Posted on 09/18/2005 9:30:23 PM PDT by betty boop
Freeper Investigation: Original Intent and Constitutional Jurisprudence
by Jean F. Drew
English and Anglo-American law’s core principle is the opposition to abusive power as exercised by the state. As Dan Gifford writes in “The Conceptual Foundations of Anglo-American Jurisprudence in Religion and Reason,”
“The law is not the law regardless if it be good, bad, or indifferent. There is a higher moral law, originating within ancient Jewish law, which requires individual responsibility for opposing evil and promoting goodness. It is from this basic tenet that English law and Anglo-American law embody the following principle: The individual has rights against the state….
“The danger posed by the usual suspects in government for the sake of power is obvious. However, not as obvious is the more insidious danger posed by a list of usual suspects claiming to be [society’s] defenders…. Their attacks on God, traditional Judeo-Christian morals, the Calvinist concept of conscience, republican virtu, and Aristotelian reason or logos — the five essential elements that make our system work — as obstructions to social progress have been devastating….”1
Without doubt, “God, traditional Judeo-Christian morals, the Calvinist concept of conscience, republican virtu, and Aristotelian reason or logos” informed the worldview of the Framers of the Constitution and constitute that document’s spirit, meaning, philosophy — and vitality.
Russell Kirk corroborates this understanding, stating that the roots of American order trace back to four historical cities: (1) Jerusalem, in both the Israelite and Christian developments; (2) Athens, with its classical view of man as a “thinking animal” who possesses reason and soul; Rome, for the idea of “republican virtu” — personal self-restraint and direct participation in the governance and defense of the state; and London, for its concepts regarding the necessity of restraining monarchical power vis-à-vis the subject in the interest of preserving the public good of individual liberty. 2
Thus the Constitution is an extraordinarily “conservative document,” given its “roots in a much older tradition,” writes Stephen Tonsor. “Its world view is Roman or Anglo-Catholic; its political philosophy, Aristotelian and Thomist; its concerns, moral and ethical; its culture, that of Christian humanism.” 3
The “problem with the constitution” nowadays is that these ideas no longer inform the worldview of many Americans, in particular the “cultural elites” who sit on federal and state benches, who man the federal bureaucracies, staff the professoriate, and run the organs of public communications (i.e., the so-called “mainstream media”). All these constituencies, moreover, are effectively unaccountable to the people whom they purport to serve.
In light of breaking events — the recent ruling of a federal court in California that the Pledge of Allegiance is unconstitutional because of its “under God” language, the recent New London eminent-domain decision of the Supreme Court, and two Supreme Court vacancies (with possibly more to come within the tenure of the Bush presidency) — as well as long-standing public quarrels over the meanings of e.g., the Second, Tenth, and Fourteenth Amendments, we thought it would be useful to inaugurate a Freeper Research Project into theories of the Constitution, “then” and “now”; i.e., the original intent of the Framers vs. modern “prudential” and ideological constructions. In particular it would be useful to explore the roles of all the players in a constitutional system based on the separation and balance of powers, to see how well that concept is working nowadays.
Or not, as the case may be. And if that is the case, then to ask: Why not? What has “gone wrong” such that, e.g., federal judges routinely feel free to legislate their ideals of social progress from the bench?
I thought I’d get the ball rolling with a piece on the cultural component of such questions. I’m sure my thoughts may prove controversial to some of my Freeper friends; for I intend to show that the single most influential cause of current-day constitutional chaos is the breakdown of a common understanding of God and man and of their mutual relations. It is my view, however — the only view that I can relate, based on my observation, experience, and the indirect sources that further inform the present state of my knowledge — and anyone’s free to disagree with it. I just hope we can all be civil and respectful when/if we do disagree.
The point is, I can’t “do your seeing for you” anymore than you can “do my seeing for me.” Under the circumstances, it seems to me the best course would be to simply “compare notes” and see if we might learn something from one other.
My friend YHAOS writes: “The Founders bequeathed to their posterity rather a unique philosophy, not only of government, but of human relationships.” Indeed, YHAOS; the Framers’ view of human relationships was predicated on the understanding that “all men are created equal,” and thus all have dependence on a creator. Further, because they are equally the creations of one Creator, all men share a common humanity that effectively makes them “brothers.” All men are created with possessing reason and free will as a natural birthright, and are “endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.” All men are equal before the law, while constituting the sovereign We the People — connoting one single community — who delegate a very few existential powers (29 by my last count) to the government, and retain all others unto themselves.
YHAOS continues, “It was a philosophy that was greeted with disfavor by all the rulers of the world the moment they were exposed to it, because it left their rule to the sufferance of their subjects, and eliminated their ability to rule as they saw fit. They hated it then, they hate it today. This philosophy, so hated by the rulers and other elites of the world, is found and best expressed in the words of the Founders and of others who were most closely associated with the philosophy of Natural Law and with the events which occasioned the creation of the Declaration of Independence and of The Constitution.”4
Indeed, YHAOS. Those who would rule don’t much care for this sort of thing as a rule….
The “spirit of liberty” that informed the American Founding whereby the role of the state was to be severely delimited and constrained was brilliantly expressed by Trenchard & Gordon in Cato’s Letters (~1720):
All men are born free; Liberty is a Gift which they receive from God; nor can they alienate the same by Consent, though possibly they may forfeit it by crimes….
Liberty is the power which every man has over his own Actions, and the Right to enjoy the Fruit of his Labor, Art, and Industry, as far as by it he hurts not the Society, or any Member of it, by taking from any Member, or by hindering him from enjoying what he himself enjoys.
The fruits of a Man’s honest Industry are the just rewards of it, ascertained to him by natural and eternal Equity, as is his Title to use them in the Manner which he thinks fit: And thus, with the above Limitations, every Man is Sole Lord and Arbiter of his own Private Actions and Property5….
In short, in the early eighteenth century, there was a cultural consensus in England and in the Colonies that it is the God–Man relation from which the just relations of man with his fellow man flows that (not coincidentally) constitutes the limit or check on state power and authority. The Constitution itself epitomizes and expresses this consensus.
So it’s hardly surprising that, as YHAOS continues, “It was a philosophy that was greeted with disfavor by all the rulers of the world the moment they were exposed to it, because it left their rule to the sufferance of their subjects, and eliminated their ability to rule as they saw fit. They hated it then, they hate it today. This philosophy, so hated by the rulers and other elites of the world, is found and best expressed in the words of the Founders and of others who were most closely associated with the philosophy of Natural Law and with the events which occasioned the creation of the Declaration of Independence and of The Constitution.”6
Indeed, YHAOS. Those who would rule don’t much care for this sort of thing as a rule…. And I am particularly intrigued by your notice of “the other elites.”
These “other elites” are informed by other notions that were altogether foreign at the time of the American Founding, and for more than a century thereafter. These notions are a specifically German cultural import — from Hegel, Nietzsche, Marx & Co., a going (and growing) concern since the mid-nineteenth century.
All three men were obsessed by power. Hegel’s model of the ideal state was Prussia, which was authoritarian and repressive. He worshipped Napoleon as a new World Savior. All three men wanted to “kill God.” This last, of course, is required for the free exercise of an unconstrained Will to Power: With God around, plans for constructing Utopia could never come to fruit. So they all decided He needed to be “bumped off” in order to clear the decks for a reconstruction of the world and human history, in order to perfect future history. Thus history as we know it must end.
And as it turns out, history under God becomes a dead letter with His demise. Then — and only then — can self-appointed Great Men assume the divine rule and enterprise with a free hand, “starting over from scratch,” as it were. Hegel and Marx both apparently believed that they could just start from nothing and, by the use of “pure” Reason, construct ever more perfect worlds, correcting all the imperfections that God left in His Creation, which is now to be happily Over, dispensed with. Men — or at least some men — have become “self-divinized.” A New World is a-borning.
We are speaking of the construction of progressivist utopias here.
Now the meaning of “Utopia” — a neologism of Thomas More — means “Nowhere.” Utopia is “a model of a perfect society that cannot be realized because an important sector of reality has been omitted from its construction, but its authors and addicts have suspended their consciousness that it is unrealizable because of the omission.”7 As the greatest English-speaking poet of the twentieth century put it:
They constantly try to escape From the darkness outside and within By dreaming of systems so perfect that no one Will need to be good….
But the man that is will shadow The man that pretends to be. 8
The “omitted sector” of reality is precisely the spiritual sector, constituted by the relations of God and man — the divine-human encounter that orders human souls, and from souls to societies, including political societies. That is to say, the total eclipse of the great Hierarchy of Being: God – Man – Society – World. It seems plain to me that “the murder of God” involves a double homicide, one a parricide, the other a suicide….
Clearly, there was a profound sea-change in the understanding of Reality and of human self-understanding between the time of Locke and the time of Hegel. Rather than present a lengthy and probably tiresome analysis of how this noxious diremption occurred, let me just give you a sampler of how meanings central to the human person and to political society are understood these days under the respective frameworks of the Judeo-Christian/classical (JCC) worldview, and the progressivist (P) worldview.
JCC says: “There is a nature of man, a definite structure of existence that puts limits on perfectability.”9
P replies: “The nature of man can be changed, either through historical evolution or through revolutionary action, so that a perfect realm of freedom can be established in history.”10
JCC says: “Philosophy is the endeavor to advance from opinion (doxa) about the order of man and society to science (episteme)…”11
P replies: “No science in such matters is possible, only opinion; everybody is entitled to his opinions; we have a pluralist society.” 12
JCC says: “Society is man written large.”
P replies: “Man is society written small.” 13
JCC says: “Man lives in erotic [faithfully loving] tension toward the divine ground of his existence.”
P replies: “He doesn’t; for I don’t; and I’m the measure of man.”14
JCC says: “Education is the art of periagoge, or turning around (Plato).” [Essentially, this means that education is the art of transmitting the greatest achievements of human intellect and culture to the next-rising generation, which, as we have already suggested above, include achievements of great antiquity. In the specific Platonic sense, this process requires a “turning to the Light” or alternatively, a “tuning into the God.”]
P replies: “Education is the art of adjusting people so solidly to the climate of opinion prevalent at the time that they do not feel any ‘desire to know.’ Education is the art of preventing people from acquiring the knowledge that would enable them to articulate the questions of existence. Education is the art of pressuring young people into a state of alienation that will result in either quiet despair or aggressive militancy.”15
JCC says: “Through the life of reason (bios theoretikos) man realizes his freedom.”
P replies: “Plato and Aristotle were fascists. The life of reason is a fascist enterprise.”16
JCC says: The process in which the nature of man and the other participants in the great Hierarchy of Being becomes conscious and noetically articulate and luminous to the human mind constitutes the life of reason.
P replies: “Reason is instrumental reason. There is no such thing as a noetic rationality of man.”17
Just in case the foregoing “dialog” comes across as a tad too “abstract,” let me give an example from concrete American historical experience that fully reflects the “tensions” inherent in such “irreconcilable differences,” and get off the soap box. (Then it will be someone else’s turn).
My example concerns the scope and meaning of the Second Amendment.
JCC says:
Surely one of the foundations of American political thought of the [Founding] period was the well-justified concern about political corruption and consequent governmental tyranny. Even the Federalists, fending off their opponents who accused them of foisting an oppressive new scheme upon the American people, were careful to acknowledge the risks of tyranny. James Madison, for example, speaks in Federalist Number Forty-Six of “the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation.” The advantage in question was not merely the defense of American borders; a standing army might well accomplish that. Rather, an armed public was advantageous in protecting political liberty. It is therefore no surprise that the Federal Farmer, the nom de plume of an anti-federalist critic of the new Constitution and its absence of a Bill of Rights, could write that “to preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms, and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them....” On this matter, at least, there was no cleavage between the pro-ratification Madison and his opponent.
In his influential Commentaries on the Constitution, Joseph Story, certainly no friend of Anti-Federalism, emphasized the “importance” of the Second Amendment. He went on to describe the militia as “the natural defence of a free country” not only “against sudden foreign invasions” and “domestic insurrections,” with which one might well expect a Federalist to be concerned, but also against “domestic usurpations of power by rulers.” “The right of the citizens to keep and bear arms has justly been considered,” Story wrote, “as the palladium of the liberties of a republic; since it offers a strong moral check against the usurpation and arbitrary power of rulers; and will generally, even if these are successful in the first instance, enable the people to resist and triumph over them.”
“…the repository of a monopoly of the legitimate means of violence [by the state] — that is so commonly used by political scientists … is a profoundly statist definition, the product of a specifically German tradition of the (strong) state rather than of a strikingly different American political tradition that is fundamentally mistrustful of state power and vigilant about maintaining ultimate power, including the power of arms, in the populace.” 18
P replies (actually, this is Justice William Burger, who “never wrote a word abut the Second Amendment. Yet after retirement, he wrote an article for Parade magazine that is the only extended analysis by any Supreme Court Justice of why the Second Amendment does not guarantee and individual right”).19
“… the Second Amendment is obsolete because we “need” a large standing army, rather than a well-armed citizenry.”20 Plus we all know guns are dangerous things. Dangerous things should not be left in the hands of “innocent” (inept) civilians, especially when there are standing armies and organized police forces to whom we may safely delegate the use of force in our society.
To which JCC might retort: “Well, who’s policing the police? And what if the standing army comes after US?”
On that happy note, a few last words:
“Government is not reason; it is not eloquence; it is force! Like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master! “— George Washington
“All powers granted by the Constitution, are derived from the people of the United States; and may be resumed by them when perverted to their injury or oppression; and … every power not granted remains with them, and at their will; and … no right of any description can be canceled, abridged, restrained or modified by Congress, the Senate, the House of Representatives, the President or any department, or officer of the United States.” — John C. Calhoun
“The power of kings and magistrates is nothing else, but what is derivative, transferred and committed to them in trust from the people, to the common good of them all, in whom the power remains fundamentally, and cannot be taken from them without a violation of their natural birthright.” — John Milton
_________________________
Notes:
1 In Tennessee Law Review: Second Amendment Symposium, vol. 62, no. 3, 1995: 759, http://www.saf.org/LawReviews/Gifford1.htm .
2 Russell Kirk, The Roots of American Order, Washington, D.C.: Regnery Gateway, 1991.
3 Retrieved from a collection of aphorisms I’ve been compiling for many years. Unfortunately, at the time I found this one, I was not in the habit of recording the titles of works in which the aporism appears, e.g., in which Tonsor’s remark was given; and now do not remember it. (Mea culpa — So sorry!)
4 YHAOS at http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1470264/posts?page=1150#1150
5 John Trenchard and Thomas Gordon, Cato’s Letters or Essays on Liberty, Civil and Religious, and Other Important Subjects, Indianapolis: Liberty Fund, 1995 [1720]. Trenchard & Gordon were writing about 40 years after England’s Glorious Revolution of 1688, of which John Locke was major mentor and instigator. The Framers were well acquainted with the works of all three men, for Locke and Trenchard & Gordon were quintessential sources of the history of “revolution” in the British historical context; plus the philosophical/sociopolitical movements that they were describing were relatively recent from the Framers’ standpoint.
6 YHAOS op cit.
7 Eric Voegelin, “Wisdom and the Magic of the Extreme,” op. cit. The Collected Works of Eric Voegelin, p.316.
8 T. S. Eliot, Choruses from “The Rock,” as quoted by Voegelin, ibid.
9 Eric Voegelin, op. cit., p. 258
10 ibid.
11 ibid.
12 ibid.
13 ibid.
14 ibid.
15 ibid, p. 260 16 ibid.
17 ibid.
18 Sanford Levinson, “The Embarrassing Second Amendment,” Yale Law Journal. Originally published as 99 Yale L.J. 637–659 (1989).
19 David B. Kopel, “The Supreme Court’s Thirty-five Other Gun Cases: What the Supreme Court Has Said about the Second Amendment,” 2000; http://www.i2iorg/SuptDocs/Crime/35.htm
20 ibid.
Holding the USSC to the standard of "original intent" is going to be a serious conflict of interest for Congress. An objective examination of the original intent and limits of the Commerce Clause could seriously erode the power they have come to enjoy under the substantial effects doctrine.
I strongly agree with your assessment of the Spiritual state of the union.
Many of the "mainstream" churches have made the fatal mistake of altering the doctrine of Christ as revealed in the Scriptures and the indwelling Spirit - to widen their umbrellas and seek new members. I was shocked to actually read this as a justification in a document shared with me by a minister in the mainstream. The thinking was to compromise a doctrine, to gain wealth to reach more people.
The mainstream, IMHO, became and many churches remain blind to Spiritual Truth: the power is in the Spirit, not the organization's size of membership, wealth or honor in the eyes of men.
I'm glad to see this Pope is adding to the previous Pope's work in making a course correction in the Catholic church - bringing it back into doctrinal purity.
Meanwhile other "mainstream" churches diminish in membership and wealth as those who have "ears to hear" pursue other means where they can actually hear the Word of God. We are witnessing a phenomenal expansion of Christianity among the churches which hold that the Scriptures are inerrant, stand firm in the clear doctrines. We should be ashamed that Christianity grows strongly in China, in Africa - even while it diminishes in Europe and to a much lesser extent, the Americas.
I believe this is what Christ was speaking to in saying that He opens a door that noone can shut and shuts a door that noone can open (Rev 3). Whenever the speaker turns his back on Truth, Christ shuts the door and there is no power to open it again. But when the speaker - whether an organization, church, group, family or individual - speaks Truth, He opens the door with power which cannot be defeated.
No doubt there are many who have been drawn to new age mysticism and the ilk, but I am very sure that those who have "ears to hear" and are just floundering around seeking - will eventually be exposed to, and recognize, Spiritual Truth which is Logos, Jesus Christ.
Betty,
Thank you for this most important notation. By Voegelin's reasoning all of culture, but especially Western culture is the very expression of Christian thought. As to discussions of ID or of the establishment clause in our Constitution, neither science nor our government have the ability to stand on their own independent from Christian thought.
If one accepts the premise that there is a unity of truth in creation - and not an infinite variety of subjectivity - Christianity stands at the apex of that truth.
Is this to say that all other religions are false? Certainly not, simply less evolved. ;)
=======================================
It is most troubling that the only prescription for change in the government is the ballot box.
What? What would you have then? A monarchy-- a system of government based on a genetic lottery? Or the "endless revolution" as preached by Mao at the height of the Cultural Revolution, and practiced by Latin America?
In that we have a representative style of government as opposed to a democracy - of the sort established in Rome - we are dependent upon the character of those we elect.
As I'm sure others will be quick(er) to point out, we ave in this country a Democratic Republic: we (the people) elected for a set period of time(the "democracy" part) those who would serve as our representatives (the republic part) in the seat(s) of power, be they state, federal, local, city, school board, whatever. The elected are responsible and answerable to those that elected them (the democratic republic part), and are in power for only a set period of time. As far as ancient democracy I think you have mistaken Rome for Athens. I do not believe there were any election --of any real importance -- after Cesar, et. al.
Why should expect the systems of government to control and limit themselves? They cannot. The natural tension that ought to exist between government and society has become politicized.
IMHO this "natural tension" is -- at the very heart of it -- the human spirit rebelling against constrains placed upon it by those in power (however they got there).
If I may explain myself a bit further: The original and most basic Society, Government, call-it-what-you-will was not imposed from the top down, but rose instead from the bottom up. Why? Because right up there along with food,water,air and a mate, people need stability and the safety that comes with it -- for however brief a time. The government (is supposed to) provides that...and yet, being human, there is something inside of us all -- our "inner child" if you will, or more likely our "inner punk teenager" -- that rebells at restraint, even if we know the restraint is for our own good, i.e. we know wearing a seat belt is a good idea but we still get ticked off is we get a ticket; we know wearing a sweater on an over cast, windy day is a good idea but we still hate being told having our spouse, parent, sibling, anyone tell us so. Given these all too human responses, if it any wonder there is a "...natural tension between government and society..."? As for this natural tension being "politicized" I think a lot depends on how and who is defining the word.
Government authority over civil matters is predicated upon an unwillingness of the citizenry to trust themselves...
Oh, quite the opposite! It's not that we do not trust ourselves to educate our children, build bridges and dams, etc. it is b/c we do not trust others If we have indeed created a "...vast bloated government bureaucracies to do it badly for us..." It is b/c we have been led to believe in theory and/or learned by unfortunate example that the game must have rules, and that the rules must be codified, organized and enforced by an ideally disinterested third party.
We obliterate personal responsibility by acceding to government authority over the most minute elements of our lives. Laws and regulations have replaced kindness and decency.
That is b/c in this world laws and regulations can/should be depended on; the same can not be said for "kindness and decency".
The most horrible, murderous and uncivilized reigns of terror in human history occured in the 20th century....
Here too I must disagree, for do not make the mistake of comparing lack of technology with lack of blood lust. If the French Revolution "Terror" killed "only" 1500+ in Paris during its most bloody week it was only b/c they lacked the technology to kill more, not b/c they didn't want to kill more. The same can be said about the Muslim invasion into India in the 12th century. The invaders didn't kill as many Hindu as Hitler killed Jews, but they killed as many as they possibly could; and they would have (killed as many as H.) if they could have possessed the same technology. The same thing can be said about Attila the Hun: he didn't kill as many as Pol Pot, but he killed as many as he could.
What government does best is enforce its will upon its citizenry.
For the benefit, as well as hindrance, of the citizenry.
Which is precisely why the most effective tool of government is the military and why the military must never be activated within our borders against our citizens, especially during civil unrest.
If not in time of civil unrest, then when? And do not get seduced in to absolutes. American citizenship does not conifer sainthood along with it. While we are a good and great people, there is no denying we have a rotten apple or two among us.
Yes, I understand. While you’re at it, you might also try A Century of Lawmaking,” http://memory.loc.gov/ammem/amlaw/lawhome.html, that’s not a book, it’s a Library of Congress website with a huge amount of wonderful material for this subject.
Another excellent site, with what seems an endless library of original material is The Constitution Society, go to http://www.constitution.org/, and click on Liberty Library
I do accept that premise; and agree with the conclusion you draw from it, Amos.
Thank you so very much for writing!
Yankeedame,
I do not believe that all laws are good laws. I do not believe that there should be laws in matters that are not the appropriate concern of the government. This includes almost everything. Exceptions are public works projects such as roads and large utility projects, the military, border control and constitutional taxation. The Constitution does not allow the Federal government to be involved in anything else.
The fact that a bunch of self-serving lawyers have manipulated the system to generate vast government authority, wealth, power and property does not make it right or good.
I do not believe that lawyers who get elected to legislatures have anyone’s interest at heart other than their own. I believe that most government is irresponsible.
There, I got that off my chest. Whew! I feel better already.
Killing more is worse than killing less. The worse killing in history was done in the 20th century. That qualifies as really, really bad. I would say, worse than all other killing fields in history.
Government is never initiated from the bottom up. It is always imposed from the top down. This may be a male/female thing. I am not sure. LOL
Police forces exist to control adolescent behavior, not armies. The purpose of the military is to declare war on our enemies and destroy them. It serves no other purpose.
Nice to see you again too. Thanks for letting me vent.
Amos
I have been so impressed in the spirit to speak to this issue from within the corner of Christianity known as Methodism. Yet, it seems such a small segment of the whole, and the words when spoken in our context seem parochial and self serving. Nonetheless, they are words which must be spoken.
There is no biblical doctrine of schism.
It is the assumption that there is such a doctrine that debilitates many well-meaning Christians within wayward churches. But, in terms of "The Church" it is evident that no such doctrine can or should exist. After all, the gates of hell shall not prevail against the Church. The Church is the Bride of Christ. How can it be that within the plans of the One who said "no kingdom divided against itself shall stand" that there would be a contingency plan for dividing that kingdom.
We see this so easily in terms of the universal Church, but do we see it in terms of our local bodies of believers?
Is it not possible that one who would stand in the gap, who would not be moved, who would persevere, would also be the one who would see eventual victory be won from what surely appeared to be the ashes of defeat?
There is no biblical doctrine of schism?
There is a harvester who asked, "Should we uproot the tares?" and there is also a Lord of the Harvest who replied, "Let them grow alongside the wheat, lest in uprooting the tares we also destroy the wheat." This affirmation of the dishonest in the midst of the Church is also an affirmation of unity even when unity is difficult and hampered by those who the Lord himself recognizes will one day be burned.
There is no doctrine of schism.
But, there is a doctrine of reformation.
Sometimes when I am met with people who shudder at the false notion that philosophy is some kind of alternative to faith in Christ, I mention the following historical facts:
2. Alexander was a student of Aristotle who was a student of Plato – the greatest Greek philosopher of all time, IMHO.
3. The Essene community was formed to avoid the Hellenization of Jews.
4. Because of the Essene community at Qumran, we now have the Dead Sea Scrolls which materially affirm the faithfulness and antiquity of both Scripture recognized by the Jewish religious authorities and other ancient texts, including Enoch which speaks directly of the “Elect One” – Jesus Christ. (That btw is why the book was disfavored by the Jews. Even though it is referenced directly in the New Testament (e.g. Jude) - it was later disfavored in the church because it speaks of both the good and evil angelic beings.)
5. Daniel (600 BC) prophesied that Alexander would conquer the known world.
6. According to Josephus, after Alexander conquered Gaza, he went up to Jerusalem and was shown the prophesy from Daniel 18 by Juddua the high priest whereupon he extended particular kindness to the Jewish people.
7. Alexander “normalized” the Greek language so that people could communicate better – so not only did they have a common language, but the philosophies of Plato (et al) were proliferated – both of which helped to spread the Gospel to the Gentiles.
Justin Martyr – who studied under a number of the schools of philosophy but was drawn most strongly to Platonism before becoming Christian – observed that Plato had studied Judaism in Egypt and that he therefore, possibly unwittingly, made certain references to Christ.
Chapter LX.-Plato's Doctrine of the Cross.
And the physiological discussion122 concerning the Son of God in the Timoeus of Plato, where he says, "He placed him crosswise123 in the universe," he borrowed in like manner from Moses; for in the writings of Moses it is related how at that time, when the Israelites went out of Egypt and were in the wilderness, they fell in with poisonous beasts, both vipers and asps, and every kind of serpent, which slew the people; and that Moses, by the inspiration and influence of God, took brass, and made it into the figure of a cross, and set it in the holy tabernacle, and said to the people, "If ye look to this figure, and believe, ye shall be saved thereby."124 And when this was done, it is recorded that the serpents died, and it is handed down that the people thus escaped death. Which things Plato reading, and not accurately understanding, and not apprehending that it was the figure of the cross, but taking it to be a placing crosswise, he said that the power next to the first God was placed crosswise in the universe. And as to his speaking of a third, he did this because he read, as we said above, that which was spoken by Moses, "that the Spirit of God moved over the waters." For he gives the second place to the Logos which is with God, who he said was placed crosswise in the universe; and the third place to the Spirit who was said to be borne upon the water, saying, "And the third around the third."125 And hear how the Spirit of prophecy signified through Moses that there should be a conflagration. He spoke thus: "Everlasting fire shall descend, and shall devour to the pit beneath."126 It is not, then, that we hold the same opinions as others, but that all speak in imitation of ours. Among us these things can be heard and learned from persons who do not even know the forms of the letters, who are uneducated and barbarous in speech, though wise and believing in mind; some, indeed, even maimed and deprived of eyesight; so that you may understand that these things are not the effect of human wisdom, but are uttered by the power of God.
The perfect parable and summation from your post:
There is no doctrine of schism.
But, there is a doctrine of reformation.
The tares in our midst cannot destroy the field.
So it is that the authority of government must be curbed, and enumerated to those ends required, and its powers confined by whatever devices needed which will assure its compliance. But, just the same, it must be allowed to pursue those ends we (society) deem necessary.
“It may be a reflection on human nature, that such devices should be necessary to control the abuses of government. But what is government itself, but the greatest of all reflections on human nature? If men were angels, no government would be necessary. If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary. In framing a government which is to be administered by men over men, the great difficulty lies in this: you must first enable the government to control the governed; and in the next place oblige it to control itself. A dependence on the people is, no doubt, the primary control on the government; but experience has taught mankind the necessity of auxiliary precautions.”
. . . . . FEDERALIST No. 51, as published in the Independent Journal, Wednesday, February 6, 1788, James Madison, writing as Publius.
’Auxiliary precautions,’ being what? Might they be the Bill of Rights? Surely, that and more. A government of carefully enumerated powers, narrowly construed? It is to be hoped. A country governed by laws, not ruled by men? Yes, of course. To achieve this, the Founders of our Union opted for liberty, and the sovereign responsibility that goes with it. They constructed a government deriving its just powers from the consent of the governed. This means the state serves the electorate, and has no identity in itself other than to fulfill that function, as determined by those whom it attends. The people are sovereign and all wisdom resides in their will.
But, you protest, what if the people become capricious, willful, indifferent, unjust, decadent, careless, profligate, lazy, or neglectful? Well, if the people are sovereign, then they may do any, or all of these things. But, you might ask, if the people become these things, what will become of us? Why, very much the same thing that has happened to many a prince who became capricious, willful, indifferent, unjust, decadent, careless, profligate, lazy, and neglectful.
That is no doubt true but I was speaking more along the lines of this:
The following is excerpted directly from the United States Constitution with highlights added by me:
Article. III.
Section. 1.
The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behaviour, and shall, at stated Times, receive for their Services, a Compensation, which shall not be diminished during their Continuance in Office.
Section. 2.
Clause 1: The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority;--to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls;--to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction;--to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party;--to Controversies between two or more States;--between a State and Citizens of another State; (See Note 10)--between Citizens of different States, --between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects.
Clause 2: In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction. In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make.
That seems to give congress considerable power with regard to federal courts should they ever decide to exercise those powers.
For example, just what do those two words "Good Behavior" mean when it comes to judges? My reading of that leads me to conclude that the Congress alone has the ability to decide what constitutes "good behavior" when it comes to federal judges.
Let's look a little further into the matter shall we?
According to Title 28, Chapter I, Part 453 of the United States Code, each Court Justice takes the following oath:
"I, [NAME], do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will administer justice without respect to persons, and do equal right to the poor and to the rich, and that I will faithfully and impartially discharge and perform all the duties incumbent upon me as [TITLE] under the Constitution and laws of the United States. So help me God.''
Given that oath, it would seem to me that by citing foreign law in a very recent decision rendered by the SCOTUS would be a direct violation of that oath and anything BUT "Good Behavior"!
Thank you for reminding us that the Body of Christ can not be broken.
I have been coming to the same position via another schism, that of the civic church and the Body of Christ. I have come to see that they, too, are one.
I appreciate your acknowledgement that you speak as a Methodist. I, too, grew up in Methodism and was, too, an Elder and Missionary for a number of years.
My family and I suffered grievously at the hands of some who were in authority over me in our Conference. We have been treated as pariah for decades.
I have experienced the abuse of those who practice schism in the name of the church. It has been difficult to forgive some in the church who have sought my destruction.
Thank you for making it clear to me that the church is not diminished by sin and error, my own and others.
Please forgive the intrusion of this very personal confession. It is certainly inappropriate in this forum. I do so leaning upon a spirit of fellowship in Christ that has grown in me among some of you. I am thankful that the Spirit has led me to you. I ask your prayers for restoration.
I am your brother and fellow elder and welcome your input.
I have a friend from one of our conferences who also was forced out by a renowned radical leadership.
Even today I wish that he would have stayed. Because leaving is relinquishing.
To achieve this, the Founders of our Union opted for liberty, and the sovereign responsibility that goes with it. They constructed a government deriving its just powers from the consent of the governed. This means the state serves the electorate, and has no identity in itself other than to fulfill that function, as determined by those whom it attends. The people are sovereign and all wisdom resides in their will.
The first is rather obvious and it would surely take something extremely oppressive before people would abandon the stability and security of home to challenge the government. I could only see this happening if the government (typically through a tyrant the likes of a Hitler) were to declare martial law without cause, stopping elections and oppressing the people by military force.
The second is subtle and would apply to a government which has become irrational or outrageous, such as prosecuting individuals for non-compliance to a repulsive law. Say for instance the legislative branch constructed a law – or the Supreme Court effected law by its ruling - which made it a crime to bring more than 3 children into life. If the parents of a newly born fourth were brought before a jury – though all the facts and the law were established – if the jury believed the law itself to be repulsive, it could acquit thereby nullifying the law.
As long as the ballot box and judiciary is working neither should ever be required - but it is interesting to note they exist.
This is the place for such confessions and reconciliations. The power of healing begins when we identify the problem and truly, there are many - many - on this forum - of various confessions - who perceive an alienation which is not real.
This is obviously a Spirit compelled dialogue. Therefore, I am confident that your making that point clear will be used by the Spirit to heal, guide and bless others.
My two favorities! Of course, WRT jury nullification, it doesn't nullify the egregious law, only its application to the specific defendant. But I imagine if nullification happened often enough respecting an egregious law, it would effectively be rendered null and void.
But people do not understand their rights as jurors -- they get to determine, not only the facts of the case, but the facts of the law. Here in Massachusetts, judges will never explain this to you. On the contrary, the judge will tell you (as I was told when I was in a jury pool once upon a time) that, as jurors, you must determine the facts, but leave the determination of law up to the judge. They even played a slick video for us, taking pains to make precisely this point. (It was sickening.)
I have read that, in some courts, for a juror to so much as mention "jury nullification" invites a charge of contempt of court.
Thanks so much for your very informative post/essay!
.....Alexis de Tocqueville, Democracy In America, Volume I, First Part, Chap. VIII, pg 152
"I believe that the most erosive threat to modern American legal/judicial purism is the fact that the Constitution, more often than not, now accepts a back seat to the convoluted inverted pyramid known as case law."
It’s not just the Supreme Court, or all the Court system, which is composed of “bad citizens”; it is the whole of the legal profession. It is not that they (the legal profession) are cruel to their pets, indifferent to their spouses, abuse their children, are atrocious neighbors, ignore their civic duty, or fail to give alms. It is their attitude toward the Constitution, just as you say, that makes of them bad citizens. Lawyers from both sides of the bench, have ceased to regard the Constitution as a rock upon which is founded the justice due a free people. Lawyering has become little more than a exercise in constitutional deconstruction designed to further personal ambition by developing case law contrary to constitutional principles.
Perhaps the American judges are trying to protect some power they believe belongs to them? As I read it, the Constitution puts the power - the determination of guilt/innocence before the law - in the jury, otherwise every trial would be a bench trial.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.