Taking Power, Branch By Branch

Last Thursday, the U.S. House of Representatives voted to pass a bill that would grant DC statehood. Following a 216-208 vote, the bill is set to be brought to the Senate’s chamber floor by Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer. While the bill’s likelihood of becoming law is not yet certain, it is one of the many happenings that exemplify the Democratic Party’s exploitation of their majority in Congress.

Simultaneously, the Democrats are taking advantage of their power in the executive branch to make gains in the judiciary. Two weeks ago, Joe Biden started a commission that would study the impact of adding four justices to the Supreme Court of the United States. The study was estimated to take six months as there have been no justice seats added since 1837 (one of which was abolished in 1866). Five days after the commission was formed, House and Senate Democrats unveiled a bill to add the four justices.

Expanding the court in this manner would give Democrat-appointed justices a majority in the judicial branch. This is not working to “de-politicize” the court as they put it—it’s packing the court. If they truly sought to ensure impartiality to partisan biases, they wouldn’t be adding just enough seats to give them power over the branch.

The Democratic Party seeks the majority in SCOTUS, supermajorities in Congress, domain over the outcome of all future presidential elections, and further control over the press and news media. With countless efforts from the Democratic Party to increase their majorities, it seems that they aren’t so democratic after all.

The Judicial Branch

The Supreme Court of the United States is a judicial institution designed to be impervious to political pressure. Actions from Biden and the Democrats in Congress to expand SCOTUS is inviting further party warfare, however. Even with a blatant intent to gain a majority, they deny that they are attempting to pack the court. Rather, they call it “un-packing the court.” This is referring to the idea that Mitch McConnell “packed” the court with appointees during President Trump’s term. This notion calls into question whether or not filling vacant seats is “packing.” If so, then efforts from Democrats to nominate a justice shortly before the 2016 election would have also been considered packing.

In all fairness, McConnell and Senate Republicans blocked the nomination shortly before the 2016 election while also allowing Amy Coney Barrett to be nominated right before the 2020 election. Partisan tricks don’t come exclusively from Democrats, but it shouldn’t be ignored that the party is currently pushing the modification of the judicial system in an unprecedented way.

In 2013, Democrats changed the vote needed to nominate executive branch members from 60 to a simple majority through the nuclear option. Senator Mitch McConnell (R-KY) warned Democrats in 2013 that they would regret it, and a lot sooner than they thought. In 2017, the Senate, led by McConnell, extended the nuclear option to grant consent for justices and end debate for the nomination of Neil Gorsuch. From 2017 to 2020, justices Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, and Barrett were approved by Republicans to fill empty seats. The party did not use their trifecta to add seats, however.

It should be noted that Biden was once against packing the courts as well. As a senator in 1983, he called it a “bonehead idea.” The difference now is that the Democrats have a majority in the Senate. Having beaten around the bush about his stance on the issue up until just a few months before he took presidential office in 2021, it seems that he could’ve been afraid that campaigning on court-packing would hurt his turnout.

He told 60 minutes in October 2020 that he would create a bipartisan coalition to advise him on how to reform the court system. After he began his term, however, the commission became centered around adding four new justices. Now that he’s sitting in the White House, it seems that Democrats can’t wait their turn to nominate SCOTUS appointees.

In such a polarized nation, where Democrats hold 50 seats in the Senate (in addition to the tie-breaking vote), 218 seats in the House of Representatives (over the 212 of the Republicans), and the presidency, this should not be a priority. Why is this an issue of importance when American citizens are facing an economic crisis, COVID-19 lockdowns, high crime levels and riots, a crisis at the border, and so much more? To have a majority in the supreme court would not reform the system—it would give the party yet another majority and would allow them to pass legislation with lessened legal repercussions.

The Legislative Branch

In the Senate, the cloture rule requires 60 votes to end debates (filibusters) about bills. Ending the “filibuster” would put an end to this practice and only require a simple majority to pass a bill to the executive branch. Conveniently, Democrats hold a simple majority in the Senate, with 50 seats in addition to the tie-breaking vote from the President of the Senate (the current Vice President).

Biden has also changed his opinion on ending the filibuster, once declaring the attempt from Republicans to end it to be a “fundamental power grab” by the majority party. He now claims the filibuster is being abused by Republicans. While it’s true the number of filibusters has gone up, Democrats vigorously used the filibuster during President Trump’s term. Again, Biden labeled these tactics an abuse of power or an ignorant idea when it was done by the Republican Party. When in power, though, his party turns around and does the same.

DC and Puerto Rico statehoods are also ideas that have been floated around by the left-leaning portion of Congress, with the House even passing a bill to grant DC statehood. Passing this bill into law would give Democrats two additional seats in the Senate and one seat in the House, diluting the power of other states in the process.

DC is supposed to be unaffected by state law, it should not be legislated in a partisan manner. If the goal is legitimately to enfranchise voters, then why is returning DC (excluding Federal buildings and monuments) to Maryland not being proposed instead?

Puerto Rico, while more understandable of a proposal, should not become a state simply because the US voters want it to be. That is a matter to be decided between Puerto Rico and America, not just by party members in America who want more Democratic seats.

The Executive Branch

Regarding the executive branch, power is taken through several factors such as ending the Electoral College, decreasing the voting age, opening the borders, and removing election integrity.

Abolishing the Electoral College would mean the rule of a few cities that are dense in population and primarily vote Democrat. The deciding factor in elections would become the votes of a few urban areas. The figure below displays the rural equivalent of New York City:

Figure 1: New York City’s Rural Equivalent

Rural voters in states with lower-density populations need a say as well. The president of the free world should not be determined solely by urban areas, it should be determined by the will of the American people as a whole. The Electoral College promotes the rights of states and represents the diverse ideals of citizens throughout the country.

Mob rule in the form of pure democracy does not reflect American ideals or ensure liberty. Benjamin Franklin once posited that “Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what they are going to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote.” Pure democracy grants the majority their way and leaves the minority defenseless.

There has also been a push from the party to allow 16 year-olds to vote. The argument asserts that young people work and are politically engaged and therefore should be allowed to vote. But kids are taking longer to become fully independent, so it doesn’t make sense for kids to vote before the age of 18. While 16 year-olds who work do pay taxes, they shouldn’t be deciding how their parents’ money is spent by the government. It weakens the amount of representation that adults have when voting.

Since the Electoral College is difficult to dismantle without a high enough majority, however, open border policies are a tactic that would ensure Democrats more voters. Immigrants being counted in the census give more electoral votes to states with high noncitizen populations and grant states who do not deport them more House representatives. States that only require signature verification for voting also make it easier for illegal immigrants to influence the outcome of elections as no ID is required.

Even Democratic Socialist Bernie Sanders is against open borders for economic reasons. Democrat officials who want to provide mass amnesty are willing to sacrifice the economy for more voters—their M.O. is not helping people, it’s gaining a majority. They would rather have people being kept in detainment centers and walking through the desert than discouraging them from leaving their home country. More migrant “cages” opened under the two most recent Democrat administrations: Obama built them, Trump shut them down, and Biden is now re-opening them. Under Biden, there has also been a spike in immigration from Mexico due to Joe Biden’s failed promise to not deport immigrants for the first 100 days of his term.

Figure 2: FY Southwest Land Border Encounters by Month

To add to the chaos, there have been Democrat-backed bills that seek to put an end to election integrity laws, such as H.R.1. They have been crafted to eliminate voter ID and establish no-excuse mail-in voting nationwide. They have also pushed a narrative to call anyone who approves of election safeguards a racist. Voter ID supposedly disenfranchises minorities and any law enforcing it is a “voter suppression tactic.” Verifying identity does not tread on the rights of voters, though.

In the 2020 general election, there were only 34 states requiring ID of any sort for in-person voting; even more states than that did not require identification for absentee or mail-in voting (e.g. Georgia, which has passed S.B. 202 since then). While there were only 31 reported instances of voter fraud that “ID laws would have stopped” from 2000-2014, abolishing the rule allows non-citizens to vote simply by signing a ballot. In states with no ID requirements, it’s far more difficult to tell whether or not citizens are having their votes canceled out by undocumented migrants.

Overall, it wouldn’t be too far off to liken America’s elections to those of third-world countries. Other first-world countries have more strict voter id laws than some states in America do, especially when it comes to mail-in ballots. More than three-fifths of the EU does not allow mail-in voting (other than for citizens living abroad). 22% requires a photo ID to obtain a mail-in ballot and an additional 22% does not make exceptions for those living outside of the country (Newsweek). In Poland and Japan, mail-in voting is limited to those who have certificates verifying any disabilities that prohibit them from going to physical polling stations (SSRN). France abandoned the process altogether in 1975 because of mass fraud in Corsica (SSRN).

Regarding the U.S., 404,691 ballots in Georgia did not have the legally required chain of custody; 177,000 voters were removed from the voter rolls in Michigan after the election (and a legal dispute). Currently, the Maricopa county Senate in Arizona is in the process of an audit of election ballots from the 2020 presidential race. The audit has already faced legal challenges from a team of 73 Democrat lawyers who were unable to overturn the process.

The Fourth Branch of Government

The Fourth Estate, a term often attributed to Edmund Burke, refers to the press. In the modern age, this would encompass publishing, broadcast, cable, and online. Press and news media influence public perception as they are the main source of information received by a vast amount of the public. Establishment media can often hide the truth from the people and fortify their own narrative by reporting what benefits their channel, ratings, and preferred political party.

Like Big Tech, broadcast media promotes the interests of the left-leaning establishment. Even Fox News hosts, barring Tucker Carlson, can often prop up a more establishment-preferred narrative.

While virtually all news media pushes a narrative, CNN is one of the most notorious liars on TV. Recently, CNN was exposed by Project Veritas for pushing propaganda about COVID-19 and lying about figures such as President Trump, Biden, and Congressman Matt Gaetz (R-FL). The network’s technical director, Charlie Chester, claimed that Trump wouldn’t have gotten out of the White House without them. He even directly stated that what CNN shows their audience is propaganda. He also admitted that they have beaten the coronavirus story to death and that climate change will be the new “pandemic.”


Along with the Democratic Party, Biden has been inconsistent on issues such as the filibuster and court-packing. There’s no denying that they were justified in curtailing the Republicans from employing tactics that would give them an unfair advantage, but then turning around and doing it themselves exposes their crooked intentions.

The truth is that the party doesn’t truly believe there’s anything morally wrong with the systems in place. The Democrats are not satisfied with their temporary majorities in the House and Senate, the presidency, and control over the mainstream narrative. They want unchecked control over the United States to ram through their policies.

They seek to be the authoritarian one-party state that China is, but the system shouldn’t be all Democrat or all Republican. This de-incentivizes the majority party from bettering the American people’s lives. Without competition, there is no reason to give the people what they want. The Democratic Party should be doing what’s best for the country, not attempting to seize as much power as possible.

%d bloggers like this: