence of the judiciary was established by this failed effort to remove a Supreme Court justice.  However, the episode did encourage future justices not to engage directly in politicsNo effort to impeach a Supreme Court justice has since made any progress.
  
Political parties address all the issuesWorkers in political parties are part of the biggest gang in the United States, typically either the Republican or Democratic PartyWhen someone in their party wins an election, the worker can claim some credit and celebrateThis is true from the most obscure political job right up the presidency.
+
'''4.''' '''President Andrew Johnson''' became the enemy of Radical Republicans who controlled Congress after the Civil WarPresident Johnson vetoed their legislation and even called their leaders “traitors”Flush from winning the war, the likes of Republican Senators Thaddeus Stevens (PA) and Charles Sumner (MA) were not about to back down.  Sumner, after all, was the fellow who once delivered a disrespectful speech against elderly South Carolina Senator Andrew Butler, whereupon his outraged nephew Preston Brooks beat Sumner senseless with a cane.
  
People donate their time to political parties because they care about more than one issueThey feel it is important to address many issues, and elect officials to address future issues that have not yet arisen.
+
When the House of Representatives impeached President Johnson by an overwhelming vote of 126 to 47, his ouster appeared to be a ''fait accompli''President Johnson had violated the Tenure in Office Act by dismissing his Secretary of War, and he had been intemperate in his name-calling of key senators.  In addressing the jury of 54 senators, the prosecutor referred to President Johnson as an “accidental Chief” and “the elect of an assassin.”  Witnesses testified for both the prosecution and the defense.
  
For example, a year ago the public was not paying attention to Terri Schiavo-SchindlerYet people worked very hard to elect Republican Jeb Bush governor of Florida, and also to elect a Republican legislature.  Those who voted for Bush expected him to do the right thing on existing issues, and unforeseeable issues. And he did: he recently signed a new law that saved Terri’s life. 
+
The prosecutors – called “managers” in impeachment trials – were confident of victory.  Manager Thaddeus Stevens described President Johnson as the “wretched man, standing at bay, surrounded by a cordon of living men, each with the axe of an executioner uplifted for his just punishment. Manager John Bingham brought the public galleries to their feet with his oratory: “May God forbid that the future historian shall record of this day's proceedings, that by reason of the failure of the legislative power of the people to triumph over the usurpations of an apostate President, the fabric of American empire fell and perished from the earth.
  
Party loyalists try to put people who think like them into office and then let them make the decisionsLet the experts – the right experts – handle the issues as they developWork on placing the right people on the field, as in sports, and then let them play the game as best they can.
+
2/3rd vote was necessary for conviction, and it all turned on Senator Edmund Ross of KansasLike real jurors, he spoke to no one during the proceedings and no one knew which was he was leaningBut he voted “not guilty,” and President Johnson was acquitted by one vote.  The "Radical Republican" Senators had lost, and never again regained their unprecedented power.
  
This approach takes a dim view of spending time trying to persuade someone in an opposing political partyIt is often a waste of time.  You can spend hours, days or even weeks trying to persuade a member of a political party to do something, only to find him voting as his leadership told him toIt is unrealistic to think you can persuade a Democratic to support the Republican President Bush in a public way.  Spend your limited time building your favorite party rather than trying to persuade likely opponents.
+
'''5.'''  '''William Marcy “Boss” Tweed''' began as a volunteer fireman in New York who worked his way to the top of the Democratic New York City political machine by 1863He developed a corrupt system known as the “Tweed Ring” that faked leases, demanded kickbacks, performed unnecessary repairs and generated other phony expenses that cost New York City from $75 million to $200 million, a huge amount of money at the timeFamed cartoonist Thomas Nast, who created Uncle Sam and the elephant and donkey for the Republican and Democratic Parties, frequently attacked Tweed in his cartoons.
  
Interest groups take a different approach.  They say that Republicans will be Republicans, and Democrats will be DemocratsIt’s been true for 140 years, and could be true for another 140 yearsThey do not see one party winning over the other.  Instead, try to work with both parties on a particular issue.
+
Eventually, Democratic federal prosecutor Samuel Tilden brought an indictment against Tweed, who was defended at trial by wealthy Republican Elihu Root in 1872Tilden defeated Root and obtained the conviction, which catapulted Tilden to national prominence and became the Democratic nominee for president in 1876He won the popular vote by a hefty 250,000, but the Republicans maneuvered to give Rutherford Hayes the White House based on a narrow lead in electoral college votes and a promise to end Reconstruction.  Elihu Root, meanwhile, became an imperialist who later advocated entry by the United States  into the League of Nations.
  
Also, interest groups focus on one or a few issues to maximize their impactMany pro-lifers feel that abortion is by far the most important issue in AmericaNo other political issue is even close.  They do not care if someone is Democratic or Republican, Libertarian or Green (pro-environment).  What is his or her position on abortion?  That is the only question needed to be asked, some feel.
+
'''6.''' '''Sacco and Vanzetti''' were two anarchists from Italy.  Anarchists believe in a dangerous philosophy that there should be '''''no''''' government, and some anarchists believe in the violent overthrow of any established ruling entity.  These anarchists had dodged the draft for World War I and were tried in 1921 for an afternoon robbery and murder of a shoe factory paymaster and a security guard as they carried a $16,000 payrollLiberals in America decried trying individuals for their beliefs rather than their actions, and questions about the fairness of such a trial in Boston were raised from the beginning.  They had skilled defense counsel in a famous labor attorney, but no Italians were included in the jury (none may have been in the jury pool).  The defense counsel eliminated every businessman from the jury.
  
A party worker, even a pro-life one, will tell you that all issues are connected and often it is difficult to win on one issue without winning othersFor example, winning on the pro-life issue requires reestablishing respect for human life.  It may take changing what is taught in public schools, where over 90% of Americans form their beliefsIf people think humans are just animal tissue because they were taught that in school, then they may not become pro-life.
+
Witnesses for the prosecution were weak, with one testifying that the murderer spoke good English (the defendants did not)The prosecution only identified one bullet as being from Sacco’s gun, with no explanation as to the source of the other three bullets found at the sceneThe stolen money was never found.
  
The interest groups will respond by saying that if a candidate is wrong on the pro-life issue, then that politician is usually wrong on everything else tooVoters don’t have the time or interest to find out where candidates stand on numerous issues.  Besides, candidates often lieFind out where a candidate stands on the life issue, and the rest is obvious.
+
The defendants took the witness stand in their defense, but were subjected to relentless questioning about their political beliefsDefense counsel repeatedly objected to such questions, but the judge overruled the objections and allowed themThere is widespread agreement that the judge never should have permitted so much questioning about political beliefs at the trial.
  
Yes, party officials say, but at the end of the day candidates are elected as a Republicans or Democrats, and those persons make the decisionPresident Bush signed the ban on partial birth abortion because the Republican Party has a pro-life platformIt took hard work to keep that platform pro-life, too.  The Republican National Coalition for Life puts enormous time and effort into this cause.
+
The jury returned a guilty verdict after more than a day deliberations.  (At an earlier trial, a different jury had convicted them of a similar crime.)  Faced with international protests against the prosecution, the Massachusetts governor appointed a commission to examine the trial and evidenceThroughout the 1920s the case was a flashpoint for protestsFinally, after the commission announced it agreed with the verdict, Sacco and Vanzetti were executed in 1927.  
  
Where would you prefer to spend your time – working in a political party or in an interest group?
+
Vanzetti, who sported a distinctive handlebar mustache, maintained his innocence to the end.  His final words to the judge before execution were these:
 +
“I would not wish to [a dog or snake] what I have had to suffer for things that I am not guilty of. But my conviction is that I have suffered for things that I am guilty of. I am suffering because I am a radical and indeed I am a radical; I have suffered because I was an Italian, and indeed I am an Italian; I have suffered more for my family and for my beloved than for myself; but I am so convinced to be right that if you could execute me two times, and if I could be reborn two other times, I would live again to do what I have done already.”  Does that persuade you of his innocence?
  
== Lobbyists and PACs ==
+
Among liberals, sympathy has continued for Sacco and Vanzetti ever since.  Much is made of a confession by another death row inmate to having perpetrated the crime.  But the judge found that unreliable.  But the judge did not seem to be entirely impartial; earlier he had criticized a jury for acquitting an anarchist, and seemed determined to do what he could to end anarchy in America.
  
Lobbyists are people hired by large companies or interest groups to try to influence public policy.  They work in the capital cities of states (e.g., Trenton, NJ, or Jefferson City, MO, or Austin, TX) or in Washington, D.C., the capital of the federal governmentFederal lobbyists have offices on “K” street, a luxurious area of D.C.  In 1968, there were only 62 lobbyists there.  Now there are 21,000 of them, mostly well paid.
+
Fifty years after the executions of Sacco and Vanzetti, in 1977, Massachusetts Democratic governor and future presidential candidate Michael Dukakis signed a resolution apologizing to them and establishing a day in honor of them. However, he did not pardon them, and many remain convinced of their guiltDukakis’ soft position on crime was a major reason for his defeat by the first President George Bush in 1988.
  
Their job is to make friends with congressmen and senators and the president and their staffs, and then exert influence on legislation or an action by a federal agencyThe lobbyists play golf with the politicians, send them birthday cards, take their staff out to dinner, and show up at the Christmas partiesWhen a tragedy strikes, they are there to make people feel betterThe lobbyists thereby form bonds that become very strong and influential.
+
'''7.'''  '''John Scopes''' was merely a young public school teacher in Tennessee when he unwittingly became a test case for promoting evolution in American schoolsTennessee had a law against teaching human evolution, and the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) wanted to overturn itIt enlisted the top criminal attorney of the day, Clarence Darrow, to serve as Scopes attorneyAs crafty as the day is long, he arrived in Tennessee armed with his bag of tricks.
  
It is not easy being a congressman, senator or even the president.  If it looks easy, it isn’tThey constantly worry about reelection and possible embarrassment.  Everyone is looking to knock them downOften they deserve to be ousted from office, so the fear is justified!
+
William Jennings Bryan, the former presidential candidate and Secretary of State, had oratorical skills second to noneHis “Cross of Gold” nomination acceptance speech in 1896 is considered one of the greatest political works in American historyHe united the Populist and Democratic Parties then and laid the foundation for the takeover by the Democratic Party of American politics 36 years later.
  
Lobbyists make the politicians feel betterMake them feel loved.  Send them candies and tell them how great they are.  Then, at the right time, the lobbyists just ask for a small favor: insert a few lines into a piece of legislation for themThe politician doesn’t have any reason not to.  And another few million dollars goes out the door of the federal government as a grant or tax break for a special interest group.
+
After witnessing the horrors of World War I, Bryan became convinced that the teaching of evolution was leading society to ruination through war“Survival of the fittest” provided an intellectual justification for the brutal killing of other nationalities and racesBryan foresaw the ethnic cleansing that grew to its horrible culmination in the Holocaust.
  
The lobbyists have their biggest impact on the staff of congressmen, who are the ones doing most of the work.  Imagine yourself as a staff worker for a Republican in the North, or a Democrat in the SouthYou see which way the wind is blowing: Republicans are losing in the North and Democrats are losing in the SouthWhen your boss, the congressman or senator, loses reelection or retires, you are out of your jobAnd even if he wins, you are not making much and you are working very long hours.
+
To avoid growth of the mistaken belief in “survival of the fittest” among humans, Bryan defended the Tennessee law and its application to Scopes, which imposed a $100 fine as the penalty for teaching that humans had evolved from apesDarrow agreed to take the witness stand to testify for teaching human evolution if Bryan also took the witness stand to allow Darrow to ask him questions.  Bryan testified first and performed well.  So well, in fact, that Darrow reneged on his promise and forced Scopes to plead guilty to end the caseWith that the trial ended, and Tennessee’s law remained in effect for another half centuryFor nearly 100 more years Tennessee public schools taught little evolution, and George W. Bush won the presidential election in 2000 by carrying this home state of his opponent, Al Gore.
  
The lobbyist tells you how much better is to work on “K” street as a lobbyist rather than on Capitol Hill for the U.S. Government. The lobbyists make more money and have more fun, you are toldIf you impress the lobbyist, then he’ll put in a good word for you and try to get you a nice jobNext thing you know, all the staffers are trying harder to please the lobbyists than to serve the public.
+
But the media wrote the history about this trial. A famous liberal reporter at the trial, H.L. Mencken, published extremely one-sided articles that would make today’s media blush.  He excoriated Bryan at every possible turn, trying to make him look foolishWhen Hollywood got into the act with a movie called “Inherit the Wind,” it imitated Mencken’s biasMisinformed, many think Scopes and the evolutionists won the trial, but the real result was the opposite.
  
Lobbyists also help raise money for politicians for their reelection, in the form of political action committees (PACs)These are special accounts set up to raise money that can be given to a candidateEvery large company has oneEmployees are told they should donate to the company’s PAC so that it can give money to important politicians in D.CIt has become necessary to donate to politicians to help them win, in order to catch their attentionYou can bet politicians appreciate those who send money for reelection.
+
'''8.''' '''Colonel William “Billy” Mitchell''' dropped out of college in 1898 to serve in the Spanish-American WarAfterwards, America stayed out of wars until 1917, when Mitchell was touring Europe as an observerBy then he was considered too old to be trained on the new airplanes that were just being considered, but he learned to fly through private lessons of his ownWhen the United States entered World War I, Mitchell was the first American to fly over enemy lines.  In 1918, he led a large bombing attack on St. Mihiel on the western front in EuropeAn account of the battle is available online.<ref>http://www.au.af.mil/au/awc/awcgate/ww1/stmihiel/stmihiel.htm</ref>
  
== What Would James Madison Say? ==
+
After the war he devoted his efforts to advocating greater use of aviation in the military, and criticizing those who resisted the change.  In 1921 and 1923 Mitchell demonstrated how easily air power could sink ships by bombing old battleships  and sinking them.  The embarrassed military brass sent him on a trip to Asia, but when Mitchell returned he predicted that Japan would ultimately attack us as it did at Pearl Harbor.
  
What would James Madison say about this?  Recall Federalist No. 10, in which James Madison criticized "factions"Was he right?
+
In September 1925 a military airship crashed and killed many on board. Mitchell published a diatribe harshly criticizing his superiors, even accusing them of treason in ignoring the need for good military aviationHe was swiftly brought before a military court, known as a court-martial, for insubordination.  He was tried for seven weeks.
  
Moderates today, and particularly the media, oppose conservative interest groupsPro-life, pro-gun, anti-tax groups are portrayed in the media as narrow-minded people who care only about one thingThat, of course, is not true: interests group care about many issues, but choose to focus on only oneThey are maximizing their influence that way.
+
Military courts lack the protections guaranteed to civilians in ordinary courtsThe jury could not reach a unanimous verdict, which in a federal criminal case would prevent convictionOne juror, widely thought to be the future General Douglas MacArthur, voted for acquittal.  But he was outvoted and Mitchell was convicted and sentenced to a humiliating loss of rank and payPresident Calvin Coolidge intervened to restore half his pay, but Mitchell quit the military instead.
  
It is unlikely that James Madison, himself a bit of a moderate in his day, would like interest groupsHe would worry that an interest group may capture control of the federal governmentHe would fear that pro-abortion interest groups might capture the entire governmentThen what?
+
After Japan’s air power attacked and sunk our fleet at Pearl Harbor, Mitchell’s views were vindicated.  By then he had passed away, but the military restored his rank and President Truman honored him with a medal posthumously.
 +
 +
'''9.''' '''Alger Hiss''' had denied he knew Whittaker Chambers, a former American communist who claimed that Hiss had been passing him State Department secrets for yearsObscure Congressman Richard Nixon was convinced that Hiss was lying and questioned him when he appeared before the House Un-American Activities Committee during the Cold War in 1948Nixon intensely disliked Hiss, who came from the wealthy background of political connections that Nixon initially lacked.  Nixon’s pursuit of Hiss catapulted Nixon’s career on a path that would eventually carry Nixon to become president.
  
A response might be that the pro-abortionists did capture the federal government, and only pro-life interest groups can correct the situationAll it takes is for five Justices on the Supreme Court to issue a ruling like Roe v. Wade and there is a huge problem.  Besides, the media act like one big interest group that promotes abortion.  It takes new interest groups to combat this effectively.
+
Both Hiss and Chambers testified before the House Committee, contradicting each otherOne had to be lying. When Chambers ultimately produced typed documents of State Department information and claimed they came from Hiss, a federal prosecutor in Manhattan indicted Hiss for perjury.
  
== Regulating Interest Groups ==
+
But Hiss could afford the best attorney and had the most impressive array of character witnesses ever assembled.  It included two U. S. Supreme Court justices, a former Solicitor General, a former Democratic presidential candidate (John W. Davis) and a future one (Adlai Stevenson).  Hiss’ jury selection was also superb: the foreman proved to be sympathetic to the liberal and perhaps even communist movement in America.
  
The First Amendment protects interest groupsGovernment cannot abolish them, but can it regulate them?
+
Hiss did well on the witness stand in his defense, but his attorney probably erred in putting his wife onHiss's attorney was blistering in his cross-examination of the prosecution’s star witness, Chambers himself, who admitted that he had worked for the communist cause in America.
  
John McCain almost won the Republican nomination for president in 2000 by emphasizing one issue: reforming the finance of political campaigns.  Senator McCain particularly disliked how an interest group could spend millions a few days before an election to sway the public against a candidateHe said that is unfair.
+
The jury could not agree on a verdict, splitting with eight in favor of conviction and four against itDespite testimony that the unlawfully leaked documents were typed on Hiss’ typewriter, the four were not convinced beyond reasonable doubt.
  
The media also dislike how interest groups could influence elections by running ads just before votingThese ads detract from the power of the media to influence the outcome of an electionThe media loved McCain partly because they agreed on this issue.
+
As is typical, the government then brought the case for retrialProsecutions do better the second time, learning from its mistakes.  The judge allowed a broader range of questioning.  Hiss's new defense counsel was weaker, conceding that the leaked documents were typed by the typewriter found in Hiss’ possession, but disputing that he typed themInexplicably, Supreme Court Justice Frankfurter did not testify for Hiss in the second trial.
  
National Right to Life was so upset at McCain’s attempt to muzzle interest groups that it ran ads attacking McCain in the New Hampshire presidential primary in 2000, even though McCain has a pro-life voting recordThe ads backfired, and McCain defeated Bush.
+
The defense relied heavily on testimony by a expert witness who was a psychiatrist, who painted Chambers as a pathological liar.  But the prosecutor destroyed that expert witness in one of the most famous cross-examinations in American legal historyExcerpts from the trial transcript are available online.<ref>http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/hiss/hisstrialtranscripts.html</ref>
  
What do you think about the right of interest groups to run expensive ads just before an election? Should it be limited?  In the Bipartisan Campaign Finance Reform Act of 2002, Congress prohibited political ads by interest groups within 60 days of an election.  The Supreme Court later ruled this to be unconstitutional. Do you think this regulation is constitutional?
+
Hiss maintained his innocence until he died, despite the eventual release of secret Soviet files apparently identifying him as a spy. Perhaps Hiss felt he could not go back on his prior statements, or perhaps he remained true to communism in protecting the movement.  The case helped define American politics for forty years, propelling Nixon to the Vice Presidency in 1952, Barry Goldwater to the Republican nomination for president in 1964, Nixon to the White House in 1968, and ultimately Ronald Reagan to the White House in 1980, where he awarded Chambers a posthumous Medal of Freedom.
  
== Election Results ==
+
'''10.'''  '''President Bill Clinton''' was riding high in the polls and was ready to pick his successor for the White House by late 1998.  His personal popularity and a strong economy enabled the Democratic Party to do surprisingly well in the mid-term elections, and President Clinton was seeking to leave a lasting legacy.
  
Every November, America changes a bit because there are electionsIt is always worth pausing to observe what happened.
+
Then the House of Representatives impeached him for making false statements under oath, which is perjury, and trial was scheduled for the U.S. Senate in 1999.  First Lady Hillary Clinton accused her opponents of being part of a “vast right-wing conspiracy” against her husbandThe Democratic Senators all lined up behind President Clinton, promising to vote for acquittal.
  
The South has become more Republican and the North has become more DemocraticRepublicans won governorships in Kentucky and Mississippi; Democrats took control of the New Jersey Senate.
+
Republicans enjoyed a majority in the Senate but lacked votes anywhere close to the requisite 2/3rd majority to convictPresident Clinton was a lame-duck at that point anyway, and the real battle was over his ability to influence politics beyond his term.
  
This is part of a 30-year trend for political realignment in this countryPeople tend to vote regionallyAt the time of the Civil War, the North was solidly Republican and the South was solidly Democratic.  Now it has shifted to become the opposite.
+
The managers of the impeachment presented their case, but the Senate prevented them from calling key witnesses such as Clinton’s closest aidsThe procedural rules hamstrung the trial and served to protect the presidentWithout the presentation of the full case, President Clinton easily survived the final vote.
  
In 2004, the Democrats did not win a single southern state, and Bush did not win a single state in the northeastBut Bush did win West Virginia and Ohio, which were enough to give him the overall election.
+
But the victory was Pyrrhic.  The Democratic presidential nominee in 2000, Al Gore, felt he had to distance himself from Clinton and that probably made the difference on Election DayFor 5 or so years, Clinton had little success in campaigning for candidates, failing (for example) in trying to help Governor Gray Davis in California prevail in his recall election.  Hillary Clinton, pollsters choice to run in 2004, apparently felt it was too soon to make an attempt.  When she did run for her party's nomination in 2008, she was defeated.  The political ramifications of the impeachment trial lasted for at least a decade.
  
In becoming mayor of New York, Mayor Bloomberg (a moderate) failed in his attempt to change New York primaries from “closed” to “open”.  The parties opposed his referendum to allow independents to vote in party primaries, and the parties beat the mayor.  Never underestimate the power of political parties.  But Bloomberg was able to overcome the power with his enormous personal wealth and obtaining the [[Republican]] nomination rather than the [[Democratic]] one, and won that way.
+
== Homework ==
  
In Mississippi, famous Republican lobbyist Haley Barbour won the governorship and was just reelected.  So sometimes lobbyists become top government officials themselves.  The door between government and lobbyists revolves round-and-round.
+
For the homework, we will have a ten or fifteen-question quiz '''''on only this lecture''''', which I will send by email in a day or two.
  
== Issues ==
+
== References ==
  
1.  Do you think there should be regulation of interest group ads just prior to elections?
+
<references/>
  
[[Category:Homeschool Curriculum]]
+
[[Category:American Government lectures]]
 +
{{DEFAULTSORT:American Government Lecture 09}}

Latest revision as of 23:02, December 6, 2012

American Government Lectures - [1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5 - 6 - 7 - 8 - 9 - 10 - 11 - 12]

Political Parties, and a Look at Famous Trials

Introduction

We have learned that there are many key components of government and politics. Government consists of three branches: legislative, executive and judicial. Government also has several different types: federal (national), state and local.

It is easy to think that government officials are the leaders, and the people follow. But as we have seen, there are many other players in this "game" that are as important, if not more so, than government officials, such as:

  • the media
  • interest groups
  • lobbyists
  • big financial donors to "Super PAC"s

What is missing from the above list? Political parties, which have an enormous influence on elections. And there is another category in shaping our society that is sometimes more important than elections: trials in court. We look at those two very different pieces of the overall puzzle in this lecture.

Political Parties

Remember that politics is a team sport, and the biggest teams are the political parties: Republicans and Democrats. There are third parties too, such as the Constitution Party, the Libertarian Party, the Green Party, and others. But they seem to be losing strength as time goes by.

The Republican and Democratic Parties are controlled by a small group of people who meet in what was once called the "smoke-filled room," which in the old days consisted of a few powerful men smoking cigars as they made all the important political decisions within each political party. Then the orders go out to everyone else in the party to obey, or else lose support from the party for reelection. Today most people do not smoke, but the political parties still are controlled by very few people.

At the top of the party structure is its national committee. For the Republicans, it is the Republican National Committee, which raises enormous sums of money and otherwise sets direction for the party. Its Chairman, Reince Priebus, can be seen frequently on television news programs stating the views of the Republican Party.

Whom the party decides to "back" (support) can have a big effect on who wins. There are some exceptions, however. The folks in control of the Republican Party never liked Ron Paul, and tried to defeat him when he ran every two years for reelection in Congress. But Ron Paul has always been very popular among his "constituents" (the people whom a politician represents, such as residents in the congressional district represented by the congressman). In most cases, however, when a political party's leaders decide a particular candidate should win the party's nomination rather than someone else, then that person favored by the party insiders typically does win. That is because he usually wins more endorsements and obtains more financial support for his campaign if his party "bosses" support him.

Let's learn more about the Republican Party Committee, which is the formal structure of the Republican Party. (The Democratic Party Committee works in a similar way.)

RNC procedures

The Republican National Committee (RNC) has its own set of rules that govern how it operates and picks its leadership. Each of 56 states and American territories has three representatives who are members of the RNC, and they meet twice a year. Their next meeting is in January 2013, when they will elect the Chairman for the next two years, until January 2015. Its current Chairman recently announced that he is running for reelection.

The nomination and election procedures are governed by the RNC's "bylaws", which is the name given to the rules that govern how any organization or corporation is run internally. In this case, nominations for the office of Chairman are made by the vote of a majority of the delegates from at least 3 states or territories. Several candidates for the office are typically nominated, and then the RNC members vote on whom they prefer. It often requires multiple ballots to reduce the number of candidates to two or three, whereupon one candidate finally wins the race by receiving a majority of 168 votes (85 total votes).

For example, on the first ballot there may be five candidates who win 50, 40, 25, 20 and 15 votes, with some members absent and therefore not voting. The candidates who received only 20 and 15 votes may then drop out, such that on the second ballot the other three candidates receive more votes each. This process is repeated until a candidate receives a majority of the votes.

When Are the Next Public Elections?

One aspect of politics that many people like, while others dislike it, is that politics never stops. The day after an election, the focus begins on the next election. Most politicians never take their eye off their approval ratings or the next election. Already the RNC and DNC (the committees for the two major political parties) are planning ahead for the next elections in 2013, with the hope of winning them.

New Jersey and Virginia are unusual in holding major elections in odd-numbered years, so in 2013 there will be campaigns and elections in these states. Why do New Jersey and Virginia do this? Probably to give greater power to the political machines, keeping them influential all the time.

Governor Chris Christie's stands for reelection in 2013, and the massive Democrat majority in New Jersey makes it difficult for him to win. His opponent may be Newark mayor Cory Booker, a rising star among Democrats who may one day run for president himself.

Christie and Booker must first win their party's primary in June in order to qualify for the ballot in November. There will almost certainly be other Democrats who oppose Booker for that party's nomination. Will anyone run against Christie in his primary?

There will be other state races of importance in 2013 in New Jersey. There will also be special elections as congressional seats open up around the Nation. It is expected that Obama will appoint John Kerry to be the new Secretary of State after Hillary Clinton resigns, and that will create an open U.S. Senate seat from Massachusetts. Republican Scott Brown, who recently lost reelection for his U.S. Senate seat, would then likely run to replace John Kerry.

Already congressmen must begin thinking about their races for reelection 2014, and the race for the next presidential election in 2016 has quietly begun too. On the Republican side, it is expected that Jeb Bush will seek and win the nomination, while Hillary Clinton seems likely to be the Democrat nominee.

Next: A Look at the Judiciary

With all the talk about politics and elections in the media, it is easy to think that elections are the only events that shape the future of America. But do not forget that elections directly affect only two out of three branches of government in the federal (and New Jersey) government. Federal judges never stand for election, and their work is done independently from the political process. Federal judges are nominated by the President and confirmed by the U.S. Senate, and in New Jersey the judges are nominated by the Governor and confirmed by the NJ Senate, but these judges continue to decide cases for many decades afterward without any reason to be concerned about elections.

Judges, courts and trials are not what most people think about when they hear the term "government", but courts and public trials may be as important in deciding the future of our nation. Elected politicians like to avoid the difficult issues, leaving it to courts to decide what really matters.

The most important trials in Anglo-American history have been by juries, and they have decided many of the fundamental issues that we take for granted. In trials, there are rules of evidence that limit what can be said or claimed. Most of what politicians says, and much of what is taught in public school, would not be considered reliable enough to present in a court of law at a trial. Demagoguery is not allowed; neither are most types of "hearsay", which is repeating what someone heard somewhere else. The basic rules of evidence have developed over hundreds of years to promote a truthful result.

The Salem Witch Trials, which are not on this list (but perhaps they should be), reached results considered to be unjust because witnesses were allowed to say in court that they had a dream or vision ("spectral evidence") convincing them that the defendant was guilty. Today that would be prohibited by rules of evidence.

Would you like to become a trial attorney one day?

The Top Ten Trials in American History

Here is a list of the ten most important trials affecting the United States, all of which were by some kind of jury (not necessarily a public jury):

1. William Penn (1670)
2. John Peter Zenger (1735)
3. Supreme Court Justice Samuel Chase (1804)
4. President Andrew Johnson (1868)
5. Boss Tweed (1873)
6. Sacco & Vanzetti (1921)
7. John Scopes (1925)
8. Colonel Billy Mitchell (1925)
9. Alger Hiss (1949)
10. President Bill Clinton (1999)

How many of these jury trials can you describe? For the impeachment trials (3, 4, and 10), the "jury" was the entire U.S. Senate.

Both Thomas Jefferson and John Adams felt strongly that jury trials were the best defense against government. Thomas Jefferson considered “trial by jury as the only anchor ever yet imagined by man, by which a government can be held to the principles of its constitution.” John Adams said it was a jury’s “duty ... to find the verdict according to his own best understanding, judgment, and conscience, though in direct opposition to the direction of the court.”

Half of these important trials resulted in convictions; the other half resulted in acquittals. Here is my summary of the cases and their influence:

1. William Penn joined the Quakers in London, a religion disliked by the King. In 1670, Penn held a worship service and was arrested for allegedly disturbing the King’s peace. At trial, the jurors heard testimony, and the judge, as is still the custom, delivered jury instructions prior to its deliberations. The jury instructions included an order to find the Penn guilty.

But the jury refused to find Penn guilty. The judge angrily sent them back to continue deliberations. The jury returned again with its same "not guilty" verdict. The judge demanded “a verdict that the court will accept, and you shall be locked up without meat, drink, fire, and tobacco....We will have a verdict by the help of God or you will starve for it.” The jury went out three more times, and returned with the same verdict each time. Then it refused to deliberate any more and the judge fined and imprisoned them. Penn was also fined and imprisoned on a scurrilous new charge invented at trial (for donning a hat in the courtroom).

On appeal, the jurors won their independence and were released from jail, though that did not help Penn.

The impact of the Penn trial has been enormous in two respects. First, it established freedom of religion, which Penn brought to America in founding Pennsylvania a decade later. Philadelphia became the most populous city in the colonies, and the location for drafting the Constitution.

The case also established the principle of “jury nullification,” whereby a jury’s decision is final and dispositive even if it rejects the law. Jury nullification has been used frequently, as in acquitting defendants accused of violating the Alien and Sedition Act and the Fugitive Slave Act.

2. The John Peter Zenger trial in 1735 is the most important case ever for the media, particularly newspapers. He was a publisher accused of the crime of harshly criticizing the colonial New York governor. Zenger’s defense was that he (and everyone else) has the right to print the truth. But the judge instructed the jury that the law did not recognize truth as a defense to the charges. Under the law at the time, the jury had no authority to acquit Zenger based on the truth of his statements.

The jury acquitted him anyway, thereby establishing freedom of the press (and also a type of freedom of speech). This was another important example of jury nullification. To this day, England does not have the full freedom of speech and the press that Americans have because of the Zenger trial.

3. By 1804, Jeffersonian Democratic-Republicans had control of Congress and set their sights on removing Federalist Supreme Court Justice Samuel Chase. The House of Representatives impeached him, and trial began with the Senate as the jury. His prosecutor was John Randolph, a partisan Jeffersonian who was distantly related to the Federalist Chief Justice John Marshall. 25 out of 34 Senators (more than 2/3rds of the U.S. Senate at the time) were Jeffersonians, so conviction and removal of the Federalist Chase for his political biases seemed likely.

But the effort failed. During the trial Randolph himself criticized Jefferson over a separate issue, the infamous Yazoo land fraud in Georgia, an issue that split Jeffersonians. Meanwhile, the case against Chase amounted to little more than some intemperate remarks he made while sitting as trial judge in a grand jury proceeding. The Senators were unimpressed, and at most 19 out of 34 voted to convict on any of the charges, far short of the requisite 2/3rd.

The independence of the judiciary was established by this failed effort to remove a Supreme Court justice. However, the episode did encourage future justices not to engage directly in politics. No effort to impeach a Supreme Court justice has since made any progress.

4. President Andrew Johnson became the enemy of Radical Republicans who controlled Congress after the Civil War. President Johnson vetoed their legislation and even called their leaders “traitors”. Flush from winning the war, the likes of Republican Senators Thaddeus Stevens (PA) and Charles Sumner (MA) were not about to back down. Sumner, after all, was the fellow who once delivered a disrespectful speech against elderly South Carolina Senator Andrew Butler, whereupon his outraged nephew Preston Brooks beat Sumner senseless with a cane.

When the House of Representatives impeached President Johnson by an overwhelming vote of 126 to 47, his ouster appeared to be a fait accompli. President Johnson had violated the Tenure in Office Act by dismissing his Secretary of War, and he had been intemperate in his name-calling of key senators. In addressing the jury of 54 senators, the prosecutor referred to President Johnson as an “accidental Chief” and “the elect of an assassin.” Witnesses testified for both the prosecution and the defense.

The prosecutors – called “managers” in impeachment trials – were confident of victory. Manager Thaddeus Stevens described President Johnson as the “wretched man, standing at bay, surrounded by a cordon of living men, each with the axe of an executioner uplifted for his just punishment.” Manager John Bingham brought the public galleries to their feet with his oratory: “May God forbid that the future historian shall record of this day's proceedings, that by reason of the failure of the legislative power of the people to triumph over the usurpations of an apostate President, the fabric of American empire fell and perished from the earth.”

2/3rd vote was necessary for conviction, and it all turned on Senator Edmund Ross of Kansas. Like real jurors, he spoke to no one during the proceedings and no one knew which was he was leaning. But he voted “not guilty,” and President Johnson was acquitted by one vote. The "Radical Republican" Senators had lost, and never again regained their unprecedented power.

5. William Marcy “Boss” Tweed began as a volunteer fireman in New York who worked his way to the top of the Democratic New York City political machine by 1863. He developed a corrupt system known as the “Tweed Ring” that faked leases, demanded kickbacks, performed unnecessary repairs and generated other phony expenses that cost New York City from $75 million to $200 million, a huge amount of money at the time. Famed cartoonist Thomas Nast, who created Uncle Sam and the elephant and donkey for the Republican and Democratic Parties, frequently attacked Tweed in his cartoons.

Eventually, Democratic federal prosecutor Samuel Tilden brought an indictment against Tweed, who was defended at trial by wealthy Republican Elihu Root in 1872. Tilden defeated Root and obtained the conviction, which catapulted Tilden to national prominence and became the Democratic nominee for president in 1876. He won the popular vote by a hefty 250,000, but the Republicans maneuvered to give Rutherford Hayes the White House based on a narrow lead in electoral college votes and a promise to end Reconstruction. Elihu Root, meanwhile, became an imperialist who later advocated entry by the United States into the League of Nations.

6. Sacco and Vanzetti were two anarchists from Italy. Anarchists believe in a dangerous philosophy that there should be no government, and some anarchists believe in the violent overthrow of any established ruling entity. These anarchists had dodged the draft for World War I and were tried in 1921 for an afternoon robbery and murder of a shoe factory paymaster and a security guard as they carried a $16,000 payroll. Liberals in America decried trying individuals for their beliefs rather than their actions, and questions about the fairness of such a trial in Boston were raised from the beginning. They had skilled defense counsel in a famous labor attorney, but no Italians were included in the jury (none may have been in the jury pool). The defense counsel eliminated every businessman from the jury.

Witnesses for the prosecution were weak, with one testifying that the murderer spoke good English (the defendants did not). The prosecution only identified one bullet as being from Sacco’s gun, with no explanation as to the source of the other three bullets found at the scene. The stolen money was never found.

The defendants took the witness stand in their defense, but were subjected to relentless questioning about their political beliefs. Defense counsel repeatedly objected to such questions, but the judge overruled the objections and allowed them. There is widespread agreement that the judge never should have permitted so much questioning about political beliefs at the trial.

The jury returned a guilty verdict after more than a day deliberations. (At an earlier trial, a different jury had convicted them of a similar crime.) Faced with international protests against the prosecution, the Massachusetts governor appointed a commission to examine the trial and evidence. Throughout the 1920s the case was a flashpoint for protests. Finally, after the commission announced it agreed with the verdict, Sacco and Vanzetti were executed in 1927.

Vanzetti, who sported a distinctive handlebar mustache, maintained his innocence to the end. His final words to the judge before execution were these: “I would not wish to [a dog or snake] what I have had to suffer for things that I am not guilty of. But my conviction is that I have suffered for things that I am guilty of. I am suffering because I am a radical and indeed I am a radical; I have suffered because I was an Italian, and indeed I am an Italian; I have suffered more for my family and for my beloved than for myself; but I am so convinced to be right that if you could execute me two times, and if I could be reborn two other times, I would live again to do what I have done already.” Does that persuade you of his innocence?

Among liberals, sympathy has continued for Sacco and Vanzetti ever since. Much is made of a confession by another death row inmate to having perpetrated the crime. But the judge found that unreliable. But the judge did not seem to be entirely impartial; earlier he had criticized a jury for acquitting an anarchist, and seemed determined to do what he could to end anarchy in America.

Fifty years after the executions of Sacco and Vanzetti, in 1977, Massachusetts Democratic governor and future presidential candidate Michael Dukakis signed a resolution apologizing to them and establishing a day in honor of them. However, he did not pardon them, and many remain convinced of their guilt. Dukakis’ soft position on crime was a major reason for his defeat by the first President George Bush in 1988.

7. John Scopes was merely a young public school teacher in Tennessee when he unwittingly became a test case for promoting evolution in American schools. Tennessee had a law against teaching human evolution, and the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) wanted to overturn it. It enlisted the top criminal attorney of the day, Clarence Darrow, to serve as Scopes attorney. As crafty as the day is long, he arrived in Tennessee armed with his bag of tricks.

William Jennings Bryan, the former presidential candidate and Secretary of State, had oratorical skills second to none. His “Cross of Gold” nomination acceptance speech in 1896 is considered one of the greatest political works in American history. He united the Populist and Democratic Parties then and laid the foundation for the takeover by the Democratic Party of American politics 36 years later.

After witnessing the horrors of World War I, Bryan became convinced that the teaching of evolution was leading society to ruination through war. “Survival of the fittest” provided an intellectual justification for the brutal killing of other nationalities and races. Bryan foresaw the ethnic cleansing that grew to its horrible culmination in the Holocaust.

To avoid growth of the mistaken belief in “survival of the fittest” among humans, Bryan defended the Tennessee law and its application to Scopes, which imposed a $100 fine as the penalty for teaching that humans had evolved from apes. Darrow agreed to take the witness stand to testify for teaching human evolution if Bryan also took the witness stand to allow Darrow to ask him questions. Bryan testified first and performed well. So well, in fact, that Darrow reneged on his promise and forced Scopes to plead guilty to end the case. With that the trial ended, and Tennessee’s law remained in effect for another half century. For nearly 100 more years Tennessee public schools taught little evolution, and George W. Bush won the presidential election in 2000 by carrying this home state of his opponent, Al Gore.

But the media wrote the history about this trial. A famous liberal reporter at the trial, H.L. Mencken, published extremely one-sided articles that would make today’s media blush. He excoriated Bryan at every possible turn, trying to make him look foolish. When Hollywood got into the act with a movie called “Inherit the Wind,” it imitated Mencken’s bias. Misinformed, many think Scopes and the evolutionists won the trial, but the real result was the opposite.

8. Colonel William “Billy” Mitchell dropped out of college in 1898 to serve in the Spanish-American War. Afterwards, America stayed out of wars until 1917, when Mitchell was touring Europe as an observer. By then he was considered too old to be trained on the new airplanes that were just being considered, but he learned to fly through private lessons of his own. When the United States entered World War I, Mitchell was the first American to fly over enemy lines. In 1918, he led a large bombing attack on St. Mihiel on the western front in Europe. An account of the battle is available online.[1]

After the war he devoted his efforts to advocating greater use of aviation in the military, and criticizing those who resisted the change. In 1921 and 1923 Mitchell demonstrated how easily air power could sink ships by bombing old battleships and sinking them. The embarrassed military brass sent him on a trip to Asia, but when Mitchell returned he predicted that Japan would ultimately attack us as it did at Pearl Harbor.

In September 1925 a military airship crashed and killed many on board. Mitchell published a diatribe harshly criticizing his superiors, even accusing them of treason in ignoring the need for good military aviation. He was swiftly brought before a military court, known as a court-martial, for insubordination. He was tried for seven weeks.

Military courts lack the protections guaranteed to civilians in ordinary courts. The jury could not reach a unanimous verdict, which in a federal criminal case would prevent conviction. One juror, widely thought to be the future General Douglas MacArthur, voted for acquittal. But he was outvoted and Mitchell was convicted and sentenced to a humiliating loss of rank and pay. President Calvin Coolidge intervened to restore half his pay, but Mitchell quit the military instead.

After Japan’s air power attacked and sunk our fleet at Pearl Harbor, Mitchell’s views were vindicated. By then he had passed away, but the military restored his rank and President Truman honored him with a medal posthumously.

9. Alger Hiss had denied he knew Whittaker Chambers, a former American communist who claimed that Hiss had been passing him State Department secrets for years. Obscure Congressman Richard Nixon was convinced that Hiss was lying and questioned him when he appeared before the House Un-American Activities Committee during the Cold War in 1948. Nixon intensely disliked Hiss, who came from the wealthy background of political connections that Nixon initially lacked. Nixon’s pursuit of Hiss catapulted Nixon’s career on a path that would eventually carry Nixon to become president.

Both Hiss and Chambers testified before the House Committee, contradicting each other. One had to be lying. When Chambers ultimately produced typed documents of State Department information and claimed they came from Hiss, a federal prosecutor in Manhattan indicted Hiss for perjury.

But Hiss could afford the best attorney and had the most impressive array of character witnesses ever assembled. It included two U. S. Supreme Court justices, a former Solicitor General, a former Democratic presidential candidate (John W. Davis) and a future one (Adlai Stevenson). Hiss’ jury selection was also superb: the foreman proved to be sympathetic to the liberal and perhaps even communist movement in America.

Hiss did well on the witness stand in his defense, but his attorney probably erred in putting his wife on. Hiss's attorney was blistering in his cross-examination of the prosecution’s star witness, Chambers himself, who admitted that he had worked for the communist cause in America.

The jury could not agree on a verdict, splitting with eight in favor of conviction and four against it. Despite testimony that the unlawfully leaked documents were typed on Hiss’ typewriter, the four were not convinced beyond reasonable doubt.

As is typical, the government then brought the case for retrial. Prosecutions do better the second time, learning from its mistakes. The judge allowed a broader range of questioning. Hiss's new defense counsel was weaker, conceding that the leaked documents were typed by the typewriter found in Hiss’ possession, but disputing that he typed them. Inexplicably, Supreme Court Justice Frankfurter did not testify for Hiss in the second trial.

The defense relied heavily on testimony by a expert witness who was a psychiatrist, who painted Chambers as a pathological liar. But the prosecutor destroyed that expert witness in one of the most famous cross-examinations in American legal history. Excerpts from the trial transcript are available online.[2]

Hiss maintained his innocence until he died, despite the eventual release of secret Soviet files apparently identifying him as a spy. Perhaps Hiss felt he could not go back on his prior statements, or perhaps he remained true to communism in protecting the movement. The case helped define American politics for forty years, propelling Nixon to the Vice Presidency in 1952, Barry Goldwater to the Republican nomination for president in 1964, Nixon to the White House in 1968, and ultimately Ronald Reagan to the White House in 1980, where he awarded Chambers a posthumous Medal of Freedom.

10. President Bill Clinton was riding high in the polls and was ready to pick his successor for the White House by late 1998. His personal popularity and a strong economy enabled the Democratic Party to do surprisingly well in the mid-term elections, and President Clinton was seeking to leave a lasting legacy.

Then the House of Representatives impeached him for making false statements under oath, which is perjury, and trial was scheduled for the U.S. Senate in 1999. First Lady Hillary Clinton accused her opponents of being part of a “vast right-wing conspiracy” against her husband. The Democratic Senators all lined up behind President Clinton, promising to vote for acquittal.

Republicans enjoyed a majority in the Senate but lacked votes anywhere close to the requisite 2/3rd majority to convict. President Clinton was a lame-duck at that point anyway, and the real battle was over his ability to influence politics beyond his term.

The managers of the impeachment presented their case, but the Senate prevented them from calling key witnesses such as Clinton’s closest aids. The procedural rules hamstrung the trial and served to protect the president. Without the presentation of the full case, President Clinton easily survived the final vote.

But the victory was Pyrrhic. The Democratic presidential nominee in 2000, Al Gore, felt he had to distance himself from Clinton and that probably made the difference on Election Day. For 5 or so years, Clinton had little success in campaigning for candidates, failing (for example) in trying to help Governor Gray Davis in California prevail in his recall election. Hillary Clinton, pollsters choice to run in 2004, apparently felt it was too soon to make an attempt. When she did run for her party's nomination in 2008, she was defeated. The political ramifications of the impeachment trial lasted for at least a decade.

Homework

For the homework, we will have a ten or fifteen-question quiz on only this lecture, which I will send by email in a day or two.

References

  1. http://www.au.af.mil/au/awc/awcgate/ww1/stmihiel/stmihiel.htm
  2. http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/hiss/hisstrialtranscripts.html