The Arbiter of Righteousness

Governance and the Bible

I was reading an article by Derek Penwell, "9 Arguments From the Bible Fundamentalists Should Have to Make" about conservatives inconsistent use of the Bible to support some of their policies. The basis for the article is, if the support for a ban on same-sex marriage comes from scripture than why isn't the Bible used as the authority for other conservative policies. That naturally leads to a discussion on how to use the Bible in an effort to govern.

 

Controlling The Word

Generally I didn’t take his list as just a simple list of questions but a way to discuss the problem with the concept of picking and choosing which passage to take ‘as gospel’ if you will.  Let’s think back 50 years to when even mixed-race marriages were illegal where the idea same-sex marriage being legal would have been considered outrageous.  Basing the prohibition of same-sex marriage on a literal reading of a given Biblical passage invites the question of why not take the whole book literally, if it so aligns with society’s understanding of right and wrong than why even have a legal code other than the Bible?  Of course I’m being a bit facetious there but it is because I want to take the argument to its logical if extreme conclusion.  This makes it easier to illustrate that if we allow that some passages are not meant to be taken literally but rather as parables then we have to face the issue of selecting a person or group who gets to decide on which portions are to be exalted above the others for such treatment, and woe to those who disagree with their choices.  At the heart of it, the modern movement for Biblical inerrancy, seeing as it has only been around since the late 1800’s, is less about God’s Will than it is about control over God’s Word.  The Roman Catholic Church spent many centuries developing a consistent theology around how to apply the Bible to life on planet Earth, they didn’t attempt in all that time to claim that every single word should be taken literally.  They understood that it was a teaching tool whose power was in making people see how it could be a guide for situations that Abraham, Moses, or Matthew could never have imagined.  Since the Reformation there has been a movement to replace Catholic teachings with Protestant ones, basically an effort to replace Rome as the power deciding what God’s Word means, wishing to usurp the Pope’s theological monopoly.  In the beginning it was done in a piecemeal fashion such as Martin Luther’s Theses nailed to the church door but as each new group wished to separate from those with whom they disagreed they naturally become more and more separated theologically from the teaching of Rome and it would be logical to see how the outcome can be groups that want to disallow any interpretation because it affords too many loopholes for the unrighteous to claim piety while still living a sinful life, thus the only way to insure no interpretation is a literal reading.  There is nothing inherently wrong with a group wanting to adhere to a literal reading but it becomes a problem when that group then wants to claim it is the one true way and wish to enforce their beliefs upon the rest of society, while that is to be expected it does not excuse them from picking and choosing the passages that they want to apply; if the Bible is to be taken literally then it is everything or nothing because once you pick winners and losers you are back to allowing for human interpretation.

 

The Bible and Slavery

I’ll be honest, the Bible’s position on Slavery is one that I really have a hard time with and saying that it doesn’t condone slavery is letting it off the hook.  There are so many places where it is quick to declare sin like eating shellfish or wearing clothes of mixed fibers but there are no qualms about allowing slavery even for the devout.  There is not even a mention such as ‘it is wrong but it happens so live with it’ somewhat like ‘give unto Caesar what is Caesars’.  If you take the Bible literally than the taking of a slave is just as acceptable as forcing a rape victim to marry their rapist.  I find it hard to believe that the author(s) of the Bible would overlook such a fundamental concept when it would have been easy for Jesus to say, “No follower of mine should hold slaves.”  Whenever He spoke, he wasn’t making law but making general claims over the definition of what is right and what is wrong thus it is almost a certainty that no one back then found slavery as a concept to be morally wrong.  He spoke out about the moneylending in the Temple but was silent on slavery.  In all the litany of proscriptions and restrictions slavery is not considered to be something that disqualifies one as righteous, so much so that a claim that the Bible does not condone slavery has such weak supporting evidence as to be non-existent.

 

Righteousness

Slavery can also point out a theological quandary too.  Let’s separate it out this way with a set of statements and questions.

• The Bible doesn’t declare holding slaves as a sin, thus a righteous man may have slaves.
• If we believe that the Bible is inerrant than must we also believe that slavery is acceptable to God?
• Over millennia humanity comes to believe that slavery is wrong.
• In a country that outlaws slavery can a righteous man have slaves and remain righteous since there is no Biblical prohibition?
• If it is no longer possible to be considered righteous solely for having slaves than from what authority does righteousness come, and who decides?
• If the Bible doesn’t claim that slavery is wrong than do we have no authority to claim otherwise?
• If we conclude that slavery is wrong than how can we claim the Bible is the sole arbiter of righteousness?
• If we conclude that the Bible is the sole arbiter of righteousness than how do we support a claim that slavery, not being banned by the Bible or otherwise declared sinful, should be outlawed?

And there we have the problem on the horns of a dilemma.

 

Did the Framers seek an imperial presidency after all?

The Balkinization blog held a symposium the past week on Bruce Ackerman's new book, The Decline and Fall of the American Republic. Stephen Gardbaum wrote one of the reflections on Ackerman's book, and he also provides a nice recap for the uninitiated:

Bruce Ackerman’s The Decline and Fall of the American Republic is a profoundly important constitutional wake-up call. It presents a powerful, multi-layered, yet highly accessible argument that the body politic faces the serious and unprecedented structural risk of presidential extremism and lawlessness -- and a series of new checks and balances that offer the rare combination of pragmatism and originality.

I have not read Ackerman's book yet, so I cannot comment on it.. However, I would like to comment on Gardaum's essay, Empire Rises. Gardaum agrees with Ackerman's assertion that the presidency has turned out to be the branch that has proven the most dangerous to republican government, but, unlike Ackerman, he does not want to let the Framers off the hook. He contends that the Framers had all the evidence they needed to draw the right lessons. They simply decided to institute a strong executive:

 

I think the Framers’ error went beyond this wrong guess to the governmental structure that they established. This structure was inherently and latently flawed at the outset in the way that has come to pass, not precisely of course but generally – and the knowledge to have avoided this was available to them at the time. For the republican revolution that they wrought was not entirely without precedent. The first took place in 510 B.C. when Rome expelled its last king and established the republic. The new republican constitution split both the executive and legislative branches of government into two or more. It replaced the king with two magistrates, the consuls, who were jointly endowed with full executive power, and separated/divided legislative power among several citizen assemblies. The Roman Republic, which became a superpower along the way, lasted for just under five hundred years before it fell when a concentration of power in just one person – Augustus – effectively returned the state to a monarchy under the Empire. In deliberately rejecting the plural executive of the Roman Republic, a far larger version of which was tried and failed during the Articles of Confederation, the Framers hewed too closely to the monarchical structure of government they were nominally rejecting. They effectively replaced the king with a president, and the distinctive British conception of separation of powers between King and Parliament with the analogous one between President and Congress. Hamilton’s Federalist 69 on the differences between the powers of King George and (likely) President George – including an absolute versus a qualified veto of legislation – is arresting in its strained, almost scholastic reasoning and “methinks he protests too much” quality.

I think modern technology, the Party system, and the nature of modern warfare have enabled the presidency to become much more powerful than even Hamilton could have imagined, but the seeds of the imperial presidency were enabled by the Constitution. I have often wondered at the vast number of similarities between the American presidency and the British constitutional monarchy of the eighteenth century. If this analogy is truly the root of the Framers' conception of the presidency, then the implications for American constitutional principles are vast, e.g., the congressional power to "declare war" truly is only a legislative function and the authority -- indeed, the expectation -- to wage war rests with the executive. In seventeenth-century Britain, the legislative check on war-making was the power of the purse.

To provide true legislative oversight of the executive, the parliamentary system might, in some delicious irony, be the most effective structure. Without its separation of powers, parliamentary government provides the legislature the ultimate structural control of the executive: the Government comes from and answers to the majority of Parliament.

 

The connection between evil acts of a country and the responsibilities of its leaders

Revered computer scientist Donald Knuth has a page on "Infrequently Asked Questions". (http://www-cs-faculty.stanford.edu/~uno/iaq.html) and questions #4 and #5 do a good job of bringing up the issue of the moral responsibility a country's leaders have to its citizens.

I don't have any answers to his questions but would to avoid discussing them can't help but to implicitly spread the guilt around among the willfully silent.

It's a question for the ages, what does a society do when its leadership commits hubris? 

Health care reform and the general welfare clause, Part II

As the health care reform debate has raged on and bills have taken shape in the Senate and even passed the House, the so-called individual mandate has become a central part of most reform packages under consideration. This is a different twist from the angle under which I considered the constitutionality of health care reform in the article Health care reform and the general welfare clause, and, constitutionally, it must be a deal breaker.

It is a settled constitutional fact that Congress can spend federal tax revenues on any program that it feels advances the general welfare, whether the form of that spending takes the form of direct grants, tax credits, tax deductions, or subsidies is of little consequence constitutionally. If Congress wants to set up incentives to give people tax deductions for buying health insurance, for example, or send subsidies directly to people / families who make less than four times the federal poverty rate, then it is acting within its constitutional prerogative.

However, there is no constitutional power delegated to Congress allowing it to impose fines on people for not buying health care insurance. There is a big difference, philosophic and constitutional, between incentivizing people towards desired behaviors and punishing them for not following a prescribed mandate. Article 1, Section 8 and the Fourteenth Amendment form the boundaries within which Congress may legislate, and outlawing a lack of health care insurance is simply not within those boundaries.

This is undoubtedly a power of a State, but not a delegated power of the federal government.

Health care reform and the general welfare clause

One of the questions guiding the discussion over health care reform is part of a larger, more fundamental debate that has been going on in America since before the ratification of the Constitution: what is the proper role of government? In the current context, constitutional scholars point to the General Welfare Clause in Article 1, Section 8, Clause 1 (bold emphasis mine)::

The Congress shall have power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States

Mainstream constitutional interpretation reads this as a direct grant of power to Congress to spend money on anything it deems necessary to secure the general welfare, including programs of social insurance. Since Social Security was judged constitutional by the Supreme Court in 1937 in the cases Steward Machine Co. v. Davis and Helvering v. Davis, the General Welfare Clause has been seen as a broad grant of power to the Congress to spend money for purposes that benefit the country as a whole. While this clause is not interpreted as enabling Congress to legislate in the internal affairs and governance of the States, it does provide Congress broad discretion in the areas that it can spend federal money. So long as funds are not spent for purely local purposes, Congress is not limited on the types of programs and projects for which it can appropriate.

But this was not the original principle upon which the Constitution was founded. James Madison and Thomas Jefferson envisioned the Constitution as granting specific, enumerated powers to the federal government, as detailed in Article I, Section 8, Clauses 2 through 17. The general welfare for which Congress could expend revenue in Clause 1 was limited by the rest of Article I, Section 8. Otherwise, as Madison posed the question in a letter to Andrew Stevenson, "why, on that supposition [that the phrase general welfare provided expansive powers to the Congress], so much critical labour was employed in enumerating the particular powers, and in defining and limiting their extent?"

Madison was arguing against the more expansive interpretation of the General Welfare Clause pushed by Alexander Hamilton, as classically expressed in Hamilton's 1791 Report on Manufacturers:

The terms "general Welfare" were doubtless intended to signify more than was expressed or imported in those which Preceded; otherwise numerous exigencies incident to the affairs of a Nation would have been left without a provision. The phrase is as comprehensive as any that could have been used; because it was not fit that the constitutional authority of the Union, to appropriate its revenues shou'd have been restricted within narrower limits than the "General Welfare" and because this necessarily embraces a vast variety of particulars, which are susceptible neither of specification nor of definition.

Although the Madisonian interpretation of "general welfare" was the overriding perspective throughout the nineteenth century, Hamilton's view was the interpretation that finally won out in the Supreme Court's Steward Machine and Helvering cases. Because the federal programs that have grown out of the New Deal augmented and, in many cases, overrode founding principles, fundamentals of constitutional interpretation have been irrevocably changed through the political process set up by the Constitution itself (a move that falls within the structure of the Governance Imperative, but a move, nonetheless, aided by the passage of the Seventeenth Amendment and the loss of the States to their direct representation in the federal legislative process). Because of what the vast majority of the American people now expect, it must be conceded that health care reform would fall within the purview of the general welfare, even though the concept of governmental welfare was poisonous to society in the view of the founders.

Benjamin Franklin's wrote in 1776 in his On the Price of Corn and Management of the Poor:

I am for doing good to the poor, but I differ in opinion of the means. I think the best way of doing good to the poor, is not making them easy in poverty, but leading or driving them out of it. In my youth I travelled much, and I observed in different countries, that the more public provisions were made for the poor, the less they provided for themselves, and of course became poorer. And, on the contrary, the less was done for them, the more they did for themselves, and became richer.

A principle even more fundamental than enumerated federal powers animates the American engine even today: each man is able to apply his talents and contribute to the marketplace as he is able, retaining for himself the fruits of his labor. What a man earns is his own and is not subject to government seizure and redistribution. Jefferson wrote in a letter to Joseph Milligan in 1816:

To take from one, because it is thought that his own industry and that of his fathers has acquired too much, in order to spare to others, who, or whose fathers have not exercised equal industry and skill, is to violate arbitrarily the first principle of association, "the guarantee to every one of a free exercise of his industry, and the fruits acquired by it." If the overgrown wealth of an individual be deemed dangerous to the State, the best corrective is the law of equal inheritance to all in equal degree; and the better, as this enforces a law of nature, while extra taxation violates it.

Whether we are ready to move another step beyond this first principle is at the heart of the health care reform debate, but there are no constitutional barriers to health care reform's passage.

Whence the compromise?

The passing of Senator Ted Kennedy this past week has elicited much commentary on the apparent passing of the old political skill of Compromise. The standard refrain is something like this:

Senator Kennedy was from an old era of Senate politics, an era that engendered bipartisan deals and encouraged the art of compromise, dominated by moderate senators from both parties. Over the past twenty to thirty years, radicals from both parties have increasingly dominated the ranks of the Senate, leaving moderates to fill only about 10% of the chamber. As a result, the Opposition party seeks only to delay and obstruct and the Majority party pushes through its legislation on party-line votes.

Professor Sandy Levinson even go on to blame this state of affairs on our "undemocratic Constitution," pointing out statistics like the six senators on the Senate Finance Committee negotiating health care reform (an illustrative irony in itself - many who have lameted the loss of compromise have been the same ones impatiently demanding that the Senate Finance Committee drop its negotiations and "just approve a plan") represent a mere 2.77% of the U.S. population. This charge, however, seems to miss the point. The Senate was never meant to represent the American population as a whole, rather Senators represent their individual states. Besides this, the Constitution has governed the United States for well over 200 years and the Senate has been considered "the world's most deliberative body" for much of that time, admired by many around the world as one of the most august legislative chambers in history.

So if we have indeed lost the art of compromise in our politics and assuming our Constitution is not to blame (indeed, we have argued here that the Constitution engenders compromise), what has caused our supposed decline in bipartisan bills facilitated by compromise? It seems to me that this decline correlates with the rise of conservatives in the Republican Party during and following the time of President Reagan and the disappearance of that strange politician truly of a bygone era, the Southern Democrat. The Republican Party has become much more monolithic, dominated completely by the conservative movement, while the Democrats have been all over the map between moderate to liberal (or progressive to use the current label of choice).

Nevertheless, the Republican and Democratic Parties were both largely dominated by moderate and liberal politicians prior to the last generation's rise of conservatives. President Nixon, who fought for universal health care and Employer Mandates and instituted wage and price controls, was hardly a conservative by today's standards (or any era's standards, for that matter). President Ford nominated John Paul Stevens to the Supreme Court, one of the most liberal justices in the history of the Court. Conservatives had no voice in the government prior to Reagan's election to the presidency, so they were effectively locked out of the debate and ignored.

So when one side is completely sidelined, how is the resulting federal legislation the result of compromise? One side (liberals) and moderates agreeing among themselves might be compromise, but not to the degree that these fellows pining for the good old days would like to believe. For all their acrimony, true compromises were struck in the 1990's between President Clinton and the Republican Congress time and time again: the 1996 welfare reform law, the 1996 Telecommunications Act, the balanced budgets in 1997 and onward, to name a few.

The process of compromise is always ugly when one is in the middle of it, and it never looks like compromise (remember the cries of deadlock and obstructionism when Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich and the House Republicans forced a shut down of the federal government in 1995?). But given the time for the political process to work itself out, the end result is ALWAYS better than a partisan wish-list crammed down the collective throats of the electorate. Voters might swallow the bitter pill of such a legislative maneuver, but the majority party will be short-lived in their majority status. Americans have longer memories than Talking Heads give them credit for.

Women as Objects... to fear

The New Statesman has a review on the historical treatment of women http://www.newstatesman.com/books/2009/07/women-god-stangroom-benson

For a long time now, I've wondered where society got the mores around it's treatment of women. The link above makes the case for a historical basis. Most holy books are fairly blunt about their consideration of women as second class citizens which only explains how the misogyny has sustained itself. Islam being one of the most often cited case, it is easy to begin a rational examination of their treatment of women.

Expecting women to cover their bodies is a way for cultures to enforce a collective sense of modesty. What is more surprising is when this is taken to an extreme like not allowing women to drive, talk to unrelated men, or go out in public at all. The justification of these rules are described as being protective of the women themselves, the implication being that they could be attacked or even raped for example if seen in public with exposed hair. Women who flaunt societies rules are made acutely aware that they are in danger and the rules are for their own safety. What is interesting about this is not the admission that women can have a strong affect on men but the abdication of responsibility on the part of those men to control their animal desires. Basically, men can not control themselves so it must be the moral duty of women not to tempt men. This seems so simple but when you start examining some of the extreme punishments meted out, it is easy to conclude that society that codified the rules is actually afraid of women and seek to control them. Readers of this piece are sure to recognize the link between Eve as a symbol of the downfall of Man and Man's desire to prevent that from happening in _our_ neighborhood.

This is a case of a cult-of-morality influencing what society considers right or just based on historical traditions. Shine the light of rationality upon the situation and the adherents quickly shield themselves from culpability with statements like, "That is how we've always done it." or "It's in the Bible". Strict constructionists (or "literalists" if you will) may keep to the high-road using that tactic as long as they are consistent with the rest of their Holy Book but what of the rest? Are they claiming that they should treat women like chattel for no other reason then because their fathers and grandfathers did so? This is no more than a belief of convenience, inculcated through long practice and by wide acceptance. It can be boiled down to "But everyone else does it" which doesn't fly with a father listening to son or daughter who wants to do something foolish with their friends so why should it fly with us now? I'll tell you why, because humans are born with a mechanism which bonds them strongly to the behavior they see in the individuals around them. It's called "The Mirror Neuron" and it what allows us to learn by watching and elevates us above all the other species. The downside of this boon is that we have a physiological drive to accept the behavior we see around us and to mimic that behavior.

One of the principles of The Governance Imperative that has driven mankind from its early days is to bring a measure of control and consistency to our interactions. Tyrants, Kings, and Emperors can all rule effectively but the price is capriciousness and justice as defined by one man. As we sought a way to check the abuse of power, to eliminate rule-by-whimsy, and seek maximum justice for the maximum number of people, we developed institutions, like the independent judiciary or trial by jury, which insulate us from the worst of mankind. For all our modern sense of self-righteousness we can never forget that those behaviors are never banished but always lurking, waiting for a chance to exert control once again. Our duty then is to acknowledge, which does not mean blindly accept, those darker instincts that are a part of what makes us human; using knowledge as a shield against the beasts that dwell in the dark recesses of the human soul, guarding the light of civilization against our own self-destructiveness.

The treatment of women is still a shadow upon the soul of man, a remnant of the times when men sought scapegoats for their own behaviors.

The Truth Will Set You Free

The current situation in Iran reminds me of how the truth can be feared. Dictators and tyrants crave legitimacy and usually have the power to silence those who contradict the 'official truth'. One of the principles upon which our country was founded is that truth is to be valued even when it is uncomfortable. The 1st amendment can be taken to say that a just government should have no fear of the truth and so has to meet an extremely high standard to be allowed to squelch speech. This leads directly to whether citizens should expect to trust what their government says. A government that lies to it's citizens has ceased to be, in the words of Lincoln, "government of the people, by the people, for the people" and should not be trusted. If the trust of it's people is of so little value, the question becomes what is of value to such a beast; the answer quickly and easily is revealed to be power. This is the same power a monarch wields over his subjects; agree to give me absolute power and I promise to protect you. If I fail to protect you, you either won't know because I got away with it and just lie about it or you end up dead and the point is moot; regardless you have no recourse since you've ceded absolute power in the first place.

Iran has many laws which restrict the rights of women, supposedly to protect them, so the hypocrisy is revealed when the authorities take to beating women who are trying to help those in need.

The voters want to know that their vote was heard even if their candidate lost. How the truth can be the enemy of some is covered in a previous article.

Voices from the Past

Extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice. And moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue.

- Barry Goldwater


Remember, ignoring torture for the sake of security is not a defense of liberty. And ignoring crimes committed by the previous administration, for the sake of not rocking a political boat, is not justice.