Posted on 03/13/2005 3:53:28 PM PST by LyricalReckoner
In the Declaration of Independence, Jefferson wrote that government derives its authority from the consent of the governed. Scalia doesn’t see it that way. In a speech in 2002, he reminded his audience what it says in the Bible: the government is ordained by God. During arguments in [i]Van Orden v. Perry,[/i] Scalia said Jefferson was wrong. Our government doesn’t derive its authority from the consent of the governed. It “derives its authority from God.” And, he insisted, it’s a fact that “the foundation of our laws is God.”
Read all about it:
http://www.misterthorne.org/ESSAYS/scalia_v_jefferson.htm
Enjoy!
Congressman Billybob
Congressman Billybob
In fact, Thomas Jefferson criticized the notion that Christianity had any part in the foundations of our laws. In a letter he wrote to a friend in 1814, Jefferson made the argument that the common law of England – the basis of the laws of the colonies – could not possibly have been influenced by Christianity, much less the Ten Commandments. His argument? The common law existed in England for 200 years before Christianity arrived there. His conclusion? “Christianity neither is, nor ever was a part of the common law.”
Interesting information that I had never heard. Do you have a source for this quote? Since the Magna Carta was signed in 1215 and well after the establishment of Christianity in England and considered by most to be the established date of English common law, what can we say about this putative quote of Jefferson?
The Magna Carta didn't establish the common law. It just made the common law binding on the king. Before that it was just the law of the commoners, hence, the name "common" law, that was superseded by the king's law at his discretion. Christian principles are a part of our culture and our cultural values. As such, these principles are reflected in our laws. This in no way constitutes an establishment of religion, or gives Christianity any exalted legal status.
Scalia is correct.
Ok. But isn't there a large volume of historical writings in which medieval scholars, theologians and philosophers describe these common laws in terms such as "natural law", "natural rights", or "general revelation" with theological emphasis? Perhaps there was no direct interaction between pagan English common law and cultural Christianity or special revelation but this plethora of historical documents that describe these laws in theological terms, which predate US Constitution, and upon which most of the Founders based their assumptions of historical reality, surely are sewn into the fabric of our laws.
Nonetheless, it is intriguing if Jefferson so completely disowned the historical influences of his time near his death.
The natural rights are life, liberty and property. These can be expressed in law under just about any cultural setting, be it Christian, pagan, Confucian, etc. Natural law is the necessary recognition of man's right to his own life. Without this recognition, we have war. The law was established to maintain peace and safety. This is the case with or without any perceived devine influence.
Scalia is right. All just authority is derivative of God's authority. That is not to say that this contradicts Thomas Jefferson. Because government is to be put to the service of the Common Good, the consent of the governed does play an important part inasmuch as the consent of the governed reflects a genuine component of the Common Good. Government must have a genuine concern for the care of the community and the Common Good.
Similarly, all just laws are derived from the Natural Law, which human reason and intellect is capable of apprehending apart from faith; though Natural Law is established by God and is part of the Eternal Law.
Just imagine: a Supreme Court that understands our rights come, not from men, but from God. Imagine the justices turning to the 14th Psalm for guidance, rather than the 14th Amendment.
On the other hand, the Declaration itself says:
When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.
If rights come from man, man can take them away.
Your earlier post:
Our government does not derive its authority from the consent of the governed as the Declaration proclaims. Rather, it "derives its authority from God."
Nonsense. The Declaration is throughly Lockean: government derives its authority from the people, who derive their natural-law rights from God. As Locke says:
In transgressing the law of nature, the offender declares himself to live by another rule than that of reason and common equity, which is that measure God has set to the actions of men, for their mutual security; ... upon this ground, EVERY MAN HATH A RIGHT TO PUNISH THE OFFENDER, AND BE EXECUTIONER OF THE LAW OF NATURE. (Second Treatise of Civil Government, cap. ii)
And the law of nature is established by, or guaranteed by, God, according to the Declaration: "Laws of Nature and of Nature's God".
Justice Scalia is a Catholic. What do Catholics believe? In the apostolic letters concerning the constitution of states, addressed by us to the bishops of the whole Church, we discussed this point at length; and there set forth the difference existing between the Church, which is a divine society, and all other social human organizations which depend simply on free will and choice of men. (Leo XIII, Testem Benevolentiae Nostrae, Jan. 22 1899) but also as no society can hold together unless some one be over all, directing all to strive earnestly for the common good, every body politic must have a ruling authority, and this authority, no less than society itself, has its source in nature, and has, consequently, God for its Author (Leo XIII, Immortale Dei, Nov. 1 1885).
Ignorance is not a good thing. I suggest you do some research next time.
Fantastic post. Thank you for that.
Not to mention that he had absolutely nothing to do with the drafting of the Constitution.
What in particular makes these rights natural? Is man in your opinion, simply a natural being?
Natural law is the necessary recognition of man's right to his own life. Without this recognition, we have war.
If it is natural why would anyone have a problem recognizing it?
Deuteronomy 1:13 "Take you wise men, and understanding, and known among your tribes, and I will make them rulers over you."
In short, it is by God's own commandment (cf Scalia), that we are given the authority to choose wise, understanding, public figures, and elect them to be our rulers (cf Jefferson).
No contradiction at all.
Yes, lack of perception is exactly the point. While men were led to construct laws to protect life under divine influence they did not perceive this influence. That was the gist of my post. Our Founders were well-read in this theology and understanding of the development of common law.
I think we're going off onto a theological tangent here. It seems you believe man's actions are divinely guided, consciously or otherwise. That speaks more to your personal faith than it does to an objective analysis of law and its origin. I guess it comes down to the question of, did God create man in His image, or did man create "God" in man's image? I'm sure a whole big long thread could result from that question!
I suppose it's no accident then that it was his letter to the Danbury Baptists that included the phrase, "separation of Church and State."
I came across Jefferson's "Ten Rules for the Good Life" recently and was surprised at its banality:
Ten Rules for the Good LifeThis ain't the Nicomachean Ethics, nevermind the Ten Commandments.1) Never put off till tomorrow what you can do today.
2) Never trouble another for what you can do yourself.
3) Never spend your money before you have it.
4) Never buy what you do not want because it is cheap;it will never be dear to you.
5) Pride costs us more than hunger, thirst, and cold.
6) Never repent of having eaten too little.
7) Nothing is troublesome that we do willingly.
8) Don't let the evils which have never happened cost you pain.
9) Always take things by their smooth handle.
10) When angry, count to ten before you speak;if very angry, count to one hundred.
And that statement speaks to your personal faith in the sense that you think you can dichotomize away the metaphysical from the physical, which is also the objective of the liberal establishment.
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.