Constitutional Babble
April 2, 2012
Dale Steinacker
The original Star Trek series, with William Shatner as Captain Kirk, would not be the first place one would look for a treatise on Constitutional law. But one episode has an interesting lesson for the Supreme Court to consider as it rules on the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act.
In episode 54, “The Omega Glory,” the Enterprise is on a distant planet where, in a post nuclear war society, two tribes are fighting. One group calls itself the “Coms,”; the other calls itself the “Yangs.” The flag of the Yangs is the American flag. The plot pivots on Captain Kirk’s ability to understand the Yang’s “holy words.” These are words that only a leader may say. When the leader says “wa ta poplay,” Kirk has no idea what he is talking about. After generations, even the leaders are illiterate and the holy words are said from memory as they have been passed down over the ages.
The episode concludes when Kirk opens the box with the holy words and reads what is there. The words are “We the People.” Generations of Yang leaders moved the pronunciation of the words away from the original to the point where no one could determine what they originally meant.
Since the 1930s, the court has consistently moved away from the idea that the Constitution limits the power of the federal government. An ever-expanding Commerce Clause has allowed for the expanded reach of the federal government into every aspect of our lives.
The question before the court is whether the words of the Constitution have any meaning, or if we are lost in a babble of interpretation where only the legal high priests can mutter the holy words. An endless chain of compliance with rulings moving ever farther away from the original meaning and purpose of the Constitution will leave us, or has already left us, in a land of babbling and meaningless recitation of words which have lost their purpose.
The American Constitution is, at its core, a document with a Christian understanding of human nature. The framers assumed the fallibility and potential avarice of political leaders, if not their sinfulness. They tried to limit the impact of human failures by limiting the powers of government and moving decisions to the lowest possible level (i.e. subsidiarity in Catholic social teaching). The Bill of Rights is essentially a list of what the government can’t do.
The health bill before the court is antithetical to the Bill of Rights in this sense. It assumes a government obligation to provide for the needs of the people instead of facilitating mechanisms where the people work together for the provision of those services. It was developed in a world formed by the Supreme Court’s moving away from the understanding of the nature of leadership as laid out in the Constitution to a world where our national leaders are assumed to be fonts of wisdom.
The series of court cases that have led many to assume that Obamacare might be “constitutional” shows the problem with any corpus of legal interpretation. Whether it is the Torah, Christian scriptures and dogma, or a civil constitution, each successive opinion, writing, and line of interpretation is influenced by its predecessors. Unless there is a relentless commitment to understanding the original documents, the interpreters create their own universe where the words of previous interpreters are more important than the document they seek to interpret.
Stare decisis is a rational concept in any set of interpretations. The public depends on a stable set of understandings. The problem the court now faces with Medicare, social security, and other national benefits programs is complicated by the fact that generations of Americans have done their financial planning based on the legal interpretations the courts have been using for decades. Which is more important, or even more sustainable, the framer’s concept or the current set of laws and legal interpretations?
It would seem simpler for the Court to continue its current path and allow more power to the federal government. But our society is not illiterate. Citizens read the Constitution and the framers’ writings. Constitutional law is not an abstract exercise. Public support for the Court and the other branches of government is needed to keep the system going. But if the Court moves back to a more limited view of central government it must do so in stages and with the recognition of the impact of its prior rulings. People have come to expect more from the government and many will resist a new path until the economic realities become unavoidable.
It is now clear that the Court has to decide whether the U. S. Constitution has any effective limits on the federal government. That is, is there any real sense in which “We, the People” are still in control of our government?
Dale Steinacker is a writer living in Columbia, Maryland. This is his first piece for First Things.
Become a fan of First Things on Facebook, subscribe to First Things via RSS, and follow First Things on Twitter.
Comments:
4.2.2012 | 7:45am
TomD says:
The health care mandate case(s) currently before the Court may be the most significant in our generation. As the author indicates, they get to the core issue of the authority of the federal government . . . in these cases, an authority that exceeds the constitutional limits established by our Founders. But the erosion of those constitutional limits has been occurring for at least 70 or 80 years, and we may be beyond the point of pulling back from the modernist interpretation of the Constitution. These cases will clearly indicate whether that is true or not.
If I had to guess, based on the oral arguments that I heard, the Court will decide 6-3 or 7-2 that the individual mandate requiring coverage will be found to be unconstitutional and, perhaps by a vote of 5-4, Justice Kennedy being the key vote, that the entire Act is therefore null and void.
If this is indeed the outcome, this case could very well be the beginning of our rediscovery of the meaning of our Constitution and a return to a self-governing, more decentralized democratic system of government with limited power at the national level. The presidential election of 2012 will also be a key indicator of which way the country is headed, toward a more European-style centralized national government, or back to a more decentralized, federal system of government.
Although it is a bit of a cliche, this may be the most important election of our lifetime. Every vote matters.
If I had to guess, based on the oral arguments that I heard, the Court will decide 6-3 or 7-2 that the individual mandate requiring coverage will be found to be unconstitutional and, perhaps by a vote of 5-4, Justice Kennedy being the key vote, that the entire Act is therefore null and void.
If this is indeed the outcome, this case could very well be the beginning of our rediscovery of the meaning of our Constitution and a return to a self-governing, more decentralized democratic system of government with limited power at the national level. The presidential election of 2012 will also be a key indicator of which way the country is headed, toward a more European-style centralized national government, or back to a more decentralized, federal system of government.
Although it is a bit of a cliche, this may be the most important election of our lifetime. Every vote matters.
4.2.2012 | 8:25am
ferd says:
Mr. Steinacker is right in his basic analysis that the Constitution has a Christian viewpoint built-in...and....Obamacare is antithetical to the Bill of Rights. He is correct in his observation of how we are slouching towards a kinda Babylon with "interpretations" leading us farther away from original intent.
But, the most pressing issue now is whether average Americans are too stupified to be free. We will know the answer soon when the Court strikes down this 2,700 page disaster and the President (with most of the US media) tries to tell us it was "a bipartisan effort"--to ignore the economic crisis from 2008-2011 for Obama's Healthcare and environmental issues.
But, the most pressing issue now is whether average Americans are too stupified to be free. We will know the answer soon when the Court strikes down this 2,700 page disaster and the President (with most of the US media) tries to tell us it was "a bipartisan effort"--to ignore the economic crisis from 2008-2011 for Obama's Healthcare and environmental issues.
4.2.2012 | 9:29am
eusebius says:
Remember when conservatives were in favor of a judiciary that deferred to duly elected representatives? Where in the Constitution is judicial review? I take it Mr Steinacker would be in favor of repealing Marbury v. Madison.
4.2.2012 | 9:39am
Alan says:
It is hard to know where to begin with this wrong-headed commentary. First, the Constitution was meant primarily not to restrain the federal government but to create a more powerful government than that under the Articles of Confederation. The Preamble elaborates the aims for which the Constitution was created, and Madison and others argued persuasively in the Constitutional Convention that it made no sense to identify aims that the government was meant to achieve without granting it the powers necessary to achieve those aims. The Bill of Rights identifies specific limits on the government, but Madison's view was that it did not impinge on the powers granted in the original Constitution. As Chief Justice John Marshall wrote in McCulloch v. Maryland: "Let the end be legitimate, let it be within the scope of the Constitution, and all means which are appropriate, which are plainly adapted to that end, which are not prohibited, but consist with the letter and spirit of the Constitution, are constitutional."
Reasonable people may disagree about the constitutionality of Obamacare, though I think the arguments are much stronger in favor of its constitutionality. But whatever one's ultimate conclusion, one should not rest it on a fundamentally flawed understanding of the Constitution and what the founders were attempting to construct.
Reasonable people may disagree about the constitutionality of Obamacare, though I think the arguments are much stronger in favor of its constitutionality. But whatever one's ultimate conclusion, one should not rest it on a fundamentally flawed understanding of the Constitution and what the founders were attempting to construct.
4.2.2012 | 9:51am
chuck says:
I appreciate FT for when it says something more than cable news talking heads.
Everyone at the SupCt conceded that the Health Bill would be constitutitonal if it (a) imposed a single-payer system or (b) forbade hospitals from serving people without insurance.
Those would comport with subsidiariy? This bill, whatever its wisdom, is constitutional - or else we have 9 judges taking over another part of our democracy.
Everyone at the SupCt conceded that the Health Bill would be constitutitonal if it (a) imposed a single-payer system or (b) forbade hospitals from serving people without insurance.
Those would comport with subsidiariy? This bill, whatever its wisdom, is constitutional - or else we have 9 judges taking over another part of our democracy.
4.2.2012 | 11:16am
TomD says:
In Jacobson v. Massachusetts (1905), the U.S. Supreme Court determined that the Preamble does not have any legal power within the Constitution. It is an introduction to the document as a whole and does not, in and of itself, allow the exercise of any kind of legal power. This was confirmed and established in the Syllabus of the decision for Jacobson v. Massachusetts. The syllabus opened up with a statement on the fact that the Preamble did not confer any powers to the Government or to citizens, and the only power that can arise from the Constitution must come specifically from the main body of the text, not from the Preamble.
The spirit of the Constitution can be understood through the Preamble's words, but actual legal power does not arise from the Preamble. This means that, while the Preamble to the Constitution may provide a strong basic framework for understanding the intent behind the Constitution as a whole, the Preamble cannot be taken as directly, legally relevant in providing rights or powers either to the citizens or to the State. ". . . [T]o promote the general Welfare . . .," does not legally authorize the national government to do whatever it may deem suits this aim; that legal authority must be enumerated in the body of the text.
And the fact that the Constitution was written to create a more powerful national government than the Articles of Confederation, does not mean that the national government is "unrestrained." The national government has the powers that were enumerated to it in the Constitution. While certain provision in the text are quite broad, the benefit of the doubt is that the national government is restrained, unless the authority it exercises falls within the enumerated powers of the Constitution.
But, within the modern context it is true, as Associate Justice William Brennan is said to have quipped to his law clerks, "Five votes can do pretty much anything around here." This truism is perhaps the biggest flaw in our constitutional system of government, and indicates why we are where we are today in the area of constitutional law.
The spirit of the Constitution can be understood through the Preamble's words, but actual legal power does not arise from the Preamble. This means that, while the Preamble to the Constitution may provide a strong basic framework for understanding the intent behind the Constitution as a whole, the Preamble cannot be taken as directly, legally relevant in providing rights or powers either to the citizens or to the State. ". . . [T]o promote the general Welfare . . .," does not legally authorize the national government to do whatever it may deem suits this aim; that legal authority must be enumerated in the body of the text.
And the fact that the Constitution was written to create a more powerful national government than the Articles of Confederation, does not mean that the national government is "unrestrained." The national government has the powers that were enumerated to it in the Constitution. While certain provision in the text are quite broad, the benefit of the doubt is that the national government is restrained, unless the authority it exercises falls within the enumerated powers of the Constitution.
But, within the modern context it is true, as Associate Justice William Brennan is said to have quipped to his law clerks, "Five votes can do pretty much anything around here." This truism is perhaps the biggest flaw in our constitutional system of government, and indicates why we are where we are today in the area of constitutional law.
4.2.2012 | 12:29pm
Alan says:
Re TomD's comments:
The Preamble does not have legal force in the sense that it does not authorize the exercise of powers not granted in the Constitution. Nonetheless, as Justice Joseph Story has written: "It is an admitted notion that in the course of the administration of justice, that the preamble of a statute is a key to open the mind of the makers, as to the mischiefs, which are to be remedied, and the objects, which are to be accomplished by the provisions of the statute. There does not seem to be any reason why, in a fundamental law or constitution of government, an equal attention should not be given to the intention of the framers, as stated in the preamble."
The Constitution provides an enumeration of powers, but it departs from the Articles of Confederation in recognizing implied powers as well. This is made clear by the inclusion of the Necessary and Proper Clause and the elimination of "expressly" from the Articles.
The fact that "health care" is not mentioned in the Constitution is irrelevant to the constitutionality of Obamacare--as Chief Justice Marshall noted in McCulloch, the terms "bank" and "incorporation" were not included in the document, but that was irrelevant to its interpretation. The term "commerce", he noted in Gibbons v. Ogden, "describes the commercial intercourse between nations, and parts of nations, in all its branches, and is regulated by prescribing the rules for carrying on that intercourse." Health care is a major element in the commercial intercourse of the nation--all one has to do is look at what percentage of GDP is devoted to it. Obamacare is an attempt to regulate and regularize the market in health care.
Those who oppose the individual mandate distinguish between "activity" and "inactivity", a weighty but novel argument, as those words do not appear in the Constitution, so it is hard to see how they can claim the originalist mantle.
The Preamble does not have legal force in the sense that it does not authorize the exercise of powers not granted in the Constitution. Nonetheless, as Justice Joseph Story has written: "It is an admitted notion that in the course of the administration of justice, that the preamble of a statute is a key to open the mind of the makers, as to the mischiefs, which are to be remedied, and the objects, which are to be accomplished by the provisions of the statute. There does not seem to be any reason why, in a fundamental law or constitution of government, an equal attention should not be given to the intention of the framers, as stated in the preamble."
The Constitution provides an enumeration of powers, but it departs from the Articles of Confederation in recognizing implied powers as well. This is made clear by the inclusion of the Necessary and Proper Clause and the elimination of "expressly" from the Articles.
The fact that "health care" is not mentioned in the Constitution is irrelevant to the constitutionality of Obamacare--as Chief Justice Marshall noted in McCulloch, the terms "bank" and "incorporation" were not included in the document, but that was irrelevant to its interpretation. The term "commerce", he noted in Gibbons v. Ogden, "describes the commercial intercourse between nations, and parts of nations, in all its branches, and is regulated by prescribing the rules for carrying on that intercourse." Health care is a major element in the commercial intercourse of the nation--all one has to do is look at what percentage of GDP is devoted to it. Obamacare is an attempt to regulate and regularize the market in health care.
Those who oppose the individual mandate distinguish between "activity" and "inactivity", a weighty but novel argument, as those words do not appear in the Constitution, so it is hard to see how they can claim the originalist mantle.
4.2.2012 | 2:04pm
TomD says:
@ Alan:
While Justice Story's statement is an interesting commentary on the Preamble to the Constitution, it is not the law. As discussed above, the operative legal principle was established in Jacobson. ". . . [T]o promote the general Welfare . . . " is not an open-ended authorization of governmental power to promote the general welfare in any manner that Congress deems "necessary and proper."
And you are right, the distinction between enumerated and implied powers is not a precise one . . . ultimately five or more votes on the Court will establish the law in any specific instance. In these specific cases, what is the balance between regulating commerce and maintaining individual liberty?
I would contend that, absent an explicit authorization, an originalist interpretation would privilege liberty over the ability of the national government to "regulate" health care in the manner it has legislatively enacted . . . and that is ultimately the distinction that the Court will make.
While Justice Story's statement is an interesting commentary on the Preamble to the Constitution, it is not the law. As discussed above, the operative legal principle was established in Jacobson. ". . . [T]o promote the general Welfare . . . " is not an open-ended authorization of governmental power to promote the general welfare in any manner that Congress deems "necessary and proper."
And you are right, the distinction between enumerated and implied powers is not a precise one . . . ultimately five or more votes on the Court will establish the law in any specific instance. In these specific cases, what is the balance between regulating commerce and maintaining individual liberty?
I would contend that, absent an explicit authorization, an originalist interpretation would privilege liberty over the ability of the national government to "regulate" health care in the manner it has legislatively enacted . . . and that is ultimately the distinction that the Court will make.
4.2.2012 | 2:27pm
Dean from Ohio says:
"An endless chain of compliance with rulings moving ever farther away from the original meaning and purpose of the Constitution will leave us, or has already left us, in a land of babbling and meaningless recitation of words which have lost their purpose."
This is yet again an illustration of the shortcomings of relying on tradition interpreted by unaccountable authorities, instead of relying an authoritative original document with a reliable interpreter.
In the Gospels, Jesus rebukes the Pharisees, who "sit in the seat of Moses," for twisting the plain meaning of scripture to its exact opposite, by means of their tradition. He also says that the Holy Spirit, who will be in all believers, will explain and interpret his words. Both the Holy Spirit and Scripture are infallible and thus authoritative, and are beyond our capability to order, constrain or domesticate. Other sources of information such as tradition and church leaders, while helpful and (in the case of leaders) are necessary and should be obeyed, but are fallible. They are authoritative only as they visibly obey Scripture in the sight of all, and are spiritual (e.g., "those who are spiritual" in Galatians 2). Putting oneself as a leader above accountability to God's word as plainly understood by God's people, aided by the Holy Spirit, is asking for trouble and is unbibilical and anti-biblical. Why else would Paul call down curses on himself in plain view of the believers in Galatia if he strayed from the words he received from God, unless he was willing to be held to account by those same believers?
Here is part of Galatians ch 1:
"Paul, an apostle—sent not from men nor by a man, but by Jesus Christ and God the Father, who raised him from the dead— and all the brothers and sisters with me,
"To the churches in Galatia:Grace and peace to you from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ, who gave himself for our sins to rescue us from the present evil age, according to the will of our God and Father, to whom be glory for ever and ever. Amen.
"I am astonished that you are so quickly deserting the one who called you to live in the grace of Christ and are turning to a different gospel—which is really no gospel at all. Evidently some people are throwing you into confusion and are trying to pervert the gospel of Christ. But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach a gospel other than the one we preached to you, let them be under God’s curse! As we have already said, so now I say again: If anybody is preaching to you a gospel other than what you accepted, let them be under God’s curse!
"Am I now trying to win the approval of human beings, or of God? Or am I trying to please people? If I were still trying to please people, I would not be a servant of Christ."
If we stumble in submitting to the plain reading of Scripture and allow ourselves to be led astray, how much more are we susceptible to straying from the plain reading of the Constitution!
This is yet again an illustration of the shortcomings of relying on tradition interpreted by unaccountable authorities, instead of relying an authoritative original document with a reliable interpreter.
In the Gospels, Jesus rebukes the Pharisees, who "sit in the seat of Moses," for twisting the plain meaning of scripture to its exact opposite, by means of their tradition. He also says that the Holy Spirit, who will be in all believers, will explain and interpret his words. Both the Holy Spirit and Scripture are infallible and thus authoritative, and are beyond our capability to order, constrain or domesticate. Other sources of information such as tradition and church leaders, while helpful and (in the case of leaders) are necessary and should be obeyed, but are fallible. They are authoritative only as they visibly obey Scripture in the sight of all, and are spiritual (e.g., "those who are spiritual" in Galatians 2). Putting oneself as a leader above accountability to God's word as plainly understood by God's people, aided by the Holy Spirit, is asking for trouble and is unbibilical and anti-biblical. Why else would Paul call down curses on himself in plain view of the believers in Galatia if he strayed from the words he received from God, unless he was willing to be held to account by those same believers?
Here is part of Galatians ch 1:
"Paul, an apostle—sent not from men nor by a man, but by Jesus Christ and God the Father, who raised him from the dead— and all the brothers and sisters with me,
"To the churches in Galatia:Grace and peace to you from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ, who gave himself for our sins to rescue us from the present evil age, according to the will of our God and Father, to whom be glory for ever and ever. Amen.
"I am astonished that you are so quickly deserting the one who called you to live in the grace of Christ and are turning to a different gospel—which is really no gospel at all. Evidently some people are throwing you into confusion and are trying to pervert the gospel of Christ. But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach a gospel other than the one we preached to you, let them be under God’s curse! As we have already said, so now I say again: If anybody is preaching to you a gospel other than what you accepted, let them be under God’s curse!
"Am I now trying to win the approval of human beings, or of God? Or am I trying to please people? If I were still trying to please people, I would not be a servant of Christ."
If we stumble in submitting to the plain reading of Scripture and allow ourselves to be led astray, how much more are we susceptible to straying from the plain reading of the Constitution!
4.2.2012 | 3:22pm
jr says:
The author says that the healthcare law "assumes a government obligation to provide for the needs of the people instead of facilitating mechanisms where the people work together for the provision of those services." I disagree. That would have been true if the law required a single-payer system. But it doesn't. It requires most individuals -- those not eligible for Medicaid -- to purchase insurance on the PRIVATE market. And it provides subsidies -- kind of like the way it subsidizes PRIVATE flood insurance -- so that the coverage can be affordable. More substantively, it seems to me that a health care exchange is exactly the type of "facilitating mechanism" that the author would like to see.
4.2.2012 | 4:45pm
Michael PS says:
"Stare decisis is a rational concept in any set of interpretations. The public depends on a stable set of understandings."
Precisely. The Supreme Court should faithfully follow its own previous decisions. Once it has settled the law on a particular point, it should leave it to the People to change the law by a constitutional amendment, if it so wishes.
This has the advantage that such an amendment can make provision for those who have acted in reliance on the old law as determined by the Court. Unlike a reversal of its own previous decision by the Court, such an amendment will be new law and have no retrospective effect.
Precisely. The Supreme Court should faithfully follow its own previous decisions. Once it has settled the law on a particular point, it should leave it to the People to change the law by a constitutional amendment, if it so wishes.
This has the advantage that such an amendment can make provision for those who have acted in reliance on the old law as determined by the Court. Unlike a reversal of its own previous decision by the Court, such an amendment will be new law and have no retrospective effect.
4.2.2012 | 5:37pm
Brian English says:
"First, the Constitution was meant primarily not to restrain the federal government but to create a more powerful government than that under the Articles of Confederation."
But "more powerful" is a relative concept. It cannot be seriously disputed that the federal government was intended to have limited powers. Here is James Madison in Federalist No. 45:
"The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government, are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite. The former will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce; with which last the power of taxation will, for the most part, be connected. The powers reserved to the several States will extend to all the objects which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties, and properties of the people, and the internal order, improvement, and prosperity of the State."
The Tenth Amendment itself is pretty clear on this point:
"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."
But "more powerful" is a relative concept. It cannot be seriously disputed that the federal government was intended to have limited powers. Here is James Madison in Federalist No. 45:
"The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government, are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite. The former will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce; with which last the power of taxation will, for the most part, be connected. The powers reserved to the several States will extend to all the objects which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties, and properties of the people, and the internal order, improvement, and prosperity of the State."
The Tenth Amendment itself is pretty clear on this point:
"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."
4.2.2012 | 5:55pm
Don Roberto says:
In “The Omega Glory" a renegade Star Fleet captain "killed thousands" (in his pursuit of a non-existant wonder drug that would lead to eternal youth). To him, obviously, his end justified *any* means. We get a taste in the comments above for the convolunted rationalizations we humans will contrive in order to justify what we see as being in our self interest—whether we think the Holy Spirit speaks to us more clearly than to others or that we are better constitutional scholars.
Just as I presume no one in "Star Fleet Command" would approve violating their "Prime Directive" for a miracle drug, neither do I think could our Founders, were we in a position to ask, imagine any legitimate justification for taxing all citizens to pay for recreational drugs (contraceptives) and other *non-essentials* (to say the least, since one of them is abortion) desired by a subset of The People.
†
Just as I presume no one in "Star Fleet Command" would approve violating their "Prime Directive" for a miracle drug, neither do I think could our Founders, were we in a position to ask, imagine any legitimate justification for taxing all citizens to pay for recreational drugs (contraceptives) and other *non-essentials* (to say the least, since one of them is abortion) desired by a subset of The People.
†
4.2.2012 | 10:04pm
Burton says:
Dean from Ohio,
Your statement:
"Putting oneself as a leader above accountability to God's word as plainly understood by God's people, aided by the Holy Spirit, is asking for trouble and is unbibilical and anti-biblical"
This is fraught with difficulty at best. God's word as plainly understood by God's people?!! Don't you mean the group of people who happen to interpret the Bible (your canon, of course) in such a way that matches your own interpretation?
The website "Called to Communion" has some excellent articles and combox discussions between Catholics ans Protestants on these issues. Check it out!
Your statement:
"Putting oneself as a leader above accountability to God's word as plainly understood by God's people, aided by the Holy Spirit, is asking for trouble and is unbibilical and anti-biblical"
This is fraught with difficulty at best. God's word as plainly understood by God's people?!! Don't you mean the group of people who happen to interpret the Bible (your canon, of course) in such a way that matches your own interpretation?
The website "Called to Communion" has some excellent articles and combox discussions between Catholics ans Protestants on these issues. Check it out!
4.3.2012 | 2:41pm
Dean from Ohio says:
"This is fraught with difficulty at best."
No doubt. I am reminded of Churchill's quip that democracy is the worst possible form of government, except for every other. I am also reminded of William F. Buckley, who famously said that he would rather be governed by the first 400 people in the telephone book than by the faculty of Harvard University.
My point is that precision does not equal accuracy. The Catholic Church's internal doctrinal variation is small compared to that of Protestantism, even with notable outliers such as syncretism in Africa, liberation theology in Latin America and doctrines of the Left in the United States and Europe. It is thus "precise," to borrow a metaphor from mathematics. But the center of any significant sample you can take of Protestantism is, despite is larger variance, far more "accurate"--closer to truth--than is Catholicism. Catholic "bias" is more dangerous than Protestant "noise" in the sample, because bias is harder to detect and remove.
Put another way, starting with the Bible and adding the noise of interpretation from a sinful but a humble heart, or 400 sinful but humble hearts, will get you closer to the truth than starting with the accretions of centuries of official doctrine and then bringing in the Bible as an add-on. If you don't think that's a fair description of Catholic approach to scriptural interpretation, cite an example where a newer understanding of the word by a layperson, a group of 400 laypersons, or even an organized lay order was ever accepted, even over a long period of time, over official Catholic doctrine, even when that newer understanding was offered in humility, gentleness and patience. I doubt there is one, since you've ruled that mechanism out a priori. This is why the bias is never detected or removed, because no one is looking for it, and finding it would be an embarrassment.
So no, I don't mean only those who "interpret the Bible" the same way I do. I'll match your canon, and even raise you the Apocrypha. I'll throw in the whole deck of denominationalism. But I do mean those who submit to the Bible according to its claims for itself, and to the Holy Spirit that Jesus promised, to Jesus the Chief Shepherd, and to the pastor/overseer/elder/under-shepherd of the local church that God has called together in the place where where I live. So "interpret in such a way that matches your own interpretation," no; "the Bible," yes.
As I see it, the Catholic Magisterium attempts to put the God's word in a cage away from the window, to keep it safe, of course. But, as Paul wrote to the Philippians, "God's word is not bound." God's word broke free in the Reformation and is still free.
The Catholic Church also lacks faith, I think, that God can preserve his truth of the scriptures through the Holy Spirit as Jesus promised without a Magisterium.
Such an office adds guardrails to the highway for those can't drive so well, but in the process it also adds roadblocks that are not, and never were, in the highway construction drawings. Very safe, of course, except for fire trucks, police cars, ambulances, moms in delivery and all others who really need a clear road.
Anyway, Burton, thanks for your reference. I bookmarked it and will return to it. My Reformation and Evangelical information has come largely from books, but I will mention the site "Reformation Theology" to you. Paul's letters to the Romans and Galatians, and the letter to the Hebrews also come to mind.
No doubt. I am reminded of Churchill's quip that democracy is the worst possible form of government, except for every other. I am also reminded of William F. Buckley, who famously said that he would rather be governed by the first 400 people in the telephone book than by the faculty of Harvard University.
My point is that precision does not equal accuracy. The Catholic Church's internal doctrinal variation is small compared to that of Protestantism, even with notable outliers such as syncretism in Africa, liberation theology in Latin America and doctrines of the Left in the United States and Europe. It is thus "precise," to borrow a metaphor from mathematics. But the center of any significant sample you can take of Protestantism is, despite is larger variance, far more "accurate"--closer to truth--than is Catholicism. Catholic "bias" is more dangerous than Protestant "noise" in the sample, because bias is harder to detect and remove.
Put another way, starting with the Bible and adding the noise of interpretation from a sinful but a humble heart, or 400 sinful but humble hearts, will get you closer to the truth than starting with the accretions of centuries of official doctrine and then bringing in the Bible as an add-on. If you don't think that's a fair description of Catholic approach to scriptural interpretation, cite an example where a newer understanding of the word by a layperson, a group of 400 laypersons, or even an organized lay order was ever accepted, even over a long period of time, over official Catholic doctrine, even when that newer understanding was offered in humility, gentleness and patience. I doubt there is one, since you've ruled that mechanism out a priori. This is why the bias is never detected or removed, because no one is looking for it, and finding it would be an embarrassment.
So no, I don't mean only those who "interpret the Bible" the same way I do. I'll match your canon, and even raise you the Apocrypha. I'll throw in the whole deck of denominationalism. But I do mean those who submit to the Bible according to its claims for itself, and to the Holy Spirit that Jesus promised, to Jesus the Chief Shepherd, and to the pastor/overseer/elder/under-shepherd of the local church that God has called together in the place where where I live. So "interpret in such a way that matches your own interpretation," no; "the Bible," yes.
As I see it, the Catholic Magisterium attempts to put the God's word in a cage away from the window, to keep it safe, of course. But, as Paul wrote to the Philippians, "God's word is not bound." God's word broke free in the Reformation and is still free.
The Catholic Church also lacks faith, I think, that God can preserve his truth of the scriptures through the Holy Spirit as Jesus promised without a Magisterium.
Such an office adds guardrails to the highway for those can't drive so well, but in the process it also adds roadblocks that are not, and never were, in the highway construction drawings. Very safe, of course, except for fire trucks, police cars, ambulances, moms in delivery and all others who really need a clear road.
Anyway, Burton, thanks for your reference. I bookmarked it and will return to it. My Reformation and Evangelical information has come largely from books, but I will mention the site "Reformation Theology" to you. Paul's letters to the Romans and Galatians, and the letter to the Hebrews also come to mind.
4.3.2012 | 6:21pm
Burton says:
Dean,
Thanks for your thoughtful response. I don't want to lead this combox discussion to far astray, so I will respond briefly. God can certainly preserve the truth any way He wants to, but we mere mortals are constrained by our need to have the truth defined by some guiding principle (perhaps this does tie into the Constitution issue). The Bible alone does not provide a means of defining itself (canon) or interpreting itself. Our ability as individuals to clearly ascertain the leading of the Holy Spirit in these matters is deeply flawed by our own sin and presuppositions. This is why "humble hearted" individuals reading the Bible can never define any meaningful sense of heresy vs orthodoxy or schism vs unity. Who gets to define the center of your Protestant "accuracy"? I would argue that when it comes to the Truths of revelation, both accuracy and precision are necessary, that this is only achievable with a God-ordained living human authority, and that this concept is utterly Biblical.
I think history bears this out.
Burton
Thanks for your thoughtful response. I don't want to lead this combox discussion to far astray, so I will respond briefly. God can certainly preserve the truth any way He wants to, but we mere mortals are constrained by our need to have the truth defined by some guiding principle (perhaps this does tie into the Constitution issue). The Bible alone does not provide a means of defining itself (canon) or interpreting itself. Our ability as individuals to clearly ascertain the leading of the Holy Spirit in these matters is deeply flawed by our own sin and presuppositions. This is why "humble hearted" individuals reading the Bible can never define any meaningful sense of heresy vs orthodoxy or schism vs unity. Who gets to define the center of your Protestant "accuracy"? I would argue that when it comes to the Truths of revelation, both accuracy and precision are necessary, that this is only achievable with a God-ordained living human authority, and that this concept is utterly Biblical.
I think history bears this out.
Burton
4.4.2012 | 9:39am
Dean from Ohio says:
Thank you, Burton, for your thoughtful response. I'll try to bring this discussion back full circle.
The oaths taken by public servants are "to support and defend the Constitution of the United States," and some continue on to say, "against all enemies both foreign and domestic," and "to bear true faith and allegiance to the same." Thus the Constitution is self-interpreting on almost every point. Who is the Commander in Chief? Who has the power to confirm or deny Presidential appointments? What powers are granted to the federal government? There are unforeseen applications for which the Court is helpful, but the vast majority of it is plain and open. In that case, the problem is not "what does the Constitution mean?" but rather "Will I obey the Constitution or not?"
A U.S. military officer who must decide whether to obey a Presidential Executive Order suspending elections or abolishing the Congress does not need to wait for a second for a Court interpretation despite whatever "circumstances" there may be. He immediately knows that the offender who must be constrained is the President, and with him his officials in the Executive Branch.
For all his rebellion against God, Samuel Clemens (Mark Twain) as a clock timing the rhythms of culture was right at least twice a day. One of those times was this: "It ain't those parts of the Bible that I can't understand that bother me, it is the parts that I do understand."
In this respect, the Bible and the Constitution are similar; my "understanding" of it is primarily determined in advance by whether I have decided to obey it or not (the humble heart). I believe that the enlightenment of the Holy Spirit, the text alone and an individual's humble, obedient attitude will, despite the individual's baggage, get me closer to the truth than the text in the hands of a magisterium and its baggage, particularly its view that previous interpretations are infallible and on the level of scripture.
So it is with the Constitution. Given the choice, I would rather have a rotating panel of ordinary citizens chosen at random as individuals to decide on Constitutional issues rather than the collection of lawyers we have now in the Supreme Court. The panel would make mistakes, but they would be true to the Constitution more often than the Court. Perhaps we should appoint such a panel and run them in parallel with the current Court; the results would be interesting, wouldn't they? After all, judicial review of the Constitution is not expressly spelled out in the Constitution.
It is better to have both precision and accuracy, of course. For that unity we ought to pray daily.
The oaths taken by public servants are "to support and defend the Constitution of the United States," and some continue on to say, "against all enemies both foreign and domestic," and "to bear true faith and allegiance to the same." Thus the Constitution is self-interpreting on almost every point. Who is the Commander in Chief? Who has the power to confirm or deny Presidential appointments? What powers are granted to the federal government? There are unforeseen applications for which the Court is helpful, but the vast majority of it is plain and open. In that case, the problem is not "what does the Constitution mean?" but rather "Will I obey the Constitution or not?"
A U.S. military officer who must decide whether to obey a Presidential Executive Order suspending elections or abolishing the Congress does not need to wait for a second for a Court interpretation despite whatever "circumstances" there may be. He immediately knows that the offender who must be constrained is the President, and with him his officials in the Executive Branch.
For all his rebellion against God, Samuel Clemens (Mark Twain) as a clock timing the rhythms of culture was right at least twice a day. One of those times was this: "It ain't those parts of the Bible that I can't understand that bother me, it is the parts that I do understand."
In this respect, the Bible and the Constitution are similar; my "understanding" of it is primarily determined in advance by whether I have decided to obey it or not (the humble heart). I believe that the enlightenment of the Holy Spirit, the text alone and an individual's humble, obedient attitude will, despite the individual's baggage, get me closer to the truth than the text in the hands of a magisterium and its baggage, particularly its view that previous interpretations are infallible and on the level of scripture.
So it is with the Constitution. Given the choice, I would rather have a rotating panel of ordinary citizens chosen at random as individuals to decide on Constitutional issues rather than the collection of lawyers we have now in the Supreme Court. The panel would make mistakes, but they would be true to the Constitution more often than the Court. Perhaps we should appoint such a panel and run them in parallel with the current Court; the results would be interesting, wouldn't they? After all, judicial review of the Constitution is not expressly spelled out in the Constitution.
It is better to have both precision and accuracy, of course. For that unity we ought to pray daily.
4.4.2012 | 9:53am
Dean from Ohio says:
P.S. I think the House of Representatives was meant to be that rotating panel of ordinary individuals. Our government would certainly be better off if it were.
4.5.2012 | 5:24pm
burton says:
Dean,
How, using the above paradigm, do you define heresy and schism?
Burton
How, using the above paradigm, do you define heresy and schism?
Burton
4.11.2012 | 11:15am
brenda says:
As if those authors really have any clue as to what the Tea Party means. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite. The former will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce.
Shorn of this context, the text of Constitution can be
used against the spirit of the republic. Exactly as the Protestants used the text of the Scripture against the traditions of the Church and the people, the Left has used the text of the Constitution against the American people and republic.
Thus the originalist project is not viable. One needs to resurrect the context as well, absent that a modern constitution such as that of Canada or European Union is more suited for a 21C people.