Misunderstanding our founding documents?

E. J. Dionne says that, contrary to what tea party conservatives are saying, our founding documents are not anti-government:

A reading of the Declaration of Independence makes clear that our forebears were not revolting against taxes as such — and most certainly not against government as such.

In the long list of “abuses and usurpations” the Declaration documents, taxes don’t come up until the 17th item, and that item is neither a complaint about tax rates nor an objection to the idea of taxation. Our Founders remonstrated against the British crown “for imposing taxes on us without our consent.” They were concerned about “consent,” i.e. popular rule, not taxes.

The very first item on their list condemned the king because he “refused his assent to laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good.” Note that the signers wanted to pass laws, not repeal them, and they began by speaking of “the public good,” not about individuals or “the private sector.” They knew that it takes public action — including effective and responsive government — to secure “life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.”

Their second grievance reinforced the first, accusing the king of having “forbidden his governors to pass laws of immediate and pressing importance.” Again, our forebears wanted to enact laws; they were not anti-government zealots.

Abuses three through nine also referred in some way to how laws were passed or justice was administered. The document doesn’t really get to anything that looks like Big Government oppression (“He has erected a multitude of new offices, and sent hither swarms of officers to harrass our people, and eat out their substance”) until grievance No. 10.

This misunderstanding of our founding document is paralleled by a misunderstanding of our Constitution. “The federal government was created by the states to be an agent for the states, not the other way around,” Gov. Rick Perry of Texas said recently.

No, our Constitution begins with the words “We the People” not “We the States.” The Constitution’s Preamble speaks of promoting “a more perfect Union,” “Justice,” “the common defense,” “the general Welfare” and “the Blessings of Liberty.” These were national goals.

via What our Declaration really said – The Washington Post.

No, the founding documents were not anti-government, since they were concerned with establishing a government.  But what do you think of Dionne’s point, that today’s conservatives are taking the limited government bit too far?  (Certainly, traditional conservatives, like those in Europe, tend to favor a strong government, whereas traditional liberals were the ones who opposed strong governmental authority so they could do what they want.)

The drone wars

The world’s military industrial complex–impressed with the USA’s ability to zap enemies from the air with remote-controlled mini-aircraft– is racing headlong into drone technology.  An article about the drones China is developing goes on to tell about the rest of the world’s drone rush.  It makes one suspect that the wars of the future may be waged with robotic aircraft controlled by video-game veterans posted safely at home.

Little is known about the actual abilities of the WJ-600 drone or the more than two dozen other Chinese models that were on display at Zhuhai in November. But the speed at which they have been developed highlights how U.S. military successes with drones have changed strategic thinking worldwide and spurred a global rush for unmanned aircraft.

More than 50 countries have purchased surveillance drones, and many have started in-country development programs for armed versions because no nation is exporting weaponized drones beyond a handful of sales between the United States and its closest allies.

“This is the direction all aviation is going,” said Kenneth Anderson, a professor of law at American University who studies the legal questions surrounding the use of drones in warfare. “Everybody will wind up using this technology because it’s going to become the standard for many, many applications of what are now manned aircraft.”

Military planners worldwide see drones as relatively cheap weapons and highly effective reconnaissance tools. Hand-launched ones used by ground troops can cost in the tens of thousands of dollars. Near the top of the line, the Predator B, or MQ9-Reaper, manufactured by General Atomics Aeronautical Systems, costs about $10.5 million. By comparison, a single F-22 fighter jet costs about $150 million.

Defense spending on drones has become the most dynamic sector of the world’s aerospace industry, according to a report by the Teal Group in Fairfax. The group’s 2011 market study estimated that in the coming decade global spending on drones will double, reaching $94 billion.

via Global race on to match U.S. drone capabilities – The Washington Post.

So is this an ethical advance, with the military making war “safely” (for them), or is it an ethical regression, with warfare becoming even more dehumanized?

Rendering to Caesar and to God

Happy Independence Day! The birthday of our nation would be a good time to contemplate that great text on church and state, Matthew 22:21, in which our Lord charges us to “render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar’s, and to God the things that are God’s.”

What “things” are Caesar’s, and how do we render them to him? And what “things” are God’s, and how do we render them to Him?

Obviously, all things are God’s, but Jesus must have had a particular sense of this in mind. A pastor I heard on Sunday–I’m on the road, so it wasn’t our pastor–said that the Greek implies that we are giving back what we have received. So we might think of this in terms of “what do we receive from the state” and so what are we obliged to a giving back. Jesus’s example of money works here. What else? And how does this apply to the gifts of God?

The National Debt and the Constitution

As we wrestle with the national debt and as Congress debates over whether to raise the debt limit or risk default, we should consider what the Constitution says about the issue.  First, Congress does have the right to borrow money:

‘The Congress shall have power … To borrow money on the credit of the United States.’  Article I, Section 8

But read on to the 14th Amendment and you find this:

‘The validity of the public debt of the United States … shall not be questioned.’  14th Amendment, Section 4

The 14th Amendment deals with the wreckage of the Civil War, giving citizenship to former slaves by virtue of their having been born here (another controversial issue in the immigration debate, though clearly addressed in the Constitution) among other things.  Article 4 repudiated the debt of the Confederacy, but in doing so it affirmed that the United States will always honor its debts.

This was a brilliant addition, serving as the basis for the idea that U.S. bonds are backed by the “full faith and credit” of the United States of America, meaning they are a rock solid investment.  It isn’t just our full faith and credit that backs them but the Constitution itself.  It would be unconstitutional to default on our loans.

But, as some experts are saying now in the midst of the debt ceiling negotiations in Congress, the 14th Amendment would render all of that moot.  There is no need to raise the debt ceiling because the Constitution provides that all debt that we incur must be paid.  The money that our lawmakers are squabbling over has already been spent and has been authorized by statute.  According to the 14th Amendment, that debt has to be honored.

Debt can certainly be too high and need to be controlled.  But the 14th Amendment means that whatever we borrow must be paid back.   According to some attorneys, if the current negotiations to raise the debt ceiling break down, to prevent the country from going into default, the President simply needs to sign an executive order invoking the 14th Amendment and keep borrowing money to pay our obligations, despite what Congress does.

Do you see any flaws in this legal reasoning?

 

see U.S. Constitution Under Siege over Libya, Taxes, Health Care – TIME.

HT:  Jimmy Veith

Verdict

In response to all of the discussion about “to ban or not to ban,” I think I will take the suggestion by Webmonk and others to delete certain comments that I find repetitive, tangential, or obnoxious.

I will be constrained by time, how busy I am, and when I get around to reading the comments. But I will try to supervise the discussions a little more. Hopefully, I can avoid banning people, though if I find myself always striking their comments that could happen. But I hope to keep this a positive forum in accord with its past reputation.

I do want this to remain a place where Lutherans and non-Lutherans, conservatives and liberals, Christians and non-Christians, can come together to discuss and interact. That can’t happen if any of the sides are vicious and insulting to each other. So all of us would do well to mind our manners. Again, I prize vigorous debate, but gratuitous rudeness will get your comment smitten (even if I do agree with it). A good test: Would you say this to a person’s face, without the anonymity of the internet? If not, rephrase.

Come, Lord Jesus, be our guest. . .

Some time ago on this blog, I sort of took issue with the “Common Table Prayer” commonly used by Lutherans, prayed in unison before a meal.   Remember that I did not grow up in this tradition, and I considered it more of a rhyming sing-song children’s prayer, favoring instead the prayer in the catechism with its use of the Psalm (“The eyes of all look to you, O Lord. . .”) or a spontaneous personal prayer.  How presumptuous I was in questioning a devotion hallowed by untold numbers of Christians for generations!

Since then I have come to appreciate and to use that prayer.  Above all, it is a prayer that focuses upon Christ’s presence–asking Him to come into our lives, into our vocations, into our family as everyone is seated around the table–and acknowledges Christ’s gifts, that the food we are about to eat comes from His hand and that ordinary life is the sphere of His blessings.

Along those lines and to go even deeper into the Biblical dimensions of this little prayer, you have got to read the piece by Dr. David Loy in the latest Lutheran Witness.  It deserves to become a classic.  You need to read the whole thing, but this is the summary:

“Come, Lord Jesus,” we cry with the Church, longing for our Lord to return in glory and set us and this entire sinful world right. “Be our guest,” we ask Him, knowing that the house that receives Jesus in faith receives His salvation. “Let Thy gifts to us be blessed,” we pray, trusting that the food on our tables will be sufficient to nourish us to do the work the Lord has given us in this world. It is such a simple prayer, and yet it gives voice to so many longings that our faith produces in us. We long for Jesus to come again, we long for the salvation He brings, and we long to be nourished to do the work He gives us.

via The Lutheran Church – Missouri Synod – The Lutheran Witness.


CLOSE | X

HIDE | X