« 上一頁繼續 »
what is advanced as a "crying need". All manner of dire consequences have been forecast-yet none has come to pass. In election after election, the Electoral College has functioned adequately. But the "reformers" press on, like Chicken Little, who was hit on the head with an acorn, and went screaming that the sky was falling. His panic has passed along to Henny Penny, Turkey Lurkey, and Ducky Lucky. There has been a great deal of fluttering in the political barnyard, but little common sense.
The Republican elector in Rocky Mount, Dr. Lloyd W. Bailey, who excercised his Constitutional option to withhold his vote from Richard Nixon, has been subjected to character assassination all the way up to the House and Senate chambers of the Congress. It is not necessary to agree with Dr. Bailey's action in order to understand that he had not only the right to do as he did but the duty, if he held sincere doubts about Mr. Nixon's desirability. It is interesting, as Senator Sam Ervin observed last Monday during debate in the Senate, that he (Senator Ervin) had not as of that time received a single complaint about Dr. Bailey's vote.
The point is that Dr. Bailey did not alter the course of history. He did not deprive Mr. Nixon of election. He simply went on record-agree with him or not-as to what he thought best for his country. It is simply not true, contrary to any pious pretense by Senator Muskie and others, that Dr. Bailey defaulted on any "pledge" or "commitment”. As to whether Dr. Bailey failed to represent the people who selected him, it is interesting that Senator Ervin produced a telegram from the chairman of the Second Congressional District Republican executive committee which "reaffirmed” its support of Dr. Bailey "in performing his Constitutional duty ..."
The point which the leftwing set wants us to forget is that the Electoral College system supplies the people with one final safeguard-one last bite at the apple. It recognizes the fact that the average citizen has little or nothing to say about the Presidential candidate of his party, and that elections are subjected to awesome manipulations by various pressure groups and big-city bloc votes. Who can say that the average North Carolina Democrat wanted Hubert Humphrey as his Presidential candidate or, for that matter, that the average Republican wanted Mr. Nixon? Just suppose, by a combination of manipulations, a political party should one day nominate and manage to elect at the polls-a thoroughly undesirable candidate. That's when the Electoral College could intervene and perhaps save the people from tyranny. There is the usefulness envisioned for it by the Founding Fathers.
The Electoral College, like the jury system, is not perfect. But those who clamor to abolish it should be called upon to specify wherein it has served the country badly. Chicken Little needs to be reminded that the sky is not falling.
JANUARY 21, 1969. SUBCOMMITTEE ON CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENTS, Committee on the Judiciary, 0.8. Senate.
GENTLEMEN: I was requested to prepare a statement for you prior to the hearing which I was invited to attend. It is to me an honor to have this opportunity to present to you some thoughts which I have about the current status of the electoral college. It has been made abundantly clear to me in recent weeks that there are opposing views, but I sincerely feel that the best interest of our Republic can be served only by having reasonable men objectively consider all views which are presented with constructive intent. With the dangers which are threatening the United States today, it is impossible for me to dissociate a discussion of the electoral college from political considerations. As a newcomer on the political scene, and with no political ambitions or obligations, it is easier for me to openly discuss this than it might be for some others.
I do not hesitate to say that I approach this as one whose first interest is the preservation of our republican form of government and the unprecedented freedom which we have enjoyed under it. It is my opinion that this precious heritage has been bestowed upon recent generations so cheaply that far too few of us appreciate it or have even thought seriously about it. The lessons of history clearly show to us that those who do not constantly defend their freedom do not long remain free. It is my intention to firmly oppose, in any honorable way available to me, all efforts or appearances of efforts to subvert our nation under a one-world government. With these introductory remarks, my position should be clear and my opinions and actions might be more easily understood.
I attended the district convention of the Republican Party of the Second North Carolina District on February 10, 1968 knowing that I would be proposed for nomination to the position of presidential elector. I did not seek this position, but I did not decline it. In fact, it was taken quite lightly with little thought that the Republican Party could win North Carolina. The Republican Party was, for the first time, becoming a factor in the Second Congressional District, and we were in the position of having to find people to fill every office in the party structure. No one else was proposed for presidential elector, so I was nominated. This was a number of months before we even knew who the presidential nominees would be. There was no discussion of party loyalty, there was no pledge and there was no commitment made to any candidate. In the ensuing campaign, I preferred Senator Thurmond or Governor Reagan to President Nixon. After the national conventions were held, I supported Governor Wallace, and I voted for him in the general election. I, along with many, was surprised that the Republican Party won in North Carolina. As an example of how lightly the position of Republican elector was taken, I had even forgotten that I was the elector until I was reminded of it by Dr. Stroud, the Second District Republican Chairman, shortly before the general election.
I did not think much more about being an elector until President Nixon began making appointments two weeks or so before the scheduled meeting of the electoral college. The names of men whose records I am familiar with began appearing in the news as appointees to high advisory positions for the executive branch of our government; that forced me to realize that we are not going to get the changes in policy which we need and which the electorate has so clearly shown that it wants. One of these men, Mr. Robert D. Murphy, was presented by the press as being one "who believes in taking a no-nonsense stand in the face of Communist threats." The record shows that in Lebanon and in the Dominican Republic, communist regimes rose to power shortly after his presence in those countries. As President Roosevelt's personal envoy in Algeria, he told the Al. gerian Nationalists in 1942 that the end of colonialism was an American goal. Now, they have communism. This is not to say that he is responsible for these occurrences, but it certainly doesn't make him stand out as a successful anticommunist diplomat. Mr. Henry A. Kissinger, Mr. Paul W. McCracken, and Mr. Daniel Moynihan are other appointees who, along with Mr. Murphy, are members of the Council on Foreign Relations. Mr. Moynihan is even on the national board of Americans for Democratic Action and was one of the authors of the Economic Opportunity Act of 1964.
The Council on Foreign Relations, called the "Invisible Government” by Dan Smoot in his book by this title, is an organization which seeks to undermine our national sovereignty and merge us with other nations under a one-world government, perhaps like the United Nations. Since the 1950's, men who are members of this internationalist organization have managed to have themselves appointed to the highest policy-making positions in our government, regardless of which party was in office. The goals of the Council on Foreign Relations appear to be uncomfortably close to those of the International Communist Criminal Conspiracy. At about that time, President Nixon endorsed the Johnson no-win policy in Vietnam which includes our government supplying, directly or indirectly. about 80% of the materials which the communist enemy has to use against our own men. He also asked Chief Justice Earl Warren to remain in his position until June 1969. No reasons whatsoever can justify imposing him upon the American people for another term of the Supreme Court. At about the same time, efforts were made in the name of the Nixon Administration to test the response of the public to a permanent income surtax. These are the incidents which awakened me from the slumber which would have directed my rote to be cast for President Nixon.
Another fact which could not be ignored was the overwhelming victory by Governor Wallace in my congressional district. He polled 46.1% of the vote; Vice President Humphrey had 31.69%, and President Nixon was third with 22.3%. This left no doubt about the wishes of the people in the district. Should they have been denied under a representative system of government?
With this information, I realized that it was incumbent upon me to make a decision based upon loyalty to my country rather than loyalty to my political party. As you might imagine, it was not the easiest course to take, and it was not taken without serious thought. It was all too clear that the consequences might not be pleasant. It was obvious that the opponents of the electoral college would use my vote as ammunition in their attempts to abolish it. However, I wanted to emphasize the importance of the electoral college in our form of government, and it seemed that far too few citizens had an adequate understanding of it. The electoral college is much more vital to our Republic today than it was when it was conceived by our founding fathers. As I understand it, they established it because it gave to the individual states the right to select our President, and an equally important reason for it is that, due to poor means of communication, a very small percentage of the population had access to information which would permit them to vote intelligently.
Electors were intended to be chosen from those citizens who were informed about affairs of state. Today, we have a far worse situation as far as an informed electorate is concerned, for some are not only uninformed, but most are intentionally misinformed. I am sure that all of you readily see how our mass communications media can be used to mold public opinion. We all know that this is being done. A vivid example of this is the treatment which my own electoral vote received. If my vote was so newsworthy that it was reported by most of the newspapers, radio stations, and television stations, then the reasons for the vote were equally newsworthy. I freely gave this information to the Associated Press, the United Press International, television stations, and radio stations. It is interesting that every remark which I made about the differences between Republics and Democracies and all references to the fact that our government is supplying communist troops who are fighting our men were cut from television films. I requested equal time from the National Broadcasting Television Network to reply to the derogatory remarks made about me by Senator Muskie and Representative O'Hara on television, and a copy of this telegram was sent to the Chairman of the Federal Communications Commission. That was on January 4th, and I have yet to hear from it.
Newspapers did not receive my statement from the wire services. A member of the Editorial Board of the New York Times called me and requested a copy of my statement explaining my vote. I gladly sent it, along with a copy of the "Invisible Government” by Dan Smoot which he also requested. They did print a lead editorial condemning me and the electoral college, but if they printed my statement at all, it was well hidden because I watched for it for ten days. How could the citizens of the country form an opinion about this intelligently if they were told only one side of the story? This is the reason that the electoral college is more important in present-day elections than it was at the time that the Constitution was written.
The electoral college is also a guarantee that the minority voice can be heard. If it is abolished, it will become infinitely more difficult for a third political party to become influential on the national scene. Who is it who would deny the American citizens the right to vote as they wish? Interestingly, many of the same men who claim to represent minority groups at election times are the very ones who are trying to abolish the electoral college.
Our nation was founded, has prospered, and survived as a Republic. By far the most important point which I would like to bring to your attention is the fact that if the electoral college is abolished or emasculated, we will be transformed by the same stroke of the pen into a political democracy. Our founding fathers went to great lengths to keep us from having a democracy because they knew that no democracy in history has survived. Yet, we are dangerously close to becoming one today on the national level. The definition of democracy as given in the 1928 United States Army Training Manual is as follows:
"A Government of the masses. Authority derived through mass meeting or any form of direct expression. Results in mobocracy. Attitude toward property is communistic-negating property rights. Attitude toward law is that the will of the majority shall regulate, whether it be based upon deliberation or governed by passion, prejudice, and impulse, without restraint or regard to consequences. Results in demagogism, license, agitation, discontent, anarchy."
In the 1952, “The Soldier's Guide,” Department of the Army Field Manual, it had been changed as follows:
"Meaning of democracy. Because the United States is a democracy, the majority of the people decide how our government will be organized and runand that includes the Army, Navy, and Air Force. The people do this by electing representatives, and these men and women then carry out the wishes of the people.”
This is very strange indeed.
Until 1913, United States Senators were elected by their respective state legislative bodies, and they represented their state governments in their relationships with the federal government. The senators were responsible to the state government, a relatively small and organized body of men, rather than to the people of the state in general. This is an extremely important distinction to make, for now the state governments are not represented at the federal level in a like manner. This change was the first of two big steps which will change our Republic into a democracy. The other steps will be abolition or emasculation of the electoral college. I think that if this information were presented to the American people, they would strongly favor preserving the electoral college.
In closing, I have found that holding the office of Elector is a very responsible position, and it should not be taken lightly as is the case today. It demands timeconsuming study, fortitude, total allegiance to our country, and a love of all that we hold dear in our American way of life. I am appealing to your good judgment and your own love of country, with the hope that you will seriously consider the possibility of restoring Presidential Electors to the positions which they were originally intended to hold. It is my sincere belief that it will serve the best interests of our country, and that our generation will be able to pass it on to our heirs stronger than it was when we inherited it. Sincerely yours,
LLOYD W. BAILEY, M.D.
BAILEY EYE, EAR, NOSE AND THROAT CLINIC,
Rocky Mount, N.C. As the Republican elector for the Second Congressional District of North Carolina, I would like to briefly focus attention upon the issues which have developed as a result of my vote for Governor Wallace in the electoral college on December 16th. The primary reason for my vote was to protest the fact that President-elect Nixon is obviously not going to change the course of our government in spite of the overwhelming vote in the general election against the policies of the Johnson Administration. The first appointments by Mr. Nixon are adequate proof of this. I realized that those who are trying to abolish the electoral college would use my vote as ammunition against it but I hoped that it would afford an opportunity to publicize the fact, which they do not want revealed, that the electoral college is one of the constitutional guarantees which prevents the silencing of political minorities. Strangely, these are the same politicians who claim to represent minorities at election time.
Governor Wallace won the election in my district overwhelmingly, so it was my moral obligation to represent these voters in the electoral college. Under the present system, the State Legislatures manage the elections, but if the electoral college is abolished, the Federal Government will control national elections, and this is their goal. Can you imagine how it would be if President Lyndon Johnson were running for re-election and counting his own votes? Our founding fathers went to great lengths to give us a Republic instead of a Democracy, because history showed to them that no Democracy had long survived. I agree that the electoral college should be changed so that electors must represent their districts, but if it is abolished we will be taking a big step toward a pure Democracy which is nothing but mob rule. The Constitution provides in Article II Section I that State Legislatures control their respective electors. Senator Muskie and Representative O'Hara are interfering in the affairs of the Legislature of the State of North Carolina in the challenge of my vote in Congress on Monday. They have no more authority for doing this than I have for interfering with their activities in Washington. I regret that my vote has caused so much controversy, but I sincerely hope that it will strengthen our Republic for our children and theirs who will follow.
LLOYD W. BAILEY, M.D.
BAILEY EYE, EAR, NOSE AND THROAT CLINIC,
Rocky Mount, N.C., January 4, 1969. DIRECTOR, NBC TELEVISION NEWS, Rockefeller Plaza, New York, N.Y.
DEAR SIR: Under the Fairness Doctrine of the Federal Communications Commission, I would like to request equal time from the National Broadcasting Television Network to answer the derogatory remarks made about me by Senator Muskie and Representative O'Hara. Sincerely yours,
LLOYD W. BAILEY, M.D.
COPY OF THE STATEMENT I MADE WHEN I LEARNED THAT SENATOR MUSKIE AND
REPRESENTATIVE O'HARA WERE GOING TO CONTEST MY VOTE This appears to be an attempt to suppress a minority viewpoint and it is exactly what we can expect from those who are trying to abolish the electoral college. The electoral college guarantees minority representation, and those in power obviously don't wish to be bothered by minority views. This is an example of a democracy in which the majority suppresses the minority, as opposed to our republican form of government in which a minority is supposed to be respected and not trampled under foot.
Can there be any other reason for two left-wing Democrats to be concerned about a Republican president-elect's votes?
This further shows to us that the same conspirators are calling the plays, regardless of which party is in power. The one thing which they fear is that enough American citizens will learn about their activities while there is still time to stop their treasonous acts. A good example of this is the way in which my statement has been generally kept from the public by the news media. Its contents might kindle the interest of too many good Americans.
(From the Rocky Mount (N.C.) Telegram, Jan. 8, 1969)
DR. BAILEY PROVES A POINT In the widespread and often ill-considered attacks upon Dr. Lloyd Bailey because of his decision to cast his electoral vote for George Wallace instead of Richard Nixon, a lot of people overlooked one vital fact: Dr. Bailey violated no constitutional mandate, for as Sen. Sam Ervin pointed out, the language of the Constitution is as plain as it is possible to be for all who can read the English language.
The U.S. Constitution, according to Ervin, who is regarded as a constitutional expert, made electors "free agents." They are bound by no provisions to cast their votes for the same man chosen by popular vote. To be sure, it has been traditional to do so, and most electors do, but tradition does not make it law.
As for Dr. Bailey, he hopes his action will focus attention on the value of the electoral college and "our form of government." As he noted, our form of government is not yet a democracy, but a Republic. The goal of those who are insistent upon destroying the electoral college is to replace our present form of government with a democracy.
"The most vital point in this whole issue is that if the electoral college is now abolished," said Bailey, "we will have a pure democracy and no democracy in history has survived."
It may well be that some changes ought to be made in the electoral college. But such changes ought to be made to strengthen it, not abolish it. For example, Bailey and numerous others believe the best system would be to permit electoral college members to cast their votes for the presidential candidate who collected the most popular votes in their (the electors) districts.
This is what happened in our own district, which was captured by George Wallace. Dr. Bailey felt he was expressing the wishes of a majority of the voters when he cast his vote for Wallace. The Republican district committee upheld Bailey's action.
The entire North Carolina delegation voted against the Muskie-O'Hara drive to disallow the Bailey vote and give it to Nixon. Many of the Tar Heel law