Here is an example to demonstrate that natural law accomplishes the exact opposite of what Christians intend. Consider a child who tells his father: "Father, sir, I understand that you have given me explicit rules on how to relate to you and mother and my siblings; however, I have to tell you that I will be discerning what is right for myself. I will use my logic and what I can discern from nature, and I will tell you and my siblings what is 'natural' and right." It really doesn't matter whether the child accidentally hits upon rules that agree with those of his father; he has already set himself up as equal to the chief human authority of his life, an act of rebellious defiance.
Much of the following I have learned and deduced from reading Gary North's explanation of Cornelius Van Til's understanding of the bible's teaching as to the difference between the natural man and the spiritual man. See also the writings of R.J. Rushdoony.
First, natural law is an act of rebellious defiance against the God of the bible. It sets up man as equal to God, like the serpent told Eve in the Garden: that by defying God's command, they would become "as gods, knowing good and evil" for themselves. Genesis 3:5. By the way, just how natural was that law - to not eat of one of the trees of the Garden of Eden? Would we have come to the conclusion that one tree was off limits as food, if God had not specially commanded them not to? Not very natural was it?
Natural law relies on the natural man, who cannot submit to God, to decide how one is to submit to God. "[T]he natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned." I Corinthians 2:14, KJV. Such is the mind of the "natural man" that he not only will not but cannot receive God's law; it is what he hates more than anything, for it convicts him as deserving of hell.
There is no greater condemnation or insult to the man who thinks he is wise enough to determine what the law should be universally not only for himself but for all men. And that is what is at heart so utterly impossible for the natural man to accept - that he is not only wrong in his assessment as to what is real or "natural," but that his great wisdom as to that "reality" is what condemns him. It's a double insult, so to speak. Therefore, in addition to his hard, sinful heart toward God, he is psychologically incapable of admitting that which means he is not wise and that his so-called wisdom means his eternal damnation.
Second, natural law isn't even "natural," as I mentioned above about the law against eating from one of the trees in the Garden of Eden. Here's how unnatural God's law is. Consider the First Commandment. Throughout the history of the world and until Moses, the world invented religions and gods galore, countless in number and so varied in their respective moral and theological systems that they could go to war with one another and claim their gods can beat the other nation's gods.
Then after the Exodus, the God of the Hebrews claimed that He had picked the Hebrews to be His representatives on earth, that His law is the highest law and wiser than any other law.
"Keep therefore and do them; for this is your wisdom and your understanding in the sight of the nations, which shall hear all these statutes, and say, Surely this great nation is a wise and understanding people." Deuteronomy 4:6, KJV.
This God claimed that He had specially revealed Himself to the people and in such a unique way that no other nation could even pretend to imitate that nation. In fact, the key to another nation submitting to that God was by submitting to the Hebrews, as in the case of Jonah's prophesying to Nineveh, a rival nation of pagan beliefs which submitted to Jonah and avoided disastrous judgment by the Hebrews' God.
How natural is all this? First, the very knowledge of this God was given by divine revelation, not naturally occurring reason. Second, this divine revelation was uniquely given to the Hebrews, not any other people. Third, all people were expected to comply with this law, even though they were not given that law specially, as the Hebrews were. Fourth, the Hebrews were forbidden from having any other god; therefore, they were prohibited from forming alliances with other nations by adopting their gods to place on an equal status with Yahweh. In other words, the "natural" wisdom of those other nations was utterly rejected. Fifth, this God demanded capital punishment for anyone claiming a different god. Sixth, the civil government was expected to enforce the law against any other gods being worshipped within the borders of Israel. Lastly, nature, as a source of idolatry, was itself a rival god, something not normative for determining who the true God is or what His requirements are.
The above concepts were considered anything but natural in the ancient world in which the Hebrews lived. In fact, they were an affront to the "natural" order then existing.
Consider the Third Commandment, which promises God's divine punishment for those who take God's name in vain. It's not a natural thing for special punishment to occur because of someone speaking words in a disrespectful way about an invisible deity. Consider the Fourth Commandment, which commands an inefficient use of an entire day once a week based on some "mythical" idea that the world was created in six days of mornings and evenings. The Tenth Commandment tells us to not even desire that which belongs to another. All very unnatural.
Therefore, in addition to the fact that natural law is in principle a rebellious defiance of the God of the bible, it also can't even support the law of God as something natural, reasonable, and deducible by sinful man.
Sunday, November 23, 2014
Saturday, November 22, 2014
Natural Law Cannot be the Answer 1
What is Natural Law? Today, it is often pulled out as representative of the Christian concept of civil government and godly policy. It is anything but that.
First, I should clarify that by the term "natural law," I'm not referring to biological law. Nor am I referring to the philosophical proof that says man can inductively reason that there's a natural law governing us. When I refer to natural law, I'm referring to the judicial concept of determining "the law" from nature.
The following is a simplistic definition from dictionary.com: Natural law equals "a principle or body of laws considered as derived from nature, right reason, or religion and as ethically binding in human society." Dictionary.com, accessed on November 22, 2014 at http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/natural+law. A more complex definition comes from Wikipedia:
"Natural law, or the law of nature (Latin: lex naturalis; ius naturale), is a system of law that is determined by nature, and so is universal.[1] Classically, natural law refers to the use of reason to analyze human nature — both social and personal — and deduce binding rules of moral behavior from it. Natural law is often contrasted with the positive law of a given political community, society, or state.[2] In legal theory, on the other hand, the interpretation of positive law requires some reference to natural law. On this understanding of natural law, natural law can be invoked to criticize judicial decisions about what the law says but not to criticize the best interpretation of the law itself. Some scholars use natural law synonymously with natural justice or natural right (Latin ius naturale),[3] while others distinguish between natural law and natural right.[1]
"Although natural law is often conflated with common law, the two are distinct in that natural law is a view that certain rights or values are inherent in or universally cognizable by virtue of human reason or human nature, while common law is the legal tradition whereby certain rights or values are legally cognizable by virtue of judicial recognition or articulation.[4] Natural law theories have, however, exercised a profound influence on the development of English common law,[5][full citation needed] and have featured greatly in the philosophies of Thomas Aquinas, Francisco Suárez, Richard Hooker, Thomas Hobbes, Hugo Grotius, Samuel von Pufendorf, John Locke, Francis Hutcheson, Jean Jacques Burlamaqui, and Emmerich de Vattel. Because of the intersection between natural law and natural rights, it has been cited as a component in the United States Declaration of Independence and the Constitution of the United States, as well as in the Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen. Declarationism states that the founding of the United States is based on Natural law.
"Natural Law and consent of the governed (John Locke) are the Foundation of the American Declaration of Independence, Constitution and Bill of Rights. (See "Laws of Nature" First Paragraph Declaration of Independence [6]) Consent of the Governed, derived from the John Locke's Natural Law Social Contract, replaced the Old World Governance Doctrine of the Divine Right of Kings (Thomas Hobbes)."
Wikipedia, accessed on November 22, 2014 at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_law.
In spite of all the language in these definitions that might be attractive to support a Christian worldview, words like "universally cognizable," "religious," "natural justice," and "natural right," a very pertinent question should immediately arise. If we have a law in the bible, given to us directly from God through Moses, inerrant, eternal, and ideal in comparison to all human-derived law, whether natural or otherwise, why do we need a law "universally cognizable by virtue of human reason or human nature." A correlative question is "universally cognizable" according to whom? According to those who contend that Marxism is the natural state of affairs, those that claim that same sex marriage is natural and normal, those that claim anarchy is the natural state of mankind? Which is it? Or choose a fourth alternative, a tenth, a hundredth! How many variations of opinion can there be as to what is "universally cognizable?"
If natural law, the law of the Creator for the world He made, is "universally cognizable," why did the God of the Hebrews, asserted to be the Creator, state that "after the doings of the land of Egypt, wherein ye dwelt, shall ye not do: and after the doings of the land of Canaan, whither I bring you, shall ye not do: neither shall ye walk in their ordinances?" Leviticus 18:3, KJV. Why did the land of Egypt not cognize natural law? Why did Canaan walk in different ordinances from that of natural law? Would we have been able to tell the Canaanites: "Say, your laws are not natural; you should follow natural law." Would they have said, "Oh, we have not cognized the correct law based on nature. We will gladly change our ordinances." I have my doubts. In fact, why would the Israelites themselves need a law from God as dictated to Moses? Wasn't it natural and "universally cognizable" to them already?
Natural law has the benefit of the semblance of universality and permanence; however, the question would well depend on who is determining what it is from day to day. Just do a google search some time of the words natural law, and you will find every form of flakiness and philosophically bizarre ideas you'll ever encounter.
Natural law is a compromise between Christians and unbelievers. The Christian says, "Okay, we understand you're not a believer in our religious book, but surely you believe in something more permanent than personal opinion. Can't we agree to work out laws that we both agree are based on a universal moral law, not based solely on personal opinion, something that's fair?" Over the centuries, here's where we've arrived. The unbeliever: "Remember that agreement we made centuries ago. Well, we don't believe in keeping those types of things, and we never really agreed with this idea of universal law anyway. So, here's what's natural: Same sex marriage, killing babies in the womb and selling their parts, and the obliteration of the artificially created free market system of economics. Oh and by the way, don't even think of bringing up that biblical law idea as an alternative, you tyrant who wants to force theocracy on everyone!"
And this result is what we deserve. In ancient Israel, what caused the loss of their society to the pagans? Compromise with paganism. God is a jealous God, and he doesn't share His glory with anyone. That includes natural law. If He had wanted us to figure it out using our reason and based on nature, then why would He give us a revealed law, explicit, specific, and written down for us by inspired prophets?
First, I should clarify that by the term "natural law," I'm not referring to biological law. Nor am I referring to the philosophical proof that says man can inductively reason that there's a natural law governing us. When I refer to natural law, I'm referring to the judicial concept of determining "the law" from nature.
The following is a simplistic definition from dictionary.com: Natural law equals "a principle or body of laws considered as derived from nature, right reason, or religion and as ethically binding in human society." Dictionary.com, accessed on November 22, 2014 at http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/natural+law. A more complex definition comes from Wikipedia:
"Natural law, or the law of nature (Latin: lex naturalis; ius naturale), is a system of law that is determined by nature, and so is universal.[1] Classically, natural law refers to the use of reason to analyze human nature — both social and personal — and deduce binding rules of moral behavior from it. Natural law is often contrasted with the positive law of a given political community, society, or state.[2] In legal theory, on the other hand, the interpretation of positive law requires some reference to natural law. On this understanding of natural law, natural law can be invoked to criticize judicial decisions about what the law says but not to criticize the best interpretation of the law itself. Some scholars use natural law synonymously with natural justice or natural right (Latin ius naturale),[3] while others distinguish between natural law and natural right.[1]
"Although natural law is often conflated with common law, the two are distinct in that natural law is a view that certain rights or values are inherent in or universally cognizable by virtue of human reason or human nature, while common law is the legal tradition whereby certain rights or values are legally cognizable by virtue of judicial recognition or articulation.[4] Natural law theories have, however, exercised a profound influence on the development of English common law,[5][full citation needed] and have featured greatly in the philosophies of Thomas Aquinas, Francisco Suárez, Richard Hooker, Thomas Hobbes, Hugo Grotius, Samuel von Pufendorf, John Locke, Francis Hutcheson, Jean Jacques Burlamaqui, and Emmerich de Vattel. Because of the intersection between natural law and natural rights, it has been cited as a component in the United States Declaration of Independence and the Constitution of the United States, as well as in the Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen. Declarationism states that the founding of the United States is based on Natural law.
"Natural Law and consent of the governed (John Locke) are the Foundation of the American Declaration of Independence, Constitution and Bill of Rights. (See "Laws of Nature" First Paragraph Declaration of Independence [6]) Consent of the Governed, derived from the John Locke's Natural Law Social Contract, replaced the Old World Governance Doctrine of the Divine Right of Kings (Thomas Hobbes)."
Wikipedia, accessed on November 22, 2014 at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_law.
In spite of all the language in these definitions that might be attractive to support a Christian worldview, words like "universally cognizable," "religious," "natural justice," and "natural right," a very pertinent question should immediately arise. If we have a law in the bible, given to us directly from God through Moses, inerrant, eternal, and ideal in comparison to all human-derived law, whether natural or otherwise, why do we need a law "universally cognizable by virtue of human reason or human nature." A correlative question is "universally cognizable" according to whom? According to those who contend that Marxism is the natural state of affairs, those that claim that same sex marriage is natural and normal, those that claim anarchy is the natural state of mankind? Which is it? Or choose a fourth alternative, a tenth, a hundredth! How many variations of opinion can there be as to what is "universally cognizable?"
If natural law, the law of the Creator for the world He made, is "universally cognizable," why did the God of the Hebrews, asserted to be the Creator, state that "after the doings of the land of Egypt, wherein ye dwelt, shall ye not do: and after the doings of the land of Canaan, whither I bring you, shall ye not do: neither shall ye walk in their ordinances?" Leviticus 18:3, KJV. Why did the land of Egypt not cognize natural law? Why did Canaan walk in different ordinances from that of natural law? Would we have been able to tell the Canaanites: "Say, your laws are not natural; you should follow natural law." Would they have said, "Oh, we have not cognized the correct law based on nature. We will gladly change our ordinances." I have my doubts. In fact, why would the Israelites themselves need a law from God as dictated to Moses? Wasn't it natural and "universally cognizable" to them already?
Natural law has the benefit of the semblance of universality and permanence; however, the question would well depend on who is determining what it is from day to day. Just do a google search some time of the words natural law, and you will find every form of flakiness and philosophically bizarre ideas you'll ever encounter.
Natural law is a compromise between Christians and unbelievers. The Christian says, "Okay, we understand you're not a believer in our religious book, but surely you believe in something more permanent than personal opinion. Can't we agree to work out laws that we both agree are based on a universal moral law, not based solely on personal opinion, something that's fair?" Over the centuries, here's where we've arrived. The unbeliever: "Remember that agreement we made centuries ago. Well, we don't believe in keeping those types of things, and we never really agreed with this idea of universal law anyway. So, here's what's natural: Same sex marriage, killing babies in the womb and selling their parts, and the obliteration of the artificially created free market system of economics. Oh and by the way, don't even think of bringing up that biblical law idea as an alternative, you tyrant who wants to force theocracy on everyone!"
And this result is what we deserve. In ancient Israel, what caused the loss of their society to the pagans? Compromise with paganism. God is a jealous God, and he doesn't share His glory with anyone. That includes natural law. If He had wanted us to figure it out using our reason and based on nature, then why would He give us a revealed law, explicit, specific, and written down for us by inspired prophets?
Sunday, October 19, 2014
Abominations 2
A homosexual counter-argument to the old testament references calling sodomy an abomination is that the old testament also called certain foods abominations (see e.g., Lev. 11:11). But the problem with that counter-argument is contained within itself. Jesus Christ proclaimed all foods clean when he said,
"And he saith unto them, Are ye so without understanding also? Do ye not perceive, that whatsoever thing from without entereth into the man, it cannot defile him; Because it entereth not into his heart, but into the belly, and goeth out into the draught, purging all meats? And he said, That which cometh out of the man, that defileth the man. For from within, out of the heart of men, proceed evil thoughts, adulteries, fornications, murders, Thefts, covetousness, wickedness, deceit, lasciviousness, an evil eye, blasphemy, pride, foolishness: All these evil things come from within, and defile the man."
Mark 7:18-23. See also 15:10-20.
Unlike foods, Jesus did not purge or make clean all sexual practices. The lawgiver has the power to alter what was intended to be a temporary ordinance. However, God's laws on sexual practices are not temporary. Jesus told the woman caught in adultery, an abomination: "Go and sin no more." John 8:11.
So, why were certain foods temporarily unclean or abominations? It demonstrated that there were clean people and unclean people. It divided the Jew from the Gentile. Acts 9. Once Christ came to break down the barriers between Jew and Gentile, Ephesians 3, then those foods no longer represented that barrier.
However, Jesus Christ's virgin birth did not do away with sexual relations; it sanctified the family. But He only sanctified a family as God established - male and female parents. He did not break down the boundary between clean and unclean sex practices or between male and female, with the exception of the basis of salvation. Christ came to restore the creation order, which was that husband and wife would be male and female; He did not come to destroy the creation order, which God saw as very good.
Therefore, God the Creator has set up boundaries for sexual practice for our good and the advance of dominion mandate. The law against homosexual and other perverted sexual practices is still in effect because they involve the natural order created by God, not some symbol for demonstrating a temporary condition.
Only that which is permanent is law, at least, the law of God. That which is temporary or varying cannot be law. In the New Testament, Jesus teaches us the difference. The moral, even which is simply spoken out of your mouth defiles the man, but the food you eat, which is ejected as waste, cannot. See Matthew 15:10-20.
"Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye pay tithe of mint and anise and cummin, and have omitted the weightier matters of the law, judgment, mercy, and faith: these ought ye to have done, and not to leave the other undone.
Ye blind guides, which strain at a gnat, and swallow a camel. Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye make clean the outside of the cup and of the platter, but within they are full of extortion and excess." Matthew 23:23-5. Ceremonial matters that have been fulfilled, for example the sacrifices of the Old Testament fulfilled by Christ’s sacrifice, are not permanent. But faithfulness, mercy, temperance, love, etc. – these remain.
Therefore, the laws of Moses which deal with those things last forever. “For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled. Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.” Matthew 5:18-19.
"And he saith unto them, Are ye so without understanding also? Do ye not perceive, that whatsoever thing from without entereth into the man, it cannot defile him; Because it entereth not into his heart, but into the belly, and goeth out into the draught, purging all meats? And he said, That which cometh out of the man, that defileth the man. For from within, out of the heart of men, proceed evil thoughts, adulteries, fornications, murders, Thefts, covetousness, wickedness, deceit, lasciviousness, an evil eye, blasphemy, pride, foolishness: All these evil things come from within, and defile the man."
Mark 7:18-23. See also 15:10-20.
Unlike foods, Jesus did not purge or make clean all sexual practices. The lawgiver has the power to alter what was intended to be a temporary ordinance. However, God's laws on sexual practices are not temporary. Jesus told the woman caught in adultery, an abomination: "Go and sin no more." John 8:11.
So, why were certain foods temporarily unclean or abominations? It demonstrated that there were clean people and unclean people. It divided the Jew from the Gentile. Acts 9. Once Christ came to break down the barriers between Jew and Gentile, Ephesians 3, then those foods no longer represented that barrier.
However, Jesus Christ's virgin birth did not do away with sexual relations; it sanctified the family. But He only sanctified a family as God established - male and female parents. He did not break down the boundary between clean and unclean sex practices or between male and female, with the exception of the basis of salvation. Christ came to restore the creation order, which was that husband and wife would be male and female; He did not come to destroy the creation order, which God saw as very good.
Therefore, God the Creator has set up boundaries for sexual practice for our good and the advance of dominion mandate. The law against homosexual and other perverted sexual practices is still in effect because they involve the natural order created by God, not some symbol for demonstrating a temporary condition.
Only that which is permanent is law, at least, the law of God. That which is temporary or varying cannot be law. In the New Testament, Jesus teaches us the difference. The moral, even which is simply spoken out of your mouth defiles the man, but the food you eat, which is ejected as waste, cannot. See Matthew 15:10-20.
"Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye pay tithe of mint and anise and cummin, and have omitted the weightier matters of the law, judgment, mercy, and faith: these ought ye to have done, and not to leave the other undone.
Ye blind guides, which strain at a gnat, and swallow a camel. Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye make clean the outside of the cup and of the platter, but within they are full of extortion and excess." Matthew 23:23-5. Ceremonial matters that have been fulfilled, for example the sacrifices of the Old Testament fulfilled by Christ’s sacrifice, are not permanent. But faithfulness, mercy, temperance, love, etc. – these remain.
Therefore, the laws of Moses which deal with those things last forever. “For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled. Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.” Matthew 5:18-19.
Thursday, October 16, 2014
Why America has a Problem of Judicial Tyranny 4
Even England, before the Constitution, had a check on the highest court:
"The judges in England are under the control of the legislature, for they are bound to determine according to the laws passed under them. But the judges under this constitution will control the legislature, for the supreme court are authorised in the last resort, to determine what is the extent of the powers of the Congress. They are to give the constitution an explanation, and there is no power above them to set aside their judgment. The framers of this constitution appear to have followed that of the British, in rendering the judges independent, by granting them their offices during good behavior, without following the constitution of England, in instituting a tribunal in which their errors may be corrected; and without adverting to this, that the judicial under this system have a power which is above the legislative, and which indeed transcends any power before given to a judicial by any free government under heaven."
Brutus, "The Federalist Papers," Anti-Federalist Paper 78-79, Part one is taken from the first part of the “Brutus’s” 15th essay of The New-York Journal on March 20, 1788; Part two is part one of his 16th of the New York Journal of April 10, 1788, accessed at http://www.thefederalistpapers.org/antifederalist-paper-78-79, Oct. 12, 2014.
So, one of the solutions to the problem of judicial tyranny in this country is to agree that the U.S. Supreme Court shall not be the final word. It needs a "tribunal in which their errors may be corrected." Better yet, let's agree that the vote of one Supreme Court Justice (in a close case where the Justices know it will be a 5-4 vote, one Justice can decide the law for the entire United States) shall not be the final word for the entire country.
Mark Levin, in his book, "The Liberty Amendments," proposes the following amendment to the U.S. Constitution to prevent a tyrannical Supreme Court:
"SECTION 1: No person may serve as Chief Justice or Associate Justice of the Supreme Court for more than a combined total of twelve years.
"SECTION 2: Immediately upon ratification of this Amendment, Congress will organize the justices of the Supreme Court as equally as possible into three classes, with the justices assigned to each class in reverse seniority order, with the most senior justices in the earliest classes. The terms of office for the justices in the First Class will expire at the end of the fourth Year following the ratification of this Amendment, the terms for the justices of the Second Class will expire at the end of the eighth Year, and of the Third Class at the end of the twelfth Year, so that one-third of the justices may be chosen every fourth Year.
"SECTION 3: When a vacancy occurs in the Supreme Court, the President shall nominate a new justice who, with the approval of a majority of the Senate, shall serve the remainder of the unexpired term. Justices who fill a vacancy for longer than half of an unexpired term may not be renominated to a full term.
"SECTION 4: Upon three-fifths vote of the House of Representatives and the Senate, Congress may override a majority opinion rendered by the Supreme Court.
"SECTION 5: The Congressional override under Section 4 is not subject to a Presidential veto and shall not be the subject of litigation or review in any Federal or State court.
"SECTION 6: Upon three-fifths vote of the several state legislatures , the States may override a majority opinion rendered by the Supreme Court. SECTION 7: The States’ override under Section 6 shall not be the subject of litigation or review in any Federal or State court, or oversight or interference by Congress or the President. SECTION 8: Congressional or State override authority under Sections 4 and 6 must be exercised no later than twenty-four months from the date of the Supreme Court rendering its majority opinion, after which date Congress and the States are prohibited from exercising the override."
Levin, Mark R. (2013-08-13). The Liberty Amendments: Restoring the American Republic (pp. 49-50). Threshold Editions. Kindle Edition.
There is also the option of nullification by the states. The states could take back their lawful, constitutional authority and stand against federal court tyranny. The legislatures and governors could issue lawfully decided contradictions to the federal courts as they attempt unconstitutional takeovers of the states and their laws.
There's also the Article V amendment process of the U.S. Constitution. Then there's the long term work of cultural kingdom advancement, which takes generations. The latter may be the path we must take. And we'll see the gospel, like a mustard seed, gradually grow into the largest tree in the garden.
Shall we live with judicial tyranny, or shall we do something about it. The Christian will not let a godless idolization of an institution stop him from fighting for an alternative that preserves the independence of the judiciary without giving it carte blanche power to overrule every other authority.
"The judges in England are under the control of the legislature, for they are bound to determine according to the laws passed under them. But the judges under this constitution will control the legislature, for the supreme court are authorised in the last resort, to determine what is the extent of the powers of the Congress. They are to give the constitution an explanation, and there is no power above them to set aside their judgment. The framers of this constitution appear to have followed that of the British, in rendering the judges independent, by granting them their offices during good behavior, without following the constitution of England, in instituting a tribunal in which their errors may be corrected; and without adverting to this, that the judicial under this system have a power which is above the legislative, and which indeed transcends any power before given to a judicial by any free government under heaven."
Brutus, "The Federalist Papers," Anti-Federalist Paper 78-79, Part one is taken from the first part of the “Brutus’s” 15th essay of The New-York Journal on March 20, 1788; Part two is part one of his 16th of the New York Journal of April 10, 1788, accessed at http://www.thefederalistpapers.org/antifederalist-paper-78-79, Oct. 12, 2014.
So, one of the solutions to the problem of judicial tyranny in this country is to agree that the U.S. Supreme Court shall not be the final word. It needs a "tribunal in which their errors may be corrected." Better yet, let's agree that the vote of one Supreme Court Justice (in a close case where the Justices know it will be a 5-4 vote, one Justice can decide the law for the entire United States) shall not be the final word for the entire country.
Mark Levin, in his book, "The Liberty Amendments," proposes the following amendment to the U.S. Constitution to prevent a tyrannical Supreme Court:
"SECTION 1: No person may serve as Chief Justice or Associate Justice of the Supreme Court for more than a combined total of twelve years.
"SECTION 2: Immediately upon ratification of this Amendment, Congress will organize the justices of the Supreme Court as equally as possible into three classes, with the justices assigned to each class in reverse seniority order, with the most senior justices in the earliest classes. The terms of office for the justices in the First Class will expire at the end of the fourth Year following the ratification of this Amendment, the terms for the justices of the Second Class will expire at the end of the eighth Year, and of the Third Class at the end of the twelfth Year, so that one-third of the justices may be chosen every fourth Year.
"SECTION 3: When a vacancy occurs in the Supreme Court, the President shall nominate a new justice who, with the approval of a majority of the Senate, shall serve the remainder of the unexpired term. Justices who fill a vacancy for longer than half of an unexpired term may not be renominated to a full term.
"SECTION 4: Upon three-fifths vote of the House of Representatives and the Senate, Congress may override a majority opinion rendered by the Supreme Court.
"SECTION 5: The Congressional override under Section 4 is not subject to a Presidential veto and shall not be the subject of litigation or review in any Federal or State court.
"SECTION 6: Upon three-fifths vote of the several state legislatures , the States may override a majority opinion rendered by the Supreme Court. SECTION 7: The States’ override under Section 6 shall not be the subject of litigation or review in any Federal or State court, or oversight or interference by Congress or the President. SECTION 8: Congressional or State override authority under Sections 4 and 6 must be exercised no later than twenty-four months from the date of the Supreme Court rendering its majority opinion, after which date Congress and the States are prohibited from exercising the override."
Levin, Mark R. (2013-08-13). The Liberty Amendments: Restoring the American Republic (pp. 49-50). Threshold Editions. Kindle Edition.
There is also the option of nullification by the states. The states could take back their lawful, constitutional authority and stand against federal court tyranny. The legislatures and governors could issue lawfully decided contradictions to the federal courts as they attempt unconstitutional takeovers of the states and their laws.
There's also the Article V amendment process of the U.S. Constitution. Then there's the long term work of cultural kingdom advancement, which takes generations. The latter may be the path we must take. And we'll see the gospel, like a mustard seed, gradually grow into the largest tree in the garden.
Shall we live with judicial tyranny, or shall we do something about it. The Christian will not let a godless idolization of an institution stop him from fighting for an alternative that preserves the independence of the judiciary without giving it carte blanche power to overrule every other authority.
Sunday, October 12, 2014
What is Law?
The first time the word "law" appears in the bible is in Genesis 47:26: "And Joseph made it a law over the land of Egypt unto this day, that Pharaoh should have the fifth part; except the land of the priests only, which became not Pharaoh's." What is telling about this reference is the longevity of this law. It developed out of a seemingly temporary situation, but it lasted for centuries. Is something changeable a law? Or is law a reflection of the character of God, who is unchangeable?
The next mention of the word is Exodus 12:49: "One law shall be to him that is homeborn, and unto the stranger that sojourneth among you." Not only is law unchangeable, it is applicable equally to all. This is a statement of equality before the law. Law that is different for one person as opposed to another indicates a differentiation of mankind before man, whereas the law of God applies to all human beings alike.
The references to law become quite frequent after that. Exodus 13:9 states: "And it shall be for a sign unto thee upon thine hand, and for a memorial between thine eyes, that the LORD'S law may be in thy mouth: for with a strong hand hath the LORD brought thee out of Egypt." The law of God becomes the defining character of life of those delivered by God from slavery. The law tells how to live, and keeping it in one's heart and mind constantly is an act of gratitude to that God. Therefore, the law of God is a statement - of gratitude by those who obey, but what does it express of those who do not obey?
For those who don't obey, it expresses a failure to care about life itself. Exodus 16:4: "Then said the LORD unto Moses, Behold, I will rain bread from heaven for you; and the people shall go out and gather a certain rate every day, that I may prove them, whether they will walk in my law, or no." God kept the people alive by raining manna from heaven in the wilderness where they would have died without His assistance. He gave them strict instructions on how to live by eating the manna in the manner he indicated. This scripture indicates that issuance of the law provides a test of man by God. Sanctions for those who fail to obey that which determines whether they live or die.
Law is issued by the unchanging God who applies the law equally to all men and who gives it to preserve life. Exodus 24:12: "And the LORD said unto Moses, Come up to me into the mount, and be there: and I will give thee tables of stone, and a law, and commandments which I have written; that thou mayest teach them." Law is given by God. One way we know a law is not of God is because it lacks the above characteristics.
More importantly, does it subtract from the law of God? Does it add to the law of God? If you answer yes to either of those questions, you had better tread carefully. Christ criticized the Pharisees, lawyers, and Scribes of His day were guilty of both, yet they claimed to represent the God who issued the law by Moses. Jesus issued some of His most scathing rebukes and warnings to them for such "adjustments" to God's law.
The idea that every human must consent to the law is humanist, not biblical. If the society denies God’s law, whether from the pew or the pulpit or the US Supreme Court, God will have His due. “You reap what you sow.” He’s really not dependent upon man’s will to ensure His “will be done, on earth as it is in heaven.” Mt. 6. By the way, why would we pray that, if we didn't want God's law to be our law?
If your faith is in the law as conceived by the governed, then you will have to please every single governed. We will get 300 million versions of the 10 commandments, and we will deserve every one of them. Thus, we receive the just judgment of pleasing man – being unable to please man.
Law is not a democratically determined matter. It's determined by God. Contracts, agreed upon between people in such a way as to ignore God, result in the world of the ancients - each society with its own law and own god. This is the world before the Great Flood and of Canaan, societies God wanted to destroy, no, annihilate.
Without a return to biblical law or some other authoritative law system that is not subject to the chaos of human diversity, the society of America is headed in that direction. Law, lacking no direction or eternal foundation or boundaries, will degrade to meet, not the common denominator, but every denominator, and it will not be able to do so without lawlessness becoming the result. What replaces the resulting chaos, wherein no one knows what is legal or illegal from one day to the next, is anyone's guess. But it will be replaced by something that is not democratically determined. And when I say not democratically determined, I mean not changeable at the whim of the latest fad. It will be chosen by people, but it will be because they realize that society cannot continue on the trajectory it is on.
The next mention of the word is Exodus 12:49: "One law shall be to him that is homeborn, and unto the stranger that sojourneth among you." Not only is law unchangeable, it is applicable equally to all. This is a statement of equality before the law. Law that is different for one person as opposed to another indicates a differentiation of mankind before man, whereas the law of God applies to all human beings alike.
The references to law become quite frequent after that. Exodus 13:9 states: "And it shall be for a sign unto thee upon thine hand, and for a memorial between thine eyes, that the LORD'S law may be in thy mouth: for with a strong hand hath the LORD brought thee out of Egypt." The law of God becomes the defining character of life of those delivered by God from slavery. The law tells how to live, and keeping it in one's heart and mind constantly is an act of gratitude to that God. Therefore, the law of God is a statement - of gratitude by those who obey, but what does it express of those who do not obey?
For those who don't obey, it expresses a failure to care about life itself. Exodus 16:4: "Then said the LORD unto Moses, Behold, I will rain bread from heaven for you; and the people shall go out and gather a certain rate every day, that I may prove them, whether they will walk in my law, or no." God kept the people alive by raining manna from heaven in the wilderness where they would have died without His assistance. He gave them strict instructions on how to live by eating the manna in the manner he indicated. This scripture indicates that issuance of the law provides a test of man by God. Sanctions for those who fail to obey that which determines whether they live or die.
Law is issued by the unchanging God who applies the law equally to all men and who gives it to preserve life. Exodus 24:12: "And the LORD said unto Moses, Come up to me into the mount, and be there: and I will give thee tables of stone, and a law, and commandments which I have written; that thou mayest teach them." Law is given by God. One way we know a law is not of God is because it lacks the above characteristics.
More importantly, does it subtract from the law of God? Does it add to the law of God? If you answer yes to either of those questions, you had better tread carefully. Christ criticized the Pharisees, lawyers, and Scribes of His day were guilty of both, yet they claimed to represent the God who issued the law by Moses. Jesus issued some of His most scathing rebukes and warnings to them for such "adjustments" to God's law.
The idea that every human must consent to the law is humanist, not biblical. If the society denies God’s law, whether from the pew or the pulpit or the US Supreme Court, God will have His due. “You reap what you sow.” He’s really not dependent upon man’s will to ensure His “will be done, on earth as it is in heaven.” Mt. 6. By the way, why would we pray that, if we didn't want God's law to be our law?
If your faith is in the law as conceived by the governed, then you will have to please every single governed. We will get 300 million versions of the 10 commandments, and we will deserve every one of them. Thus, we receive the just judgment of pleasing man – being unable to please man.
Law is not a democratically determined matter. It's determined by God. Contracts, agreed upon between people in such a way as to ignore God, result in the world of the ancients - each society with its own law and own god. This is the world before the Great Flood and of Canaan, societies God wanted to destroy, no, annihilate.
Without a return to biblical law or some other authoritative law system that is not subject to the chaos of human diversity, the society of America is headed in that direction. Law, lacking no direction or eternal foundation or boundaries, will degrade to meet, not the common denominator, but every denominator, and it will not be able to do so without lawlessness becoming the result. What replaces the resulting chaos, wherein no one knows what is legal or illegal from one day to the next, is anyone's guess. But it will be replaced by something that is not democratically determined. And when I say not democratically determined, I mean not changeable at the whim of the latest fad. It will be chosen by people, but it will be because they realize that society cannot continue on the trajectory it is on.
The Foolishness of the Creator God
The temptation in the Garden of Eden was not just some silly lesson about not stealing an apple. The temptation to eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil was motivated by an illicit desire to be like God, to take over His sovereign rule over right and wrong, good and evil, for man to determine the relationship with God, the rules of that relationship and of life itself, and, therefore, the nature of God Himself. It was an attack on truth, authority, and the nature of determining reality.
The challenge to God's method of determining good and evil was scientifically motivated, that is, it was Adam and Eve's desire to "test" by experience and decide for themselves what's right and wrong. The tempter's assurance that there were no consequences - "Ye shall not surely die" - was immunity from consequences so they could enjoy and appreciate all experience with no limitations. As with the nature of reality and of good and evil, it was an attack on the truth that there are consequences to disobeying God, both short term and for future generations. Man apparently doesn't want to think that is so.
It was also a personal attack. It denied the goodness, the faithfulness, the honesty of God in His person. It was a choice to believe the serpent and assert God was not trustworthy, a judicial determination that God was a liar. It was a use of the circumstances into which God had placed man for the cynical purpose of the pursuit of power. God allowed Adam and Eve the power to turn on Him. They agreed with the serpent that power is more important than the trustworthiness of God, the ability to trust their Creator, the importance of friendship with the greatest, most loving being of all. It was the denial of their origin, the betrayal of their maker, the undoing of themselves. All for power - "Ye shall be as gods!" They lost all to gain an illusion.
Here's the point at which man is most hardened. A person can be the nicest, most righteous person you've ever met. He could be an expert in theology, having thought through all the implications of human behavior, religious writings, and be able to counsel you on all your problems you've ever faced. But if that person can't say to the God who created him, who sent His Son to die for him: "You are the God I've offended personally, the personal Creator to whom I owe all my life and breath, and the Judge before whom I will personally stand and give account one day," that person doesn't understand who His God is.
No matter how wise that person appears to be, how could that person claim to be a judge of other men in this life? Will they replay the Garden of Eden? Will that judge seek power at the expense of that small thing called truth? That small thing called integrity? That small thing called law? That small thing called the appropriate relationship between the branches, the states and federal government? Or will their agenda overrule your just cause because it just doesn't rank very well with his or her priorities in their agenda? This is what is at stake when choosing a judge? When deciding whether the liberal with an agenda is fit to be a judge.
But they're so wise, so intelligent, you say. I say, "So what." How foolish of God to give us such power! But "the foolishness of God is wiser than men; and the weakness of God is stronger than men." I Corinthians 1:25. It's the simple loyalty to truth and law that is more important even than intelligence. The intelligent can fleece you more effectively than the moron can.
The judge who misuses the judicial system to advance their agenda will be judged by the Judge of all. It's not just some political powerplay that is at stake. Jesus issued some of His most scathing rebukes and warnings to the lawyers of His say for "adjustments" to God's law for the sake of their convenience, power, or wealth accumulation.
The loss of the doctrine of creation to evolution results in the following according to R.J. Rushdoony:
"First of all, man is no longer viewed as created in the image of God. According to scripture, man was created in God's image, and, although fallen, is strictly under God's law. Man cannot be reduced to the level of an animal. The Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath. Man is called to glorify God and to enjoy Him forever, and the world is man's dominion under God. But the evolutionary theory views man as a product of the world rather than a destined lord over it in Christ. Man is seen as having evolved out of the fortuitous concourse of atoms and out of primeval slime. Instead of being set over nature, man is set under nature as a product of it. Man is reduced to the same slavish status as existed during antiquity in ancient Egypt and other states which to an evolutionary model. Man's liberty is a product of Biblical faith; the concept of evolution produces slavery, and it was welcomed by Marx as the necessary foundation for socialism. When man is a product of nature, as he is according to theories of evolution, he is passive in relationship to nature; his being is determined by nature, and his psychology is passive, conditioned, reflex action rather than governing action. When man knows himself to be created by God, and his faith is basic to his thinking, man is a product of God's creative work and is therefore passive in relationship to God but active towards nature. He is determined by God, not by nature, and man is then active towards nature and governs it. Man is thus free from nature, not a slave to it, because man is created and governed by God, not by nature. Man's calling is to exercise dominion under God over nature, to rule it, develop and exploit it, under God and to His glory. Only the regenerate man in Jesus Christ can do this. The fallen man is in captivity to his own nature and to the forces around him. As a result, liberty rapidly declines when Biblical Christianity declines. Where men are not ruled by God, they are ruled by tyrants. And the rise of evolutionary thinking has produced a worldwide rise of totalitarianism. Since man is no longer seen as God's creation, he is becoming a creature of the total state, and the total state is determined to remake man in its own image. In consequence, man is now the primary experimental animal. People are alarmed at the use of animal in scientific experimentation. But the grim reality is that the primary experimental animal is man. Not only the mental health experts, but also virtually every agency of civil government is today engaged in trying to remake man. . . . When men set aside God as Creator, they then set themselves up as man's recreators, as the new gods over an and the universe."
R.J. Rushdoony, "The Mythology of Science," (Ross House Books, Vallecito, CA, 2001), pp. 67-8.
As with science, so with judging. There is no appeal beyond man to God if man was not created by God. Under the evolutionary scheme, it is those who think they are smarter and stronger than all other men who seek to rule over us for their ends, and they will do so without God in their thinking to limit their scheme. Thankfully, the sovereign God rules in the affairs of men and will defend the righteous. See Psalm 82:4.
The challenge to God's method of determining good and evil was scientifically motivated, that is, it was Adam and Eve's desire to "test" by experience and decide for themselves what's right and wrong. The tempter's assurance that there were no consequences - "Ye shall not surely die" - was immunity from consequences so they could enjoy and appreciate all experience with no limitations. As with the nature of reality and of good and evil, it was an attack on the truth that there are consequences to disobeying God, both short term and for future generations. Man apparently doesn't want to think that is so.
It was also a personal attack. It denied the goodness, the faithfulness, the honesty of God in His person. It was a choice to believe the serpent and assert God was not trustworthy, a judicial determination that God was a liar. It was a use of the circumstances into which God had placed man for the cynical purpose of the pursuit of power. God allowed Adam and Eve the power to turn on Him. They agreed with the serpent that power is more important than the trustworthiness of God, the ability to trust their Creator, the importance of friendship with the greatest, most loving being of all. It was the denial of their origin, the betrayal of their maker, the undoing of themselves. All for power - "Ye shall be as gods!" They lost all to gain an illusion.
Here's the point at which man is most hardened. A person can be the nicest, most righteous person you've ever met. He could be an expert in theology, having thought through all the implications of human behavior, religious writings, and be able to counsel you on all your problems you've ever faced. But if that person can't say to the God who created him, who sent His Son to die for him: "You are the God I've offended personally, the personal Creator to whom I owe all my life and breath, and the Judge before whom I will personally stand and give account one day," that person doesn't understand who His God is.
No matter how wise that person appears to be, how could that person claim to be a judge of other men in this life? Will they replay the Garden of Eden? Will that judge seek power at the expense of that small thing called truth? That small thing called integrity? That small thing called law? That small thing called the appropriate relationship between the branches, the states and federal government? Or will their agenda overrule your just cause because it just doesn't rank very well with his or her priorities in their agenda? This is what is at stake when choosing a judge? When deciding whether the liberal with an agenda is fit to be a judge.
But they're so wise, so intelligent, you say. I say, "So what." How foolish of God to give us such power! But "the foolishness of God is wiser than men; and the weakness of God is stronger than men." I Corinthians 1:25. It's the simple loyalty to truth and law that is more important even than intelligence. The intelligent can fleece you more effectively than the moron can.
The judge who misuses the judicial system to advance their agenda will be judged by the Judge of all. It's not just some political powerplay that is at stake. Jesus issued some of His most scathing rebukes and warnings to the lawyers of His say for "adjustments" to God's law for the sake of their convenience, power, or wealth accumulation.
The loss of the doctrine of creation to evolution results in the following according to R.J. Rushdoony:
"First of all, man is no longer viewed as created in the image of God. According to scripture, man was created in God's image, and, although fallen, is strictly under God's law. Man cannot be reduced to the level of an animal. The Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath. Man is called to glorify God and to enjoy Him forever, and the world is man's dominion under God. But the evolutionary theory views man as a product of the world rather than a destined lord over it in Christ. Man is seen as having evolved out of the fortuitous concourse of atoms and out of primeval slime. Instead of being set over nature, man is set under nature as a product of it. Man is reduced to the same slavish status as existed during antiquity in ancient Egypt and other states which to an evolutionary model. Man's liberty is a product of Biblical faith; the concept of evolution produces slavery, and it was welcomed by Marx as the necessary foundation for socialism. When man is a product of nature, as he is according to theories of evolution, he is passive in relationship to nature; his being is determined by nature, and his psychology is passive, conditioned, reflex action rather than governing action. When man knows himself to be created by God, and his faith is basic to his thinking, man is a product of God's creative work and is therefore passive in relationship to God but active towards nature. He is determined by God, not by nature, and man is then active towards nature and governs it. Man is thus free from nature, not a slave to it, because man is created and governed by God, not by nature. Man's calling is to exercise dominion under God over nature, to rule it, develop and exploit it, under God and to His glory. Only the regenerate man in Jesus Christ can do this. The fallen man is in captivity to his own nature and to the forces around him. As a result, liberty rapidly declines when Biblical Christianity declines. Where men are not ruled by God, they are ruled by tyrants. And the rise of evolutionary thinking has produced a worldwide rise of totalitarianism. Since man is no longer seen as God's creation, he is becoming a creature of the total state, and the total state is determined to remake man in its own image. In consequence, man is now the primary experimental animal. People are alarmed at the use of animal in scientific experimentation. But the grim reality is that the primary experimental animal is man. Not only the mental health experts, but also virtually every agency of civil government is today engaged in trying to remake man. . . . When men set aside God as Creator, they then set themselves up as man's recreators, as the new gods over an and the universe."
R.J. Rushdoony, "The Mythology of Science," (Ross House Books, Vallecito, CA, 2001), pp. 67-8.
As with science, so with judging. There is no appeal beyond man to God if man was not created by God. Under the evolutionary scheme, it is those who think they are smarter and stronger than all other men who seek to rule over us for their ends, and they will do so without God in their thinking to limit their scheme. Thankfully, the sovereign God rules in the affairs of men and will defend the righteous. See Psalm 82:4.
Covenant Structure in Judging I
The Creator God works by covenant. He even makes a covenant with creation. "And I, behold, I establish my covenant with you, and with your seed after you; And with every living creature that is with you, of the fowl, of the cattle, and of every beast of the earth with you; from all that go out of the ark, to every beast of the earth." Gen.9:9-10, KJV. He makes covenants with persons. Gen. 15:18.
The covenant permeates all of life because the Creator has impressed upon all creation His glory and something of His character. He does not thereby become identified with His Creation in any way other than as Creator. In other words, He is still separate from His creation even when His fingerprints are all over it, as is His presence - immanence. Our God is not a pantheist being, identified with the creation.
Here's a basic outline of a covenant as developed by Ray Sutton and Gary North, based on some of the scholarship of Meredith G. Kline:
1. Transcendence/immanence
2. Authority/hierarchy
3. Ethics/dominion
4. Judgment/sanctions
5. Inheritance/continuity
Gary North, "The Dominion Covenant: An Economic Commentary on the Bible, Vol. 1," (Institute for Christian Economics: Tyler, Texas, 1987) p. ix.
The first two elements of a covenant are prominent in the concept of a judge sitting to decide disputes between persons and entities. The judge has authority to command people to comply with a judgment. In other words, the judge not only uses the law, 3rd element, in deciding controversies but also commands the losing party to part with something that party owned. But for the fact that the judge has that authority - inherently - as a judge, the judge would be violating that party's rights of ownership. Such a hierarchical position of command surely meets the criteria for the 2nd element - the authority to which men must answer.
However, the 1st comes into play also. The parties are humans, created in the image of God; therefore, how can another human order one party to part with property, freedom, or even life itself? If we were living in a worldview of multiple gods, like the ancient Greeks and Romans, then we might posit a form of dispute resolution by combat. Why? Because the Roman and Greek entities on Mount Olympus were all gods, technically equal in substance to each other but unable to agree with each other, and that's what these gods did - proved who was entitled to something by warring against each other, with the more powerful taking the spoils, particularly the authority from then on.
Thus, the cultural influence of the Greeks' and Romans' religions of plural gods does not logically lead to the concept of impartial justice for all based on the law. And it raises the question as to how they could have developed a legal system based on equal justice. It also raises the question whether the prevailing view of the source of the American judicial system could have been those systems, as is popularly promoted and taught to children in the state schools.
That conceptual problem, dispute resolution by warfare, would explain Pilate's decision to ceremonially wash his hands of the deed of ordering the execution of Christ. Clearly, the washing of hands by judicial authorities, which is the position in which Pilate was acting when he sentenced Jesus Christ, was already established within the Roman Empire's legal system. What was he washing away? His violation of the concept of equal justice before the law. He ordered an innocent man executed, contrary to law, based not on guilt or innocence but on the popular demand of the crowd and fear that word would get to the Roman Emperor, who might have Pilate's power withdrawn for not suppressing a potential rival - the King of Israel. John 19:12-16.
To sum up what I'm positing: The act of Pilate in condemning Jesus to death was not an individual aberration by a rogue, cowardly authority; the concept of protecting those in power, at the expense of equal justice, was built into the Roman legal and judicial system, as evidenced by the option of washing his hands of the matter. Matthew 27:24. And just as the gods could fight it out with no law, other than that of power (and trickery), governing their actions, so did Rome see its political and judicial power to trump law, if that power was threatened.
The survival of its power was Rome's highest principle, not equal justice before the law. This conclusion is logical seeing their gods held to the same principle. Jesus Christ, the Son of David, and Christ's ancestor King David, held to a different view - that God "putteth down one, and setteth up another." Psalm 75:7, KJV. King David was willing to lose the kingship when Absalom raised a rebellion against the King, but he knew he'd be restored as king "if I shall find favour in the eyes of the LORD." II Samuel 15:25, KJV. Jesus Christ, the Son of God Himself, also respected that authority of God, to the point that He allowed Himself to be executed, knowing that the just God would not leave Him under that unjust sentence but would raise Him up, even from the dead. They were not passive, they were active in their faith that God Almighty held the keys to power.
In this contrast between the ancient Roman system and the attitude of the Israelite authorities, we see the 1st element displayed. Rome was its own source of power, obtained by warfare and wielded for practical purposes to keep "the peace" and to ensure the survival of the Romans' power. If there was any transcendence to their judicial system, it was a negative one, influenced by the lawless, power-hungry beings they had posited as their gods. Whether they believed in these gods or not is irrelevant; they reflected Rome's view of itself and provided a backdrop of justification for Rome's use of power.
The biblical view of the Israelites was that God, being the Creator and transcendent above all men, deserved the sovereign right to determine who has authority or not and how that authority should be exercised. Thus, the God of the bible told Moses that even strangers, foreigners who were not necessarily believers in Israel's God and not part of the covenant with Abraham, were to receive the same justice as Israelites under the law of Moses. Exodus 12:49.
Therefore, transcendence is determined by the core principles of your society, and the biblical society acknowledges the God of the bible as the source of all law, all authority. Any other concept of the source of authority and justice leads to a diminishing of the principle of equal justice, and it typically promotes power - for preservation of the state - at the expense of justice. The transcendence of the God of the bible justifies the authority of a judge to take away what belongs to another human being and subjects the judge to accountability before God. A humanistic system, even if it upholds equal justice, cannot keep human judges accountable because the only source of appeal or impeachment is another human authority.
In the drawing up of the U.S. Constitution, the concept of power for power's sake was used by the Federalists and pro-Constitutionalists to justify violating their charter at the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia in 1787. Anti-Federalists, like Patrick Henry, "smelt a rat in Philadelphia." The Convention delegates were authorized only to revise the Article of Confederation, not create a whole new governing document. However, they justified their action by appealing to the principle of the self-preservation of the state. See Blackstone's Commentaries on the Laws of England, which also posits such a view of power at the expense of lawful authority. So the Federalists used the threat that the Articles of Confederation would not allow for the young country's survival. The Federalists used this possibility to justify going beyond their charter, which was to only amend the Articles.
This transcendence of the God of the bible also leads logically to the 2nd and 3rd elements of a judicial system - the authority of a judge to sit in judgment over other human beings and the proper law to use in such judging, which would logically be the law of that same God who placed the judge in his position over other men.
The covenant permeates all of life because the Creator has impressed upon all creation His glory and something of His character. He does not thereby become identified with His Creation in any way other than as Creator. In other words, He is still separate from His creation even when His fingerprints are all over it, as is His presence - immanence. Our God is not a pantheist being, identified with the creation.
Here's a basic outline of a covenant as developed by Ray Sutton and Gary North, based on some of the scholarship of Meredith G. Kline:
1. Transcendence/immanence
2. Authority/hierarchy
3. Ethics/dominion
4. Judgment/sanctions
5. Inheritance/continuity
Gary North, "The Dominion Covenant: An Economic Commentary on the Bible, Vol. 1," (Institute for Christian Economics: Tyler, Texas, 1987) p. ix.
The first two elements of a covenant are prominent in the concept of a judge sitting to decide disputes between persons and entities. The judge has authority to command people to comply with a judgment. In other words, the judge not only uses the law, 3rd element, in deciding controversies but also commands the losing party to part with something that party owned. But for the fact that the judge has that authority - inherently - as a judge, the judge would be violating that party's rights of ownership. Such a hierarchical position of command surely meets the criteria for the 2nd element - the authority to which men must answer.
However, the 1st comes into play also. The parties are humans, created in the image of God; therefore, how can another human order one party to part with property, freedom, or even life itself? If we were living in a worldview of multiple gods, like the ancient Greeks and Romans, then we might posit a form of dispute resolution by combat. Why? Because the Roman and Greek entities on Mount Olympus were all gods, technically equal in substance to each other but unable to agree with each other, and that's what these gods did - proved who was entitled to something by warring against each other, with the more powerful taking the spoils, particularly the authority from then on.
Thus, the cultural influence of the Greeks' and Romans' religions of plural gods does not logically lead to the concept of impartial justice for all based on the law. And it raises the question as to how they could have developed a legal system based on equal justice. It also raises the question whether the prevailing view of the source of the American judicial system could have been those systems, as is popularly promoted and taught to children in the state schools.
That conceptual problem, dispute resolution by warfare, would explain Pilate's decision to ceremonially wash his hands of the deed of ordering the execution of Christ. Clearly, the washing of hands by judicial authorities, which is the position in which Pilate was acting when he sentenced Jesus Christ, was already established within the Roman Empire's legal system. What was he washing away? His violation of the concept of equal justice before the law. He ordered an innocent man executed, contrary to law, based not on guilt or innocence but on the popular demand of the crowd and fear that word would get to the Roman Emperor, who might have Pilate's power withdrawn for not suppressing a potential rival - the King of Israel. John 19:12-16.
To sum up what I'm positing: The act of Pilate in condemning Jesus to death was not an individual aberration by a rogue, cowardly authority; the concept of protecting those in power, at the expense of equal justice, was built into the Roman legal and judicial system, as evidenced by the option of washing his hands of the matter. Matthew 27:24. And just as the gods could fight it out with no law, other than that of power (and trickery), governing their actions, so did Rome see its political and judicial power to trump law, if that power was threatened.
The survival of its power was Rome's highest principle, not equal justice before the law. This conclusion is logical seeing their gods held to the same principle. Jesus Christ, the Son of David, and Christ's ancestor King David, held to a different view - that God "putteth down one, and setteth up another." Psalm 75:7, KJV. King David was willing to lose the kingship when Absalom raised a rebellion against the King, but he knew he'd be restored as king "if I shall find favour in the eyes of the LORD." II Samuel 15:25, KJV. Jesus Christ, the Son of God Himself, also respected that authority of God, to the point that He allowed Himself to be executed, knowing that the just God would not leave Him under that unjust sentence but would raise Him up, even from the dead. They were not passive, they were active in their faith that God Almighty held the keys to power.
In this contrast between the ancient Roman system and the attitude of the Israelite authorities, we see the 1st element displayed. Rome was its own source of power, obtained by warfare and wielded for practical purposes to keep "the peace" and to ensure the survival of the Romans' power. If there was any transcendence to their judicial system, it was a negative one, influenced by the lawless, power-hungry beings they had posited as their gods. Whether they believed in these gods or not is irrelevant; they reflected Rome's view of itself and provided a backdrop of justification for Rome's use of power.
The biblical view of the Israelites was that God, being the Creator and transcendent above all men, deserved the sovereign right to determine who has authority or not and how that authority should be exercised. Thus, the God of the bible told Moses that even strangers, foreigners who were not necessarily believers in Israel's God and not part of the covenant with Abraham, were to receive the same justice as Israelites under the law of Moses. Exodus 12:49.
Therefore, transcendence is determined by the core principles of your society, and the biblical society acknowledges the God of the bible as the source of all law, all authority. Any other concept of the source of authority and justice leads to a diminishing of the principle of equal justice, and it typically promotes power - for preservation of the state - at the expense of justice. The transcendence of the God of the bible justifies the authority of a judge to take away what belongs to another human being and subjects the judge to accountability before God. A humanistic system, even if it upholds equal justice, cannot keep human judges accountable because the only source of appeal or impeachment is another human authority.
In the drawing up of the U.S. Constitution, the concept of power for power's sake was used by the Federalists and pro-Constitutionalists to justify violating their charter at the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia in 1787. Anti-Federalists, like Patrick Henry, "smelt a rat in Philadelphia." The Convention delegates were authorized only to revise the Article of Confederation, not create a whole new governing document. However, they justified their action by appealing to the principle of the self-preservation of the state. See Blackstone's Commentaries on the Laws of England, which also posits such a view of power at the expense of lawful authority. So the Federalists used the threat that the Articles of Confederation would not allow for the young country's survival. The Federalists used this possibility to justify going beyond their charter, which was to only amend the Articles.
This transcendence of the God of the bible also leads logically to the 2nd and 3rd elements of a judicial system - the authority of a judge to sit in judgment over other human beings and the proper law to use in such judging, which would logically be the law of that same God who placed the judge in his position over other men.
Saturday, October 11, 2014
Abominations 1
Strong's Exhaustive Concordance says that "Abomination" means "a disgusting thing, abomination, abominable in ritual sense (of unclean food, idols, mixed marriages), in ethical sense (of wickedness etc)." The first two times that the word "abomination" is used in the bible are as follows: 1) The Egyptians considers shepherds an abomination, and 2) Lev 18:22, "Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination." It's repeated in Leviticus 20:13, but a sanction is added: "If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them."
God's judgment comes for and through abominations. Romans 1:18-32 states: "For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness; because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them. For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse: Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened. Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools, And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and four-footed beasts, and creeping things. Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves: Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen. For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature: And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet. And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient; Being filled with all unrighteousness, fornication, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, debate, deceit, malignity; whisperers, Backbiters, haters of God, despiteful, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents, Without understanding, covenant breakers, without natural affection, implacable, unmerciful: Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them."
Religious practices can be abominations. "Ye shall therefore keep my statutes and my judgments, and shall not commit any of these abominations; neither any of your own nation, nor any stranger that sojourneth among you: (For all these abominations have the men of the land done, which were before you, and the land is defiled;) That the land spue not you out also, when ye defile it, as it spued out the nations that were before you. For whosoever shall commit any of these abominations, even the souls that commit them shall be cut off from among their people. Therefore shall ye keep mine ordinance, that ye commit not any one of these abominable customs, which were committed before you, and that ye defile not yourselves therein: I am the LORD your God." Leviticus 18:26-30.
Sacred relics and physical idols are abominations. "The graven images of their gods shall ye burn with fire: thou shalt not desire the silver or gold that is on them, nor take it unto thee, lest thou be snared therein: for it is an abomination to the LORD thy God." Deuteronomy 7:25. Worshipping other gods who are not the God of the bible is an abomination. Deuteronomy 13:12-15. Sacrificing an animal with a blemish is an abomination. Deuteronomy 17:1. Passing a wife back and forth from one husband to an ex-husband is an abomination. Deuteronomy 24:4.
Certain immoral practices are abominations. "These six things doth the LORD hate: yea, seven are an abomination unto him: A proud look, a lying tongue, and hands that shed innocent blood, An heart that deviseth wicked imaginations, feet that be swift in running to mischief, A false witness that speaketh lies, and he that soweth discord among brethren." Proverbs 6:16-19.
Fraudulent business practices are an abomination. "Divers weights, and divers measures, both of them are alike abomination to the LORD." Proverbs 20:10.
Particularly important for this blog is the fact that reversing justice in the judicial system is an abomination. "He that justifieth the wicked, and he that condemneth the just, even they both are abomination to the LORD." Proverbs 17:15. These actions are complimentary; whenever the court does not protect the righteous by condemning the wicked, it inevitably justifies the wicked. There's no neutrality. When the courts justify homosexual marriage, it condemns those who support God's basis for marriage - heterosexuality. The more the courts justify the wicked, the more the just are condemned.
So do we hate what God hates? Or do we accept what God hates and thereby hate Him? What is the consequence of hating God? Do not think the consequence will be minor, for men commit abominations while "knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death." Romans 1:32.
What about food? Certain foods are condemned as abominations. Leviticus 11. We'll discuss the relevance of that in the next blog on this topic.
God's judgment comes for and through abominations. Romans 1:18-32 states: "For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness; because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them. For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse: Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened. Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools, And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and four-footed beasts, and creeping things. Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves: Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen. For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature: And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet. And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient; Being filled with all unrighteousness, fornication, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, debate, deceit, malignity; whisperers, Backbiters, haters of God, despiteful, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents, Without understanding, covenant breakers, without natural affection, implacable, unmerciful: Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them."
Religious practices can be abominations. "Ye shall therefore keep my statutes and my judgments, and shall not commit any of these abominations; neither any of your own nation, nor any stranger that sojourneth among you: (For all these abominations have the men of the land done, which were before you, and the land is defiled;) That the land spue not you out also, when ye defile it, as it spued out the nations that were before you. For whosoever shall commit any of these abominations, even the souls that commit them shall be cut off from among their people. Therefore shall ye keep mine ordinance, that ye commit not any one of these abominable customs, which were committed before you, and that ye defile not yourselves therein: I am the LORD your God." Leviticus 18:26-30.
Sacred relics and physical idols are abominations. "The graven images of their gods shall ye burn with fire: thou shalt not desire the silver or gold that is on them, nor take it unto thee, lest thou be snared therein: for it is an abomination to the LORD thy God." Deuteronomy 7:25. Worshipping other gods who are not the God of the bible is an abomination. Deuteronomy 13:12-15. Sacrificing an animal with a blemish is an abomination. Deuteronomy 17:1. Passing a wife back and forth from one husband to an ex-husband is an abomination. Deuteronomy 24:4.
Certain immoral practices are abominations. "These six things doth the LORD hate: yea, seven are an abomination unto him: A proud look, a lying tongue, and hands that shed innocent blood, An heart that deviseth wicked imaginations, feet that be swift in running to mischief, A false witness that speaketh lies, and he that soweth discord among brethren." Proverbs 6:16-19.
Fraudulent business practices are an abomination. "Divers weights, and divers measures, both of them are alike abomination to the LORD." Proverbs 20:10.
Particularly important for this blog is the fact that reversing justice in the judicial system is an abomination. "He that justifieth the wicked, and he that condemneth the just, even they both are abomination to the LORD." Proverbs 17:15. These actions are complimentary; whenever the court does not protect the righteous by condemning the wicked, it inevitably justifies the wicked. There's no neutrality. When the courts justify homosexual marriage, it condemns those who support God's basis for marriage - heterosexuality. The more the courts justify the wicked, the more the just are condemned.
So do we hate what God hates? Or do we accept what God hates and thereby hate Him? What is the consequence of hating God? Do not think the consequence will be minor, for men commit abominations while "knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death." Romans 1:32.
What about food? Certain foods are condemned as abominations. Leviticus 11. We'll discuss the relevance of that in the next blog on this topic.
Sunday, August 24, 2014
Why America has a Problem of Judicial Tyranny 3
Historically and spiritually, there's a good reason we must face the issue of judicial tyranny. Our world has faced and decided the issues of royal tyranny and parliamentary tyranny in the sixteen and seventeen hundreds in the West. In the 1600's, the English parliament executed a king and put another out of office for going beyond his legal powers. In the 1700's, the American colonies successfully defied the English Parliament which had taken over the sovereign power of the king and become tyrannical in its treatment of the colonies. The sifting out and determination of proper legal roles of different aspects of civil government seems to have followed on the heels of the sifting of the Church and its government during the Reformation. At the same time, the proper roles of Church and State remain unresolved. Also, the proper roles of competing civil governments - national versus local, branches of government like legislative and judicial - are also unresolved. However, with respect to the executive (king) and the legislative (parliament), more has been accomplished, as far as limiting their powers, than what has been accomplished with respect to the judiciary. Interestingly, the judicial branch began as a branch that limited itself and has lately begun to breach the limits it placed upon itself. Can it be trusted to police itself? It is proving that it is not.
Why is that? There's a spiritual answer. Like any idol that competes for the absolute rule that belongs to the one true God only, any institution that becomes divinized will be brought down. God is a jealous God. To apply an attribute of God that is incommunicable, that is, not something He can give to any created being, to any human or human institution is to divinize that human or institution. As mentioned in the first post about America having a problem with judicial tyranny, putting trust in something devised by humans on a par with the trust accorded to God alone is a form of divinization. Nothing can be trusted on the same level as God. The judiciary, however, is unique in that its members are compared in the bible to gods.
"God standeth in the congregation of the mighty; he judgeth among the gods. How long will ye judge unjustly, and accept the persons of the wicked? Selah. Defend the poor and fatherless: do justice to the afflicted and needy. Deliver the poor and needy: rid them out of the hand of the wicked. They know not, neither will they understand; they walk on in darkness: all the foundations of the earth are out of course. I have said, Ye are gods; and all of you are children of the most High. But ye shall die like men, and fall like one of the princes. Arise, O God, judge the earth: for thou shalt inherit all nations." Psalm 82:1-8.
So judging is compared to the act of a god. Even Jesus acknowledges it and uses Psalm 82 to demonstrate that His claim to divinity is not as strange as his critics should think. John 10:34-6. Judges, who must decide life and death issues and act as if they were God punishing the wicked, are delegated such authority by the living God. That does not mean God delegates all of His authority of judging to them. Such absolute power cannot be delegated, or God would not be God; the creator would no longer be distinct from the created. Then all would be god because all could be god.
So what is the limit on the authority of human judges? As legitimate a question as it is, the legal profession is not asking this question because its members cannot conceive of a situation where there would not be chaos, uncertainty, or worse, if judges' orders could be ignored. But we must answer this question, or we face something much worse than chaos and uncertainty. We face the judgment of the jealous God who will stand for nothing and no one coming before Him or even being equated with Him. See "Idols for Destruction" by Herbert Schlossberg. See also Daniel 2 ("And in the days of these kings shall the God of heaven set up a kingdom, which shall never be destroyed: and the kingdom shall not be left to other people, but it shall break in pieces and consume all these kingdoms, and it shall stand for ever. Forasmuch as thou sawest that the stone was cut out of the mountain without hands, and that it brake in pieces the iron, the brass, the clay, the silver, and the gold; the great God hath made known to the king what shall come to pass hereafter: and the dream is certain, and the interpretation thereof sure.").
The next post on this topic will attempt an answer to the questions: What limits are there on the judiciary? And what can other authorities and citizens do about a judge or court that goes beyond its power?
Why is that? There's a spiritual answer. Like any idol that competes for the absolute rule that belongs to the one true God only, any institution that becomes divinized will be brought down. God is a jealous God. To apply an attribute of God that is incommunicable, that is, not something He can give to any created being, to any human or human institution is to divinize that human or institution. As mentioned in the first post about America having a problem with judicial tyranny, putting trust in something devised by humans on a par with the trust accorded to God alone is a form of divinization. Nothing can be trusted on the same level as God. The judiciary, however, is unique in that its members are compared in the bible to gods.
"God standeth in the congregation of the mighty; he judgeth among the gods. How long will ye judge unjustly, and accept the persons of the wicked? Selah. Defend the poor and fatherless: do justice to the afflicted and needy. Deliver the poor and needy: rid them out of the hand of the wicked. They know not, neither will they understand; they walk on in darkness: all the foundations of the earth are out of course. I have said, Ye are gods; and all of you are children of the most High. But ye shall die like men, and fall like one of the princes. Arise, O God, judge the earth: for thou shalt inherit all nations." Psalm 82:1-8.
So judging is compared to the act of a god. Even Jesus acknowledges it and uses Psalm 82 to demonstrate that His claim to divinity is not as strange as his critics should think. John 10:34-6. Judges, who must decide life and death issues and act as if they were God punishing the wicked, are delegated such authority by the living God. That does not mean God delegates all of His authority of judging to them. Such absolute power cannot be delegated, or God would not be God; the creator would no longer be distinct from the created. Then all would be god because all could be god.
So what is the limit on the authority of human judges? As legitimate a question as it is, the legal profession is not asking this question because its members cannot conceive of a situation where there would not be chaos, uncertainty, or worse, if judges' orders could be ignored. But we must answer this question, or we face something much worse than chaos and uncertainty. We face the judgment of the jealous God who will stand for nothing and no one coming before Him or even being equated with Him. See "Idols for Destruction" by Herbert Schlossberg. See also Daniel 2 ("And in the days of these kings shall the God of heaven set up a kingdom, which shall never be destroyed: and the kingdom shall not be left to other people, but it shall break in pieces and consume all these kingdoms, and it shall stand for ever. Forasmuch as thou sawest that the stone was cut out of the mountain without hands, and that it brake in pieces the iron, the brass, the clay, the silver, and the gold; the great God hath made known to the king what shall come to pass hereafter: and the dream is certain, and the interpretation thereof sure.").
The next post on this topic will attempt an answer to the questions: What limits are there on the judiciary? And what can other authorities and citizens do about a judge or court that goes beyond its power?
Sunday, April 27, 2014
Oaths 3
So, later in history, where do we find some good examples of good oaths to which civil leaders should swear?
Magistrates serving in Pennsylvania had to take this oath: "And I, A.B., profess faith in God the Father and in Jesus Christ his eternal son, the true God, and in the Holy Spirit, one God blessed for evermore; and do acknowledge the Holy Scriptures of the Old and New Testament to be given by divine inspiration." By the way, Pennsylvania was founded by Quakers, like William Penn, who typically reject the concept of the Trinity. One of the qualifications for voting in Carolina was profession of the Christian religion.
The 1776 Pennsylvania Constitution required representatives to swear to the following: "And each member, before he takes his seat, shall make and subscribe the following declaration, viz:
"I do believe in one God, the creator and governor of the universe, the rewarder of the good and the punisher of the wicked. And I do acknowledge the Scriptures of the Old and New Testament to be given by Divine inspiration.
"And no further or other religious test shall ever hereafter be required of any civil officer or magistrate in this State."
In New Jersey, religious liberty had to be upheld, and every civil magistrate was required by law to affirm this upon oath to Jesus Christ. Fundamental Constitution for the Province of East New Jersey" (1683). In that same document was stated: "Nor by this article [the religious liberty article] is it intended that any under the notion of liberty shall allow themselves to avow atheism, irreligiousness, or to practice cursing, swearing, drunkenness, profaneness, whoring, adultery, murdering, or any kind of violence, or indulging themselves in stage plays, masks, revels, or such like abuses; ..." This governing document of early New Jersey had the most extraneous requirements in addition to upholding religious liberty.
1701 Delaware Charter: "that all Persons who also profess to believe in Jesus Christ, the Saviour of the World, shall be capable (notwithstanding their other Persuasions and Practices in Point of Conscience and Religion) to serve this Government in any Capacity, both legislatively and executively, he or they solemnly promising, when lawfully required, Allegiance to the King as Sovereign, and Fidelity to the Proprietary and Governor, and taking the Attests as now established by the Law made at Newcastle, in the Year One Thousand and Seven Hundred, entitled, An Act directing the Attests of several Officers and Ministers, as now amended and confirmed this present Assembly."
1776 Delaware Constitution: "ART. 22. Every person who shall be chosen a member of either house, or appointed to any office or place of trust, before taking his seat, or entering upon the execution of his office, shall take the following oath, or affirmation, if conscientiously scrupulous of taking an oath, to wit:
"***
"I, A B. do profess faith in God the Father, and in Jesus Christ His only Son, and in the Holy Ghost, one God, blessed for evermore; and I do acknowledge the holy scriptures of the Old and New Testament to be given by divine inspiration."
1776 Constitution of Maryland: "XXXV. That no other test or qualification ought to be required, on admission to any office of trust or profit, than such oath of support and fidelity to this State, and such oath of office, as shall be directed by this Convention or the Legislature of this State, and a declaration of a belief in the Christian religion."
1776 North Carolina Constitution: "XXXII.(5) That no person, who shall deny the being of God or the truth of the Protestant religion, or the divine authority either of the Old or New Testaments, or who shall hold religious principles incompatible with the freedom and safety of the State, shall be capable of holding any office or place of trust or profit in the civil department within this State."
1777 Vermont Constitution: "And each member, before he takes his seat, shall make and subscribe the following declaration, viz.
"I ____ do believe in one God, the Creator and Governor of the Universe, the rewarder of the good and punisher of the wicked. And I do acknowledge the scriptures of the old and new testament to be given by divine inspiration, and own and profess the protestant religion.
"And no further or other religious test shall ever, hereafter, be required of any civil officer or magistrate in this State."
That oath was repeated in the 1786 Vermont Constitution.
Magistrates serving in Pennsylvania had to take this oath: "And I, A.B., profess faith in God the Father and in Jesus Christ his eternal son, the true God, and in the Holy Spirit, one God blessed for evermore; and do acknowledge the Holy Scriptures of the Old and New Testament to be given by divine inspiration." By the way, Pennsylvania was founded by Quakers, like William Penn, who typically reject the concept of the Trinity. One of the qualifications for voting in Carolina was profession of the Christian religion.
The 1776 Pennsylvania Constitution required representatives to swear to the following: "And each member, before he takes his seat, shall make and subscribe the following declaration, viz:
"I do believe in one God, the creator and governor of the universe, the rewarder of the good and the punisher of the wicked. And I do acknowledge the Scriptures of the Old and New Testament to be given by Divine inspiration.
"And no further or other religious test shall ever hereafter be required of any civil officer or magistrate in this State."
In New Jersey, religious liberty had to be upheld, and every civil magistrate was required by law to affirm this upon oath to Jesus Christ. Fundamental Constitution for the Province of East New Jersey" (1683). In that same document was stated: "Nor by this article [the religious liberty article] is it intended that any under the notion of liberty shall allow themselves to avow atheism, irreligiousness, or to practice cursing, swearing, drunkenness, profaneness, whoring, adultery, murdering, or any kind of violence, or indulging themselves in stage plays, masks, revels, or such like abuses; ..." This governing document of early New Jersey had the most extraneous requirements in addition to upholding religious liberty.
1701 Delaware Charter: "that all Persons who also profess to believe in Jesus Christ, the Saviour of the World, shall be capable (notwithstanding their other Persuasions and Practices in Point of Conscience and Religion) to serve this Government in any Capacity, both legislatively and executively, he or they solemnly promising, when lawfully required, Allegiance to the King as Sovereign, and Fidelity to the Proprietary and Governor, and taking the Attests as now established by the Law made at Newcastle, in the Year One Thousand and Seven Hundred, entitled, An Act directing the Attests of several Officers and Ministers, as now amended and confirmed this present Assembly."
1776 Delaware Constitution: "ART. 22. Every person who shall be chosen a member of either house, or appointed to any office or place of trust, before taking his seat, or entering upon the execution of his office, shall take the following oath, or affirmation, if conscientiously scrupulous of taking an oath, to wit:
"***
"I, A B. do profess faith in God the Father, and in Jesus Christ His only Son, and in the Holy Ghost, one God, blessed for evermore; and I do acknowledge the holy scriptures of the Old and New Testament to be given by divine inspiration."
1776 Constitution of Maryland: "XXXV. That no other test or qualification ought to be required, on admission to any office of trust or profit, than such oath of support and fidelity to this State, and such oath of office, as shall be directed by this Convention or the Legislature of this State, and a declaration of a belief in the Christian religion."
1776 North Carolina Constitution: "XXXII.(5) That no person, who shall deny the being of God or the truth of the Protestant religion, or the divine authority either of the Old or New Testaments, or who shall hold religious principles incompatible with the freedom and safety of the State, shall be capable of holding any office or place of trust or profit in the civil department within this State."
1777 Vermont Constitution: "And each member, before he takes his seat, shall make and subscribe the following declaration, viz.
"I ____ do believe in one God, the Creator and Governor of the Universe, the rewarder of the good and punisher of the wicked. And I do acknowledge the scriptures of the old and new testament to be given by divine inspiration, and own and profess the protestant religion.
"And no further or other religious test shall ever, hereafter, be required of any civil officer or magistrate in this State."
That oath was repeated in the 1786 Vermont Constitution.
Monday, March 10, 2014
The Process of Takeover 2
But you do have to explain or give some reason for the takeover that makes it appear that there is no takeover. The The Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution is one of the means. It states:
"No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation."
Pretty straight forward, isn’t it? The law should be fair to everyone. So where are all these rights to marriage that same-gender people say they have a constitutional right to? It’s not that simple. It’s all based on one small clause in that amendment: that no person shall “be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.” How is not having the right to marry someone of the same gender a deprivation of life, liberty, or property without due process of law?
Due process is what a legislature goes through to enact a law. Typically, it goes to both houses of the legislature for voting, then it goes to the chief executive, the governor of a state or the president of the U.S., then it becomes law. If it’s a criminal law, you’re supposed to be able to properly, adequately, and legally defend yourself when charged with a crime. All that is “procedural due process.” So, what if the legislature enacts a law that says children can’t stay with their natural parents, then what happens? The courts would have to enact the law, and even with procedural due process, the state could take away your children. Thus, procedural due process would not protect you from a substantially evil law. Surely that can’t be right. But the courts can’t just use their personal opinion to overrule a duly enacted law. The courts have to respect the legislature to some extent. So where do you draw the line?
In American, some laws violate the rights “implicit in the concept of ordered liberty.” For example, the Bill of Rights delineates such, like not having soldiers quartered in your house or not having the police barge into your personal space without a warrant. But prohibiting the taking of your children away from you for no reason other than that the civil government wants to do so is not in the Bill of Rights. Other laws, like restrictions on the political process (e.g. the rights of voting, association, and free speech); and the rights of “discrete and insular minorities” get strict scrutiny. Then, if not stated explicitly in the Constitution, the U.S. Supreme Court usually looks first to see if there is a fundamental right, by examining if the right can be found deeply rooted in American history and traditions.
Here’s how it works. You have to become a protected class. Otherwise the proponent of the change in the law has to prove there’s “no rational basis” for the law, which is a very large hurdle to overcome. But if the law affects a fundamental right or your group that’s affected is classified as a protected group, like a racial or ethnic group, then a court applies “strict scrutiny” instead of “rational basis” scrutiny in analyzing the law. In that case, the burden is on the law-maker, typically a state, which has to prove that it had a compelling state interest in creating the boundary, in violating a fundamental right. Also, the court asks whether the law in question is narrowly tailored to address the state interest.
All laws discriminate. You can’t go here, you can’t join this, you’re not entitled to this benefit, on and on. It is only those laws that deny a fundamental right that are questionable. So, when did same-gender people get the fundamental right to marry each other? It’s not in the U.S. Constitution. It’s not deeply rooted in American history and traditions. There is no basis for it, and the Supreme Court's DOMA decision, stating essentially that the federal government had no rational basis for limiting marriage to a man and a woman, stated no basis either.
No actual, legally defensible basis, something the highest court in the land is supposed to do when it strikes down a law enacted pursuant to the U.S. Constitution, Article VI (in part): "This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; shall be the supreme Law of the Land." Notice that clause says nothing about the U.S. Supreme Court striking down a law. Which should carry more weight? A law passed by over 400 congressmen and signed by the President of the U.S. in accordance with the Constitution's requirements? Or a court's five-member majority's personal opinions?
"No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation."
Pretty straight forward, isn’t it? The law should be fair to everyone. So where are all these rights to marriage that same-gender people say they have a constitutional right to? It’s not that simple. It’s all based on one small clause in that amendment: that no person shall “be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.” How is not having the right to marry someone of the same gender a deprivation of life, liberty, or property without due process of law?
Due process is what a legislature goes through to enact a law. Typically, it goes to both houses of the legislature for voting, then it goes to the chief executive, the governor of a state or the president of the U.S., then it becomes law. If it’s a criminal law, you’re supposed to be able to properly, adequately, and legally defend yourself when charged with a crime. All that is “procedural due process.” So, what if the legislature enacts a law that says children can’t stay with their natural parents, then what happens? The courts would have to enact the law, and even with procedural due process, the state could take away your children. Thus, procedural due process would not protect you from a substantially evil law. Surely that can’t be right. But the courts can’t just use their personal opinion to overrule a duly enacted law. The courts have to respect the legislature to some extent. So where do you draw the line?
In American, some laws violate the rights “implicit in the concept of ordered liberty.” For example, the Bill of Rights delineates such, like not having soldiers quartered in your house or not having the police barge into your personal space without a warrant. But prohibiting the taking of your children away from you for no reason other than that the civil government wants to do so is not in the Bill of Rights. Other laws, like restrictions on the political process (e.g. the rights of voting, association, and free speech); and the rights of “discrete and insular minorities” get strict scrutiny. Then, if not stated explicitly in the Constitution, the U.S. Supreme Court usually looks first to see if there is a fundamental right, by examining if the right can be found deeply rooted in American history and traditions.
Here’s how it works. You have to become a protected class. Otherwise the proponent of the change in the law has to prove there’s “no rational basis” for the law, which is a very large hurdle to overcome. But if the law affects a fundamental right or your group that’s affected is classified as a protected group, like a racial or ethnic group, then a court applies “strict scrutiny” instead of “rational basis” scrutiny in analyzing the law. In that case, the burden is on the law-maker, typically a state, which has to prove that it had a compelling state interest in creating the boundary, in violating a fundamental right. Also, the court asks whether the law in question is narrowly tailored to address the state interest.
All laws discriminate. You can’t go here, you can’t join this, you’re not entitled to this benefit, on and on. It is only those laws that deny a fundamental right that are questionable. So, when did same-gender people get the fundamental right to marry each other? It’s not in the U.S. Constitution. It’s not deeply rooted in American history and traditions. There is no basis for it, and the Supreme Court's DOMA decision, stating essentially that the federal government had no rational basis for limiting marriage to a man and a woman, stated no basis either.
No actual, legally defensible basis, something the highest court in the land is supposed to do when it strikes down a law enacted pursuant to the U.S. Constitution, Article VI (in part): "This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; shall be the supreme Law of the Land." Notice that clause says nothing about the U.S. Supreme Court striking down a law. Which should carry more weight? A law passed by over 400 congressmen and signed by the President of the U.S. in accordance with the Constitution's requirements? Or a court's five-member majority's personal opinions?
Sunday, March 2, 2014
The Process of Takeover
Once you as a judge become unmoored from the Constitution, the Bible, and any law, you enter into a brave, new world of plasticity that draws from the judge all his creative juices for treating human beings and society itself as malleable mush in your ever-loving and creative hands. Never mind that you're not called as a judge to do that to people and society; it's just way too tempting to play god.
As you read a little bit of the writings of the founders, that is what you see - fear of man and his ability to oppress, even if from the best of motives. They sought to hold down the power of the central government with the "chains of the Constitution." George Washington said it well in his Farewell Address.
"However combinations or associations of the above description may now and then answer popular ends, they are likely, in the course of time and things, to become potent engines, by which cunning, ambitious, and unprincipled men will be enabled to subvert the power of the people and to usurp for themselves the reins of government, destroying afterwards the very engines which have lifted them to unjust dominion.
"Towards the preservation of your government, and the permanency of your present happy state, it is requisite, not only that you steadily discountenance irregular oppositions to its acknowledged authority, but also that you resist with care the spirit of innovation upon its principles, however specious the pretexts. One method of assault may be to effect, in the forms of the Constitution, alterations which will impair the energy of the system, and thus to undermine what cannot be directly overthrown."
Government Printing Office website, http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/GPO-CDOC-106sdoc21/pdf/GPO-CDOC-106sdoc21.pdf, accessed on March 2, 2014.
You may have never thought about how unique the American founders were. In the history of man, revolutionaries have taken over governments or wrested portions of a nation from the central power, as we wrested from Great Britain the colonies that later became the states. However, normally the wresters of power have proclaimed themselves the saviors of the people and thereby gone about setting up a new dictatorship resting on better, as they say, foundations and motives. Interestingly, the founders did not take that tack. They said no one should be trusted with too much power, including themselves. This is the beauty of the U.S. Constitution, and what the power-seekers constantly try to undermine.
Therefore, we the people must "resist with care the spirit of innovation upon its principles, however specious the pretexts."
As you read a little bit of the writings of the founders, that is what you see - fear of man and his ability to oppress, even if from the best of motives. They sought to hold down the power of the central government with the "chains of the Constitution." George Washington said it well in his Farewell Address.
"However combinations or associations of the above description may now and then answer popular ends, they are likely, in the course of time and things, to become potent engines, by which cunning, ambitious, and unprincipled men will be enabled to subvert the power of the people and to usurp for themselves the reins of government, destroying afterwards the very engines which have lifted them to unjust dominion.
"Towards the preservation of your government, and the permanency of your present happy state, it is requisite, not only that you steadily discountenance irregular oppositions to its acknowledged authority, but also that you resist with care the spirit of innovation upon its principles, however specious the pretexts. One method of assault may be to effect, in the forms of the Constitution, alterations which will impair the energy of the system, and thus to undermine what cannot be directly overthrown."
Government Printing Office website, http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/GPO-CDOC-106sdoc21/pdf/GPO-CDOC-106sdoc21.pdf, accessed on March 2, 2014.
You may have never thought about how unique the American founders were. In the history of man, revolutionaries have taken over governments or wrested portions of a nation from the central power, as we wrested from Great Britain the colonies that later became the states. However, normally the wresters of power have proclaimed themselves the saviors of the people and thereby gone about setting up a new dictatorship resting on better, as they say, foundations and motives. Interestingly, the founders did not take that tack. They said no one should be trusted with too much power, including themselves. This is the beauty of the U.S. Constitution, and what the power-seekers constantly try to undermine.
Therefore, we the people must "resist with care the spirit of innovation upon its principles, however specious the pretexts."
Saturday, March 1, 2014
Why America has a Problem of Judicial Tyranny 2
How is judicial tyranny manifested? When the judge acts as a legislator. The liberals contend this is how judges should act. Truly, they are not wanting judges to act as judges behind the bench; they are advocating for judges who exceed their power and act as legislators. They are advocating lawlessness. The judge who acts as a legislator violates his oath and seeks to wield power over all three branches as a legislator and judge. It is not a legitimate option. There is only one type of legitimate judge in American jurisprudence, one who believes in a conservative judicial philosophy. And the Originalist Judge is the only one whose opinion on the law and Constitution can be an honest attempt to apply that foundational document to our legal controversies in the courts.
It is not overturning the law, when a people or their representatives in a state join in a convention to amend the U.S. Constitution or their own state constitution; it is a lawful method of altering such documents as stated in Article V of the U.S. Constitution and the amendment provisions of most state constitutions. Whereas the action of a judge, who is supposed to review individual cases pursuant to the law and legal rules but who instead alters, re-interprets, and overturns the law, using only the status as a judge instead of the law itself to do so, is a violation of their oath to uphold and defend the Constitution.
And that is exactly what has happened in the marriage debate in this country, at least in the legal machinations that have occurred thus far. In more than one state, the people or their representatives have spoken by lawful, constitutional means as to the definition of marriage as being between a man and a woman, or their legislatures have spoken by laws passed in a lawful process. Yet, judges, with no law backing their decisions, have called those laws unconstitutional. Attorney generals, governors, and other chief executives of political jurisdictions, even before such decisions were announced, have refused to execute the laws they are sworn by oath to uphold. These are the ones who act lawlessly and violate their oath.
Recently, the U.S. Supreme Court effectively ruled that that there is "no rational basis" for defining marriage as being between a man and a woman? No rational basis! In fact, there is no lawful basis for the decision in U.S. v. Windsor (the DOMA case), which is one of the most lawless impositions/perversions of the law by five persons' personal opinions in the history of this country.
As long as the liberals' view of judges is perceived as just another political alternative, instead of a travesty of justice and a mangling of the constitution as our foundation, then legislators, disguised as judges in black robes, will continue to wreak havoc upon our body politic.
Most recently on this front, the U.S. Supreme Court has refused to review the decision of several Circuit Courts of Appeal which overturned state's laws on this issue. They didn't need to, for the Appellate Courts followed the cue of the DOMA case from the summer of 2013. They fulfill the prediction of the Anti-Federalist Brutus, who in 1788 stated:
"There is no authority that can remove them, and they cannot be controlled by the laws of the legislature. In short, they are independent of the people, of the legislature, and of every power under heaven. Men placed in this situation will generally soon feel themselves independent of heaven itself."
Brutus, Anti-Federalist Papers 78-79, Part one is taken from the first part of the “Brutus’s” 15th essay of The New-York Journal on March 20, 1788; Part two is part one of his 16th of the New York Journal of April 10, 1788, accessed at "The Federalist Papers," http://www.thefederalistpapers.org/antifederalist-paper-78-79, Oct. 12, 2014.
It is not overturning the law, when a people or their representatives in a state join in a convention to amend the U.S. Constitution or their own state constitution; it is a lawful method of altering such documents as stated in Article V of the U.S. Constitution and the amendment provisions of most state constitutions. Whereas the action of a judge, who is supposed to review individual cases pursuant to the law and legal rules but who instead alters, re-interprets, and overturns the law, using only the status as a judge instead of the law itself to do so, is a violation of their oath to uphold and defend the Constitution.
And that is exactly what has happened in the marriage debate in this country, at least in the legal machinations that have occurred thus far. In more than one state, the people or their representatives have spoken by lawful, constitutional means as to the definition of marriage as being between a man and a woman, or their legislatures have spoken by laws passed in a lawful process. Yet, judges, with no law backing their decisions, have called those laws unconstitutional. Attorney generals, governors, and other chief executives of political jurisdictions, even before such decisions were announced, have refused to execute the laws they are sworn by oath to uphold. These are the ones who act lawlessly and violate their oath.
Recently, the U.S. Supreme Court effectively ruled that that there is "no rational basis" for defining marriage as being between a man and a woman? No rational basis! In fact, there is no lawful basis for the decision in U.S. v. Windsor (the DOMA case), which is one of the most lawless impositions/perversions of the law by five persons' personal opinions in the history of this country.
As long as the liberals' view of judges is perceived as just another political alternative, instead of a travesty of justice and a mangling of the constitution as our foundation, then legislators, disguised as judges in black robes, will continue to wreak havoc upon our body politic.
Most recently on this front, the U.S. Supreme Court has refused to review the decision of several Circuit Courts of Appeal which overturned state's laws on this issue. They didn't need to, for the Appellate Courts followed the cue of the DOMA case from the summer of 2013. They fulfill the prediction of the Anti-Federalist Brutus, who in 1788 stated:
"There is no authority that can remove them, and they cannot be controlled by the laws of the legislature. In short, they are independent of the people, of the legislature, and of every power under heaven. Men placed in this situation will generally soon feel themselves independent of heaven itself."
Brutus, Anti-Federalist Papers 78-79, Part one is taken from the first part of the “Brutus’s” 15th essay of The New-York Journal on March 20, 1788; Part two is part one of his 16th of the New York Journal of April 10, 1788, accessed at "The Federalist Papers," http://www.thefederalistpapers.org/antifederalist-paper-78-79, Oct. 12, 2014.
Friday, February 21, 2014
Oaths 2
Oaths, lack of respect for them, and failure to understand their importance point toward our country's problems and perhaps their solution. But first, who is the sovereign of this United States? I don't mean in the absolute biblical sense; that's clearly God. I mean in the publicly acknowledged by the people sense and as evidenced by our founding documents.
First question: Does God care? If He rules the world and if He cares about the world that He created, then yes is the obvious answer. He cares about the type of government you erect over your society. He showed that when He lead the Israelites out of Egypt and went about assisting Moses in setting up . . . what? Laws. Judges. Governing processes. He saves individuals from sin and death, and He saves societies from slavery and wandering in the wilderness. He cares about your civil government and its founding documents.
Second question: But you'll argue, "I believe, and my church believes, what does it matter what anyone else believes or does in the civil government or, as you say, what is written in the documents publicly acknowledging their covenant status?" You hit on it right there and answered it in your very question. The public or official or covenant or legally binding governing documents are the evidence of a people's faith. Just as taking an oath in court doesn't mean you will, in fact, tell the truth, but it is evidence that you're more likely to tell the truth if you can imagine God (the God of the bible more particularly) Himself watching and judging your words.
Our ancestors, or at least their elected representatives, voted to ratify the U.S. Constitution, the key founding document. It is evidence of their faith. The document doesn't make them a certain status before God or create some relationship of favor between God and the people ratifying. It is evidence of something. It shows how they thought, how they related to God in His status as Governor of the universe.
So back to the original question of this post, that dealing with the first element of a covenantal relationship. Who is the sovereign of the United States, as evidenced by the founding, covenantal documents? First some history. The following are words from some earlier founding documents, those of Plymouth, Massachusetts and the Puritan establishment in Connecticut.
"IN THE NAME OF GOD, AMEN. We, whose names are underwritten, the Loyal Subjects of our dread Sovereign Lord King James, by the Grace of God, of Great Britain, France, and Ireland, King, Defender of the Faith, &c. Having undertaken for the Glory of God, and Advancement of the Christian Faith, and the Honour of our King and Country, a Voyage to plant the first Colony in the northern Parts of Virginia; Do by these Presents, solemnly and mutually, in the Presence of God and one another, covenant and combine ourselves together into a civil Body Politick, for our better Ordering and Preservation, and Furtherance of the Ends aforesaid: And by Virtue hereof do enact, constitute, and frame, such just and equal Laws, Ordinances, Acts, Constitutions, and Officers, from time to time, as shall be thought most meet and convenient for the general Good of the Colony; unto which we promise all due Submission and Obedience. IN WITNESS whereof we have hereunto subscribed our names at Cape-Cod the eleventh of November, in the Reign of our Sovereign Lord King James, of England, France, and Ireland, the eighteenth, and of Scotland the fifty-fourth, Anno Domini; 1620." Mayflower Compact, from Yale Law School's the Avalon Project, http://avalon.law.yale.edu/17th_century/mayflower.asp, accessed on 19 Feb 2014.
Is there any question in your mind as to who is the sovereign of those pilgrims who were setting up a colony on the shores of Massachusetts? To summarize, they acknowledge they are subject to King James, but the document is suffused also with the acknowledgement of God. By the grace of God, they undertook their voyage for His glory and for the advancement of the Christian faith. they submit to a human government for their better ordering and preservation, and they intend to enact laws intended for the general good of the colony. Respecting the purity of their allegiance to God as their sovereign, the most you can criticize is that they asserted the sharing of sovereignty between the king (James) and the King of kings.
"For as much as it hath pleased Almighty God by the wise disposition of his divine providence so to order and dispose of things that we the Inhabitants and Residents of Windsor, Hartford and Wethersfield are now cohabiting and dwelling in and upon the River of Connectecotte and the lands thereunto adjoining; and well knowing where a people are gathered together the word of God requires that to maintain the peace and union of such a people there should be an orderly and decent Government established according to God, to order and dispose of the affairs of the people at all seasons as occasion shall require; do therefore associate and conjoin ourselves to be as one Public State or Commonwealth; and do for ourselves and our successors and such as shall be adjoined to us at any time hereafter, enter into Combination and Confederation together, to maintain and preserve the liberty and purity of the Gospel of our Lord Jesus which we now profess, as also, the discipline of the Churches, which according to the truth of the said Gospel is now practiced amongst us; as also in our civil affairs to be guided and governed according to such Laws, Rules, Orders and Decrees as shall be made, ordered, and decreed as followeth:
"It is Ordered, sentenced, and decreed, that there shall be yearly two General Assemblies or Courts, the one the second Thursday in April, the other the second Thursday in September following; the first shall be called the Court of Election, wherein shall be yearly chosen from time to time, so many Magistrates and other public Officers as shall be found requisite: Whereof one to be chosen Governor for the year ensuing and until another be chosen, and no other Magistrate to be chosen for more than one year: provided always there be six chosen besides the Governor, which being chosen and sworn according to an Oath recorded for that purpose, shall have the power to administer justice according to the Laws here established, and for want thereof, according to the Rule of the Word of God; . . . ." Fundamental Orders of Connecticut, January 14, 1639, from American History, http://www.let.rug.nl/usa/documents/1600-1650/the-fundamental-orders-of-connecticut-1639.php, accessed 19 Feb., 2014.
The above is only the beginning of a lengthy governing document, but it tells you alot about the belief of the people of Connecticut about the sovereign and His relationship to their governance of their colony. Notice that Almighty God in providence ordered things there. He's also the historical prologue to the entire enterprise. The goal is the prosperity, success and continuation of the project: "to maintain and preserve the liberty and purity of the Gospel of our Lord Jesus which we now profess, as also, the discipline of the Churches, which according to the truth of the said Gospel is now practiced amongst us; as also in our civil affairs to be guided and governed according to such Laws, Rules, Orders and Decrees as shall be made, ordered, and decreed as followeth: . . ." What kind of men should rule according to this document? - "chosen and sworn according to an Oath recorded for that purpose, shall have the power to administer justice according to the Laws here established, and for want thereof, according to the Rule of the Word of God; . . . ." You'll be hard pressed to find a more thoroughly biblical/Christian statement in a founding governing document.
Notice the type of men shall serve. The charter states: "provided always there be six chosen besides the Governor, which being chosen and sworn according to an Oath recorded for that purpose, shall have the power to administer justice according to the Laws here established, and for want thereof, according to the Rule of the Word of God; . . . ."
What kind of oath should such men adhere to that would evidence a faith in the God of the bible and the wise application of His law?
First question: Does God care? If He rules the world and if He cares about the world that He created, then yes is the obvious answer. He cares about the type of government you erect over your society. He showed that when He lead the Israelites out of Egypt and went about assisting Moses in setting up . . . what? Laws. Judges. Governing processes. He saves individuals from sin and death, and He saves societies from slavery and wandering in the wilderness. He cares about your civil government and its founding documents.
Second question: But you'll argue, "I believe, and my church believes, what does it matter what anyone else believes or does in the civil government or, as you say, what is written in the documents publicly acknowledging their covenant status?" You hit on it right there and answered it in your very question. The public or official or covenant or legally binding governing documents are the evidence of a people's faith. Just as taking an oath in court doesn't mean you will, in fact, tell the truth, but it is evidence that you're more likely to tell the truth if you can imagine God (the God of the bible more particularly) Himself watching and judging your words.
Our ancestors, or at least their elected representatives, voted to ratify the U.S. Constitution, the key founding document. It is evidence of their faith. The document doesn't make them a certain status before God or create some relationship of favor between God and the people ratifying. It is evidence of something. It shows how they thought, how they related to God in His status as Governor of the universe.
So back to the original question of this post, that dealing with the first element of a covenantal relationship. Who is the sovereign of the United States, as evidenced by the founding, covenantal documents? First some history. The following are words from some earlier founding documents, those of Plymouth, Massachusetts and the Puritan establishment in Connecticut.
"IN THE NAME OF GOD, AMEN. We, whose names are underwritten, the Loyal Subjects of our dread Sovereign Lord King James, by the Grace of God, of Great Britain, France, and Ireland, King, Defender of the Faith, &c. Having undertaken for the Glory of God, and Advancement of the Christian Faith, and the Honour of our King and Country, a Voyage to plant the first Colony in the northern Parts of Virginia; Do by these Presents, solemnly and mutually, in the Presence of God and one another, covenant and combine ourselves together into a civil Body Politick, for our better Ordering and Preservation, and Furtherance of the Ends aforesaid: And by Virtue hereof do enact, constitute, and frame, such just and equal Laws, Ordinances, Acts, Constitutions, and Officers, from time to time, as shall be thought most meet and convenient for the general Good of the Colony; unto which we promise all due Submission and Obedience. IN WITNESS whereof we have hereunto subscribed our names at Cape-Cod the eleventh of November, in the Reign of our Sovereign Lord King James, of England, France, and Ireland, the eighteenth, and of Scotland the fifty-fourth, Anno Domini; 1620." Mayflower Compact, from Yale Law School's the Avalon Project, http://avalon.law.yale.edu/17th_century/mayflower.asp, accessed on 19 Feb 2014.
Is there any question in your mind as to who is the sovereign of those pilgrims who were setting up a colony on the shores of Massachusetts? To summarize, they acknowledge they are subject to King James, but the document is suffused also with the acknowledgement of God. By the grace of God, they undertook their voyage for His glory and for the advancement of the Christian faith. they submit to a human government for their better ordering and preservation, and they intend to enact laws intended for the general good of the colony. Respecting the purity of their allegiance to God as their sovereign, the most you can criticize is that they asserted the sharing of sovereignty between the king (James) and the King of kings.
"For as much as it hath pleased Almighty God by the wise disposition of his divine providence so to order and dispose of things that we the Inhabitants and Residents of Windsor, Hartford and Wethersfield are now cohabiting and dwelling in and upon the River of Connectecotte and the lands thereunto adjoining; and well knowing where a people are gathered together the word of God requires that to maintain the peace and union of such a people there should be an orderly and decent Government established according to God, to order and dispose of the affairs of the people at all seasons as occasion shall require; do therefore associate and conjoin ourselves to be as one Public State or Commonwealth; and do for ourselves and our successors and such as shall be adjoined to us at any time hereafter, enter into Combination and Confederation together, to maintain and preserve the liberty and purity of the Gospel of our Lord Jesus which we now profess, as also, the discipline of the Churches, which according to the truth of the said Gospel is now practiced amongst us; as also in our civil affairs to be guided and governed according to such Laws, Rules, Orders and Decrees as shall be made, ordered, and decreed as followeth:
"It is Ordered, sentenced, and decreed, that there shall be yearly two General Assemblies or Courts, the one the second Thursday in April, the other the second Thursday in September following; the first shall be called the Court of Election, wherein shall be yearly chosen from time to time, so many Magistrates and other public Officers as shall be found requisite: Whereof one to be chosen Governor for the year ensuing and until another be chosen, and no other Magistrate to be chosen for more than one year: provided always there be six chosen besides the Governor, which being chosen and sworn according to an Oath recorded for that purpose, shall have the power to administer justice according to the Laws here established, and for want thereof, according to the Rule of the Word of God; . . . ." Fundamental Orders of Connecticut, January 14, 1639, from American History, http://www.let.rug.nl/usa/documents/1600-1650/the-fundamental-orders-of-connecticut-1639.php, accessed 19 Feb., 2014.
The above is only the beginning of a lengthy governing document, but it tells you alot about the belief of the people of Connecticut about the sovereign and His relationship to their governance of their colony. Notice that Almighty God in providence ordered things there. He's also the historical prologue to the entire enterprise. The goal is the prosperity, success and continuation of the project: "to maintain and preserve the liberty and purity of the Gospel of our Lord Jesus which we now profess, as also, the discipline of the Churches, which according to the truth of the said Gospel is now practiced amongst us; as also in our civil affairs to be guided and governed according to such Laws, Rules, Orders and Decrees as shall be made, ordered, and decreed as followeth: . . ." What kind of men should rule according to this document? - "chosen and sworn according to an Oath recorded for that purpose, shall have the power to administer justice according to the Laws here established, and for want thereof, according to the Rule of the Word of God; . . . ." You'll be hard pressed to find a more thoroughly biblical/Christian statement in a founding governing document.
Notice the type of men shall serve. The charter states: "provided always there be six chosen besides the Governor, which being chosen and sworn according to an Oath recorded for that purpose, shall have the power to administer justice according to the Laws here established, and for want thereof, according to the Rule of the Word of God; . . . ."
What kind of oath should such men adhere to that would evidence a faith in the God of the bible and the wise application of His law?
Saturday, February 15, 2014
Criminal Justice 1
Interestingly, the first reference in the law of Moses to the eye-for-an-eye principle is with respect to a law that could apply to abortion.
"If men strive, and hurt a woman with child, so that her fruit depart from her, and yet no mischief follow: he shall be surely punished, according as the woman's husband will lay upon him; and he shall pay as the judges determine. And if any mischief follow, then thou shalt give life for life, Eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, Burning for burning, wound for wound, stripe for stripe." Exodus 21:22-25.
The eye for an eye principle is a principle of justice. It is opposed to a justice system focused solely upon prevention, which might end up punishing people beyond what is just in order to put fear into others. It is also opposed to a justice system tilted toward the rich and powerful and influential. No one is above the law, and no matter your class, you are subject to the law's just demands.
People say the law of God is too harsh. Really? God, the God of mercy, the God who sent His Son to die for mankind, is too harsh? Well, the law of God was intended to drive us to Christ for mercy. Yes, but that doesn't make it untrue. The law of God is the correct incentive for seeking Christ for the very reason that it is true. It is not too harsh, nor is it overly lenient.
If the law of God is too harsh, then so is Jesus Christ.
"Then came to Jesus scribes and Pharisees, which were of Jerusalem, saying, Why do thy disciples transgress the tradition of the elders? for they wash not their hands when they eat bread. But he answered and said unto them, Why do ye also transgress the commandment of God by your tradition? For God commanded, saying, Honour thy father and mother: and, He that curseth father or mother, let him die the death. But ye say, Whosoever shall say to his father or his mother, It is a gift, by whatsoever thou mightest be profited by me; And honour not his father or his mother, he shall be free. Thus have ye made the commandment of God of none effect by your tradition. Ye hypocrites, well did Esaias prophesy of you, saying, This people draweth nigh unto me with their mouth, and honoureth me with their lips; but their heart is far from me. But in vain they do worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men." Matthew 15:1-9.
Notice that Jesus did not say the law requiring execution of those who curse father and mother was too harsh. He used it to contrast the evil behavior of the scribes and Pharisees, who were cursing their fathers and mothers by hypocritically not providing for them, with the doctrine of washing hands when they eat bread. They were criticizing Jesus' disciples for not washing their hands, when the critics themselves deserved death for their sins. He was not saying that the law was too harsh or unjust; He was saying that they were ignoring a just law of God in order to follow their own manmade rules. Which is the standard for justice - you or God? You think His law is too harsh? You could do a better job? No, you couldn't. But that is exactly what we have done in our modern, progressive times - we've come up with "better" laws than God could come up with. How far is your heart from God? As far as your lips are from affirming the law of God.
The scribes and Pharisees were too harsh when they should have been lenient, and they were too lenient, when the law might threaten them. They did not follow God's law. Their failure in that area was one of the reasons that Christ was so harsh in condemning them. Notice that Jesus uses a law that today would be mocked as utterly barbaric in our "modern, tolerant-of-juveniles" time. We live in the day when youths gang together, and instead of learning a trade or education in school, sell and use drugs in the streets. They shoot people who drive down the wrong road at night, and they drive by houses and apartments and shoot innocent people. They live off crime, they prostitute women, they sell mind-debilitating drugs, they get welfare checks because they don't have jobs, and they despise and dishonor their parents. But the law of God is too harsh in calling for such youths execution. We're so much more enlightened by letting them run our streets and kill the innocent for a pair of shoes.
The law Jesus quotes in Matthew 15 is akin to the law Deuteronomy 21 regarding the rebellious son.
"If a man have a stubborn and rebellious son, which will not obey the voice of his father, or the voice of his mother, and that, when they have chastened him, will not hearken unto them: Then shall his father and his mother lay hold on him, and bring him out unto the elders of his city, and unto the gate of his place; And they shall say unto the elders of his city, This our son is stubborn and rebellious, he will not obey our voice; he is a glutton, and a drunkard. And all the men of his city shall stone him with stones, that he die: so shalt thou put evil away from among you; and all Israel shall hear, and fear." Deuteronomy 21:18-21.
Notice the procedure in that law. The parents are the only ones who can act as complainants. The natural affection for one's child would prevent false accusations from occurring. The son is not a small child but someone who is a drunkard and old enough to perform work. This son is out of control, defying God by defying his parents. Respect to parents is taken very seriously by God and by Jesus.
Is some justice criminal and some civil? Where do you draw the line? If you had to draw a bright line in the western legal tradition between civil justice and criminal, which you really cannot do, you would have to use intent. Intentional conduct, as opposed to reckless or negligent conduct, is more likely to be criminal. The business that makes a defective product is not intent upon hurting you on purpose. Its behavior is in the realm of negligent behavior and results in civil lawsuits for money damages. The problem is the appropriate form of punishment for a corporation. Monetary damages punish the shareholders, not the worker or executive who made the mistake that resulted in the defective product. How do you punish the worker who decided to cut corners and put a lesser quality ingredient into the part that ended up killing people because it was weakened by that ingredient? Execution?
"And it shall be, if thou do at all forget the LORD thy God, and walk after other gods, and serve them, and worship them, I testify against you this day that ye shall surely perish. As the nations which the LORD destroyeth before your face, so shall ye perish; because ye would not be obedient unto the voice of the LORD your God." Deuteronomy 8:19-20.
So what is justice? No, who determines what justice is and how it is to be applied? What will preserve God's blessing upon a society? What standard do we use to determine a just law, a just sentence, the lawful victim?
"If men strive, and hurt a woman with child, so that her fruit depart from her, and yet no mischief follow: he shall be surely punished, according as the woman's husband will lay upon him; and he shall pay as the judges determine. And if any mischief follow, then thou shalt give life for life, Eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, Burning for burning, wound for wound, stripe for stripe." Exodus 21:22-25.
The eye for an eye principle is a principle of justice. It is opposed to a justice system focused solely upon prevention, which might end up punishing people beyond what is just in order to put fear into others. It is also opposed to a justice system tilted toward the rich and powerful and influential. No one is above the law, and no matter your class, you are subject to the law's just demands.
People say the law of God is too harsh. Really? God, the God of mercy, the God who sent His Son to die for mankind, is too harsh? Well, the law of God was intended to drive us to Christ for mercy. Yes, but that doesn't make it untrue. The law of God is the correct incentive for seeking Christ for the very reason that it is true. It is not too harsh, nor is it overly lenient.
If the law of God is too harsh, then so is Jesus Christ.
"Then came to Jesus scribes and Pharisees, which were of Jerusalem, saying, Why do thy disciples transgress the tradition of the elders? for they wash not their hands when they eat bread. But he answered and said unto them, Why do ye also transgress the commandment of God by your tradition? For God commanded, saying, Honour thy father and mother: and, He that curseth father or mother, let him die the death. But ye say, Whosoever shall say to his father or his mother, It is a gift, by whatsoever thou mightest be profited by me; And honour not his father or his mother, he shall be free. Thus have ye made the commandment of God of none effect by your tradition. Ye hypocrites, well did Esaias prophesy of you, saying, This people draweth nigh unto me with their mouth, and honoureth me with their lips; but their heart is far from me. But in vain they do worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men." Matthew 15:1-9.
Notice that Jesus did not say the law requiring execution of those who curse father and mother was too harsh. He used it to contrast the evil behavior of the scribes and Pharisees, who were cursing their fathers and mothers by hypocritically not providing for them, with the doctrine of washing hands when they eat bread. They were criticizing Jesus' disciples for not washing their hands, when the critics themselves deserved death for their sins. He was not saying that the law was too harsh or unjust; He was saying that they were ignoring a just law of God in order to follow their own manmade rules. Which is the standard for justice - you or God? You think His law is too harsh? You could do a better job? No, you couldn't. But that is exactly what we have done in our modern, progressive times - we've come up with "better" laws than God could come up with. How far is your heart from God? As far as your lips are from affirming the law of God.
The scribes and Pharisees were too harsh when they should have been lenient, and they were too lenient, when the law might threaten them. They did not follow God's law. Their failure in that area was one of the reasons that Christ was so harsh in condemning them. Notice that Jesus uses a law that today would be mocked as utterly barbaric in our "modern, tolerant-of-juveniles" time. We live in the day when youths gang together, and instead of learning a trade or education in school, sell and use drugs in the streets. They shoot people who drive down the wrong road at night, and they drive by houses and apartments and shoot innocent people. They live off crime, they prostitute women, they sell mind-debilitating drugs, they get welfare checks because they don't have jobs, and they despise and dishonor their parents. But the law of God is too harsh in calling for such youths execution. We're so much more enlightened by letting them run our streets and kill the innocent for a pair of shoes.
The law Jesus quotes in Matthew 15 is akin to the law Deuteronomy 21 regarding the rebellious son.
"If a man have a stubborn and rebellious son, which will not obey the voice of his father, or the voice of his mother, and that, when they have chastened him, will not hearken unto them: Then shall his father and his mother lay hold on him, and bring him out unto the elders of his city, and unto the gate of his place; And they shall say unto the elders of his city, This our son is stubborn and rebellious, he will not obey our voice; he is a glutton, and a drunkard. And all the men of his city shall stone him with stones, that he die: so shalt thou put evil away from among you; and all Israel shall hear, and fear." Deuteronomy 21:18-21.
Notice the procedure in that law. The parents are the only ones who can act as complainants. The natural affection for one's child would prevent false accusations from occurring. The son is not a small child but someone who is a drunkard and old enough to perform work. This son is out of control, defying God by defying his parents. Respect to parents is taken very seriously by God and by Jesus.
Is some justice criminal and some civil? Where do you draw the line? If you had to draw a bright line in the western legal tradition between civil justice and criminal, which you really cannot do, you would have to use intent. Intentional conduct, as opposed to reckless or negligent conduct, is more likely to be criminal. The business that makes a defective product is not intent upon hurting you on purpose. Its behavior is in the realm of negligent behavior and results in civil lawsuits for money damages. The problem is the appropriate form of punishment for a corporation. Monetary damages punish the shareholders, not the worker or executive who made the mistake that resulted in the defective product. How do you punish the worker who decided to cut corners and put a lesser quality ingredient into the part that ended up killing people because it was weakened by that ingredient? Execution?
"And it shall be, if thou do at all forget the LORD thy God, and walk after other gods, and serve them, and worship them, I testify against you this day that ye shall surely perish. As the nations which the LORD destroyeth before your face, so shall ye perish; because ye would not be obedient unto the voice of the LORD your God." Deuteronomy 8:19-20.
So what is justice? No, who determines what justice is and how it is to be applied? What will preserve God's blessing upon a society? What standard do we use to determine a just law, a just sentence, the lawful victim?
Thursday, February 13, 2014
Why America has a Problem of Judicial Tyranny
"The supreme court under this constitution [U.S.] would be exalted above all other power in the government, and subject to no control." Brutus, Anti-Federalist Papers 78-79, Part one is taken from the first part of “Brutus’s” 15th essay of The New-York Journal on March 20, 1788; Part two is from part one of his 16th of the New York Journal of April 10, 1788, accessed at "The Federalist Papers," http://www.thefederalistpapers.org/antifederalist-paper-78-79, Oct. 12, 2014.
Any honest person with the least legal training and who has read the Roe v. Wade opinion, the 2013 opinion on the Defense of Marriage Act & the same sex marriage opinion of 2015 will come away with this incredible question, among others: How could any court, much less the highest court of the land, act with such lawless abandon to endorse such evil? Neither opinion can be described as based on any law, any law except the opinion of a majority of the Justices on the Supreme Court. Lawless, arrogant, and unappealable.
The United States Supreme Court has now become a supreme royal ruler, acting on its own opinion and prejudice of the individual Justices. Five Justices (a majority of nine) now rules, and we know not how to stop it. Its opinions are supposed to be based on carefully analyzed and restrained opinions, but some of its most recent opinions have been based - with not even a cloak of law - on the personal opinions of five of its Justices. Why?
America likes to pride itself on being the proponent of the "rule of law," something mankind has fought for throughout history. It's what we contend for in Afghanistan. The alternative is the rule of man. But if a new ruler - a court instead of a king - becomes the final authority, with no appeal beyond it, then haven't we come full circle, if that court decides issues affecting the entire country based on its own opinion?
So, how did such an ideal and desirable goal - the rule of law - become so perverted in less then three centuries? To put it simply, once the center, the fulcrum of rulership, shifted from the church and the king to a foundational document, that is, the constitution, then those who interpret the words of that document, the lawyers, became the center of power and control over the priests and all the king's men. There is only one interpreter above the lawyer - the decision-maker, the judge who decides which lawyer in a case is correct. He that controls the interpretation of the law controls the law. If perverting the law in order to advance one's personal predilections and beliefs is the key to power, then some seem to have little compunction about engaging in such perversion.
What's scary is that the founders thought that judicial independence would be the barrier to protect us from the rule of man. They apparently did not think that things would go so awry as they have today. The following is quoted from an Alabama appellate court decision's dissenting opinion. It sums up some of that thinking.
"In this state, the scope of the power of the executive has been viewed to be only as extensive as granted by the constitution. This court in deciding a case under the Constitution of 1875, which was essentially the same as the Constitution of 1901 in its statement concerning separation of powers, stated as follows:
"‘With us, the governor has no prerogatives. He must find warrant in the written law for his every official act. He has no more power to appoint officers, when not expressly conferred, than has the president of the senate, who is of the legislative, or the chief justice of this court, who is of the judicial department: and when we go back to our constitutions and laws, in this state, from the beginning of the state government to the present, we find it has been the policy to distribute this appointing power among the several departments of the state . . . It may be true, that the governor has been invested with the greatest share of this power, but no principle or policy has been declared that the power inherently belongs to him. And we may remark that the fact that all our constitutions, in assigning appointive power of the governor, have specifically designated the particular officers to whom it applied, furnishes cogent argument that the people did not regard the power as necessarily or inherently belonging to him.’ Fox v. McDonald, 101 Ala. 51, 13 So. 416 (1893).
"Similarly the parallel development of judicial independence has been described. In his article, Separation of Powers: Judicial Independence, 35 Law & Contemp. Prob. 108 (1970), Senator Sam Ervin traces the development of judicial independence from Aristotle to Montesquieu, to the federal and state constitutions, and to the present era. His conclusions may be summarized in his language as follows:
"‘Judicial independence is the strongest safeguard against the exercise of tyrannical power by men who want to live above the law, rather than under it. The separation of powers concept as understood by the founding fathers assumed the existence of a judicial system free from outside influence of whatever kind and from whatever source, and further assumed that each individual judge would be free from coercion even from his own brethren.
"‘To my mind, an independent judiciary is perhaps the most essential characteristic of a free society. From long experience as a practicing attorney, a trial judge, an appellate judge, and now a legislator, I have had ample opportunity to observe and appreciate the safeguards embodied in the separation of powers doctrine so wisely formulated by our forefathers.'"
Morgan County Commission v. Powell, 292 Ala 300, 324, 293 So. 2d 830, 852-3 (Ala. 1974) (Heflin, C.J., dissenting).
Independence was the key; dependence on the legislature was the great evil. For some reason, they did not seem to think that independence could go too far to the other extreme, that our dependence as a citizenry would turn into inordinate trust in the judiciary, a sort of judicial idolatry. Whatever the court says is law is the law. How could they have been so blind?
Their trust was in the system they had set up. Their trust was in judges, who have no army, no weapons, no force, only the law on their side. Their trust was in the people, not royalty or those given the kingly duty of executing the laws, the executive department, which does have the force and the armies and the weapons to coerce. The judicial system seemed so safe, so weak, so trustworthy in its careful, written analysis of the law. But is it? Are ideas so safe that we don't have to worry about any manipulation of those ideas by the clever ones entrusted with interpreting the law?
Can any system devised by man avoid abuse? Can those entrusted with a large amount of power always be trusted with that power? Can we idolize and trust something, even an ingenious institutional document like the U.S. Constitutional system to the point that we have to be shown that there is no one trustworthy but God?
And what do we do about it now?
Any honest person with the least legal training and who has read the Roe v. Wade opinion, the 2013 opinion on the Defense of Marriage Act & the same sex marriage opinion of 2015 will come away with this incredible question, among others: How could any court, much less the highest court of the land, act with such lawless abandon to endorse such evil? Neither opinion can be described as based on any law, any law except the opinion of a majority of the Justices on the Supreme Court. Lawless, arrogant, and unappealable.
The United States Supreme Court has now become a supreme royal ruler, acting on its own opinion and prejudice of the individual Justices. Five Justices (a majority of nine) now rules, and we know not how to stop it. Its opinions are supposed to be based on carefully analyzed and restrained opinions, but some of its most recent opinions have been based - with not even a cloak of law - on the personal opinions of five of its Justices. Why?
America likes to pride itself on being the proponent of the "rule of law," something mankind has fought for throughout history. It's what we contend for in Afghanistan. The alternative is the rule of man. But if a new ruler - a court instead of a king - becomes the final authority, with no appeal beyond it, then haven't we come full circle, if that court decides issues affecting the entire country based on its own opinion?
So, how did such an ideal and desirable goal - the rule of law - become so perverted in less then three centuries? To put it simply, once the center, the fulcrum of rulership, shifted from the church and the king to a foundational document, that is, the constitution, then those who interpret the words of that document, the lawyers, became the center of power and control over the priests and all the king's men. There is only one interpreter above the lawyer - the decision-maker, the judge who decides which lawyer in a case is correct. He that controls the interpretation of the law controls the law. If perverting the law in order to advance one's personal predilections and beliefs is the key to power, then some seem to have little compunction about engaging in such perversion.
What's scary is that the founders thought that judicial independence would be the barrier to protect us from the rule of man. They apparently did not think that things would go so awry as they have today. The following is quoted from an Alabama appellate court decision's dissenting opinion. It sums up some of that thinking.
"In this state, the scope of the power of the executive has been viewed to be only as extensive as granted by the constitution. This court in deciding a case under the Constitution of 1875, which was essentially the same as the Constitution of 1901 in its statement concerning separation of powers, stated as follows:
"‘With us, the governor has no prerogatives. He must find warrant in the written law for his every official act. He has no more power to appoint officers, when not expressly conferred, than has the president of the senate, who is of the legislative, or the chief justice of this court, who is of the judicial department: and when we go back to our constitutions and laws, in this state, from the beginning of the state government to the present, we find it has been the policy to distribute this appointing power among the several departments of the state . . . It may be true, that the governor has been invested with the greatest share of this power, but no principle or policy has been declared that the power inherently belongs to him. And we may remark that the fact that all our constitutions, in assigning appointive power of the governor, have specifically designated the particular officers to whom it applied, furnishes cogent argument that the people did not regard the power as necessarily or inherently belonging to him.’ Fox v. McDonald, 101 Ala. 51, 13 So. 416 (1893).
"Similarly the parallel development of judicial independence has been described. In his article, Separation of Powers: Judicial Independence, 35 Law & Contemp. Prob. 108 (1970), Senator Sam Ervin traces the development of judicial independence from Aristotle to Montesquieu, to the federal and state constitutions, and to the present era. His conclusions may be summarized in his language as follows:
"‘Judicial independence is the strongest safeguard against the exercise of tyrannical power by men who want to live above the law, rather than under it. The separation of powers concept as understood by the founding fathers assumed the existence of a judicial system free from outside influence of whatever kind and from whatever source, and further assumed that each individual judge would be free from coercion even from his own brethren.
"‘To my mind, an independent judiciary is perhaps the most essential characteristic of a free society. From long experience as a practicing attorney, a trial judge, an appellate judge, and now a legislator, I have had ample opportunity to observe and appreciate the safeguards embodied in the separation of powers doctrine so wisely formulated by our forefathers.'"
Morgan County Commission v. Powell, 292 Ala 300, 324, 293 So. 2d 830, 852-3 (Ala. 1974) (Heflin, C.J., dissenting).
Independence was the key; dependence on the legislature was the great evil. For some reason, they did not seem to think that independence could go too far to the other extreme, that our dependence as a citizenry would turn into inordinate trust in the judiciary, a sort of judicial idolatry. Whatever the court says is law is the law. How could they have been so blind?
Their trust was in the system they had set up. Their trust was in judges, who have no army, no weapons, no force, only the law on their side. Their trust was in the people, not royalty or those given the kingly duty of executing the laws, the executive department, which does have the force and the armies and the weapons to coerce. The judicial system seemed so safe, so weak, so trustworthy in its careful, written analysis of the law. But is it? Are ideas so safe that we don't have to worry about any manipulation of those ideas by the clever ones entrusted with interpreting the law?
Can any system devised by man avoid abuse? Can those entrusted with a large amount of power always be trusted with that power? Can we idolize and trust something, even an ingenious institutional document like the U.S. Constitutional system to the point that we have to be shown that there is no one trustworthy but God?
And what do we do about it now?
Sunday, February 2, 2014
Oaths 1 - A Discounted Power
Jesus said, "Again, ye have heard that it hath been said by them of old time, Thou shalt not forswear thyself, but shalt perform unto the Lord thine oaths: But I say unto you, Swear not at all; neither by heaven; for it is God's throne: Nor by the earth; for it is his footstool: neither by Jerusalem; for it is the city of the great King. Neither shalt thou swear by thy head, because thou canst not make one hair white or black. But let your communication be, Yea, yea; Nay, nay: for whatsoever is more than these cometh of evil." Matthew 5:33-7.
But this warning on how to speak the truth in your personal life, if taken to the extreme and applied to all contexts, even courtrooms and the covenantal contexts, of course, would deny oaths altogether. Jesus was speaking to the misuse of oaths, like "I swear on a stack of bibles that I'm telling you the truth!" Jesus said to not do that. You're trying to enhance your word, which apparently has little credibility with the people you're speaking with, either because of their evil cynicism or your bad reputation for not telling the truth.
The courtroom is where the Ninth Commandment applies. There you're facing the justice system of the state, and when it is possible that people can lie and perhaps get away with it because there's no evidence to the contrary, it is right and appropriate to demand that they swear to tell the truth before God, knowing His ability to judge the false testifier in this life and the next. The state, as a covenantal institution with the responsibility of justice before the God who ordained it, can and should demand your oath to tell the truth.
The Church, another covenantal institution, "the pillar and foundation of the truth," and the one charged with the more important task of guarding the keys of the kingdom, also has the right to demand it. It demands it of its ministers, of those entering into marriage, and of those at baptism, who implicitly swear to follow the Head of the Church to death if necessary to show their faith in Him.
Ray Sutton, whom I mentioned earlier wrote the book on the covenant, posited five points to a covenant: Authority, Historical Prologue, Law, Sanctions, Continuity. These elements are essential to a covenantal institution. What are the covenantal institutions - family, church, and state. Each involves an oath - the family's oath appears in the wedding vows, the church's oath appears in baptism and the vows of the ordained ministers and appointed servants of the church, and the state's oath is in the oath of office of each elected official. If you lack any particular element, then the institution is weakened, even destroyed.
Consider for example the family. If there is no authority over marriage, then it would simply be a matter of living together and breaking up if needed. What is the history behind marriage? How would we define it? Wouldn't it be malleable into just about anything as time went by? Without a law to determine the boundaries of marriage, then sexual fidelity would mean very little unless there was personal preference by the participants for such fidelity. If there was not punishment for violating the rules of marriage, then the law of marriage would be impotent. The continuation of life itself is dependent upon marriage. The value of children, loyalty, love, support, etc. All of this flows from marriage and the family, and it does or does not continue based on the governing elements of the covenant.
These elements are obvious in the operation of the state. A hierarchy, a history of the people and the formation of their government, law, punishment for violating that law, and the future of that people, their elected officials and their successors, and their form of government. The U.S. Constitution incorporates these five elements. "We the People" are the sovereign, and we all know the history - fight against royal tyranny, violation of the rule of law, no taxation without representation, a constitution should rule not a king. The legislature creates laws, and the executive enforces those laws with sanctions against those who violate the law. Elected officials are elected for terms, and the Constitution with amendments continues as the foundation of the nation.
The Constitution does not state what the law should be. There are historical examples and tidbits, like capital punishment for treason and impeachment for high crimes and misdemeanors, but the Constitution is a foundational document, not the law itself. The Constitution says nothing about the law being God's law, based on the bible, or Christian in origin. Some argue it is implied. Is it?
Israel was given laws by God through Moses. One fundamental instruction was that the king, the ruler of the nation, would have to be an Israelite. Deuteronomy 17:14-17. Was this an anti-immigrant law? Remember Israel was supposed to be a light to the nations, a special people who would show forth the truth of the true and living God. But to have that religious separation, it required geographic separation because geography in the ancient world determined political, social, and religious loyalty. Immigrants could become Israelites. Witness Rahab in Joshua 6. See also Heb. 11:31; James 2:25. The problem was religious loyalty, not ethnicity or nationality.
Who are your rulers to be - Christians or non-Christians? Yes, we don't have kings, but we have officials that we elect to rule us. Those we elect are the equivalent of kings, only their power is dispersed instead of concentrated. Do you want the "foreigner" ruling? That is, the foreigner in covenant, the foreigner in faith, the foreigner to God and His law. Is that what we've gotten to in forgetting God's word on civil government? We don't care who rules a Christian people?
But that's just the first element of a covenantal institution. What about the others?
Oaths are involved in the punishment element because the oath calls down God's curse upon the one who violates the oath. Oaths today aren't taken seriously these days, probably because God Himself isn't taken seriously. But it is God who ensures that oaths are kept, either by the person making the oath or by issuing consequences for the person who fails to keep his oath.
So, the first element is the authority governing the institution. Is "We the people" the authority in a Christian republic? What about God? What kind of oath would a person serving in the institution of civil government make if they are to serve a Christian republic? Does the official swear to serve the American people as the sovereign . . . even if they defy the God of the bible? What law? Will any law do? Only those not entirely contradictory to the law of God?
Let's keep our obedience to God as minimal as possible. Let's keep ourselves the supreme authority. Let's ignore God's law. Let's take oaths that don't matter, and let's call our society Christian. Really now?! Could we get any more humanistic?
But this warning on how to speak the truth in your personal life, if taken to the extreme and applied to all contexts, even courtrooms and the covenantal contexts, of course, would deny oaths altogether. Jesus was speaking to the misuse of oaths, like "I swear on a stack of bibles that I'm telling you the truth!" Jesus said to not do that. You're trying to enhance your word, which apparently has little credibility with the people you're speaking with, either because of their evil cynicism or your bad reputation for not telling the truth.
The courtroom is where the Ninth Commandment applies. There you're facing the justice system of the state, and when it is possible that people can lie and perhaps get away with it because there's no evidence to the contrary, it is right and appropriate to demand that they swear to tell the truth before God, knowing His ability to judge the false testifier in this life and the next. The state, as a covenantal institution with the responsibility of justice before the God who ordained it, can and should demand your oath to tell the truth.
The Church, another covenantal institution, "the pillar and foundation of the truth," and the one charged with the more important task of guarding the keys of the kingdom, also has the right to demand it. It demands it of its ministers, of those entering into marriage, and of those at baptism, who implicitly swear to follow the Head of the Church to death if necessary to show their faith in Him.
Ray Sutton, whom I mentioned earlier wrote the book on the covenant, posited five points to a covenant: Authority, Historical Prologue, Law, Sanctions, Continuity. These elements are essential to a covenantal institution. What are the covenantal institutions - family, church, and state. Each involves an oath - the family's oath appears in the wedding vows, the church's oath appears in baptism and the vows of the ordained ministers and appointed servants of the church, and the state's oath is in the oath of office of each elected official. If you lack any particular element, then the institution is weakened, even destroyed.
Consider for example the family. If there is no authority over marriage, then it would simply be a matter of living together and breaking up if needed. What is the history behind marriage? How would we define it? Wouldn't it be malleable into just about anything as time went by? Without a law to determine the boundaries of marriage, then sexual fidelity would mean very little unless there was personal preference by the participants for such fidelity. If there was not punishment for violating the rules of marriage, then the law of marriage would be impotent. The continuation of life itself is dependent upon marriage. The value of children, loyalty, love, support, etc. All of this flows from marriage and the family, and it does or does not continue based on the governing elements of the covenant.
These elements are obvious in the operation of the state. A hierarchy, a history of the people and the formation of their government, law, punishment for violating that law, and the future of that people, their elected officials and their successors, and their form of government. The U.S. Constitution incorporates these five elements. "We the People" are the sovereign, and we all know the history - fight against royal tyranny, violation of the rule of law, no taxation without representation, a constitution should rule not a king. The legislature creates laws, and the executive enforces those laws with sanctions against those who violate the law. Elected officials are elected for terms, and the Constitution with amendments continues as the foundation of the nation.
The Constitution does not state what the law should be. There are historical examples and tidbits, like capital punishment for treason and impeachment for high crimes and misdemeanors, but the Constitution is a foundational document, not the law itself. The Constitution says nothing about the law being God's law, based on the bible, or Christian in origin. Some argue it is implied. Is it?
Israel was given laws by God through Moses. One fundamental instruction was that the king, the ruler of the nation, would have to be an Israelite. Deuteronomy 17:14-17. Was this an anti-immigrant law? Remember Israel was supposed to be a light to the nations, a special people who would show forth the truth of the true and living God. But to have that religious separation, it required geographic separation because geography in the ancient world determined political, social, and religious loyalty. Immigrants could become Israelites. Witness Rahab in Joshua 6. See also Heb. 11:31; James 2:25. The problem was religious loyalty, not ethnicity or nationality.
Who are your rulers to be - Christians or non-Christians? Yes, we don't have kings, but we have officials that we elect to rule us. Those we elect are the equivalent of kings, only their power is dispersed instead of concentrated. Do you want the "foreigner" ruling? That is, the foreigner in covenant, the foreigner in faith, the foreigner to God and His law. Is that what we've gotten to in forgetting God's word on civil government? We don't care who rules a Christian people?
But that's just the first element of a covenantal institution. What about the others?
Oaths are involved in the punishment element because the oath calls down God's curse upon the one who violates the oath. Oaths today aren't taken seriously these days, probably because God Himself isn't taken seriously. But it is God who ensures that oaths are kept, either by the person making the oath or by issuing consequences for the person who fails to keep his oath.
So, the first element is the authority governing the institution. Is "We the people" the authority in a Christian republic? What about God? What kind of oath would a person serving in the institution of civil government make if they are to serve a Christian republic? Does the official swear to serve the American people as the sovereign . . . even if they defy the God of the bible? What law? Will any law do? Only those not entirely contradictory to the law of God?
Let's keep our obedience to God as minimal as possible. Let's keep ourselves the supreme authority. Let's ignore God's law. Let's take oaths that don't matter, and let's call our society Christian. Really now?! Could we get any more humanistic?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)