Football and The Declaration

I've always enjoyed the relatively new (since 2002?) tradition of the recitation of the pertinent philosophical points of the Declaration prior to the Super Bowl. It's so important for people to read and hear the actual words that founded our nation.



I hadn't heard this quote by Thomas Paine before...

"Our citizenship in the United States is our national character. Our citizenship in any particular state is only our local distinction. By the latter we are known at home, by the former to the world. Our great title is AMERICANS." This point, of course, has been a source of contention since the very beginning.

Some people like this commenter (#8) don't appreciate it this because of imperfections in our founders...

so when the Decleration of Independence was signed many of the guys pictured in the commercial wouldn't have been there unless their slave owners allowed them. As for the lack of women in it, of course, they weren't recognized until 150 years after that fact - I guess the truths we held evident weren't sp evident, except to the to rich white guys - hey just like the nfl owners today- coincedence?

Looks like that guy needs to read this book...a very readable book with solid scholarship on these and other accusations.

A student told me one day that he wouldn't pledge allegiance to the flag because the country wasn't fair to Blacks. I told him that we don't pledge to what is, but to what we aspire to. No one says at their wedding ceremony, "I pledge to continue hanging out with you and be mostly concerned about my own happiness." No...the starry-eyed couple pledges to love through every conceivable circumstance -- a lofty aspiration indeed.

The ideals grounded in the Declaration set us on the unprecedented path to achieve equality for all humans based on the natural law. If it wasn't for the "rich white guys" who were willing to pledge their "lives, fortunes and sacred honor" human freedom would likely be much more limited than it is now.

The commenter is correct if he means that our working out of our founding principles were flawed at the beginning...and are still flawed. However, I think he's conflating this with the principles themselves -- a very dangerous and ignorant error.

Great game, by the way...

Un-Reasons to vote for a candidate

Un-Reasons to vote for a President:

1. Unity - Unity for what purpose? Unity of itself is a hollow shell, waiting to be filled by meaning. A unified team of professionals can both rob a bank or save a life. A promise that one will reach a bi-partisan compromise is fraught with Constitutional problems. I am convinced that one particular party is dominated by those who want to recreate American society into its grand utopian vision. A compromise with those individuals is a pyrrhic victory. This is because every compromise takes us a step away from Constitutional principles, albeit not as big as Teddy might like. They are masters at incrementalism. These compromises then weaken the conservative party either because of disgust by its constituents, or a slow melting of principles once held dear.

2. Change -- Same as above. Change of itself is mere action. People want action from our federal government, for some reason. I would like to see action, but action on correcting so many of the grievous errors they've foisted on us (McCain-Feingold, Earmarks, Amnesty, etc.)

3. Personality -- Personality is important. However, electing on personality alone is setting up your executive branch for demogoguery. In interviews over who people are going to vote for (no matter the candidate), I hear personality being cited the most (he speaks well, he sounds like he cares, he's got what it takes...). This is dangerous. When an individual cites policies with no clear delineation of the principles underlying then (Obama) or if it contradicts his past record (Huck) many people can then attach their agendas to that candidate. These attachments will hold no weight when that person is in office.

Reasons to vote for a President:

1. Principles -- The foundational principles that one subscribes to both in the campaign and in historical demonstration of experience will shape the decisions that are made in the future. This is the single most important consideration, but the one most overlooked.

2. Policies -- This is the next most important reason, but not because of particular policies. One should look at whether or not the candidate's policies are consistent with stated principles. You should look to see whether or not principles are consistently held throughout changing political environments. If they fluctuate, they are NOT deeply held.

Witness:

I would take the use of force very seriously. I would be guarded in my approach. I don't think we can be all things to all people in the world. I think we've got to be very careful when we commit our troops.

The vice president and I have a disagreement about the use of troops. He believes in nation-building. I would be very careful about using our troops as nation builders.

Candidate George W. Bush, October 3, 2000

(As an aside, I do believe he meant what he said when he said it, then 9/11 occurred which required him to re-think. My point is that, as a governor, this belief was merely theoretical-- having had very little foreign policy experience--and thus much more susceptible to change.)

3. Virtue -- An individual of high character will not be swayed by the waves of courtiers whispering sweet promises. He will not cower before foreign leaders. He will not govern by popular opinion. He will not bend founding principles to pursue the siren song of utopian visions.

We need an individual of high character with correct principles and consistent policies. This is the type of leader we should be voting for. Read this book for six stellar examples.

What is a law?

Sometimes I ask my students this question. What is a law? I get answers like...it's a rule, it tells you what you should or shouldn't do, etc.

We must understand that a law is a moral statement. It is a statement by society that says that we think certain things are good and certain things are bad. Take a stop sign. How can that be a moral statement? Take the purpose of the stop sign...it is to prevent large hunks of metal carrying human beings around from smashing into one another, thereby causing injury, destruction and general mayhem.

Society has determined that these latter results are bad, therefore laws are passed to prevent these bad things. So, when one performs a california stop, he is wary of law enforcers.

Why are the law enforcers given the rights to enforce a ticket on you? Because they have guns? Cars with pretty lights? Badges? No, because we believe as a society that injury, destruction and mayhem are bad, and it is the law enforcers job to punish the bad and reward the good.

This is one reason why earmarks are morally repugnant--they are supposed to be making clear moral statements, all the while buying votes with my money.

Separation Doctrine

My local paper today the Reading Eagle, has a regular editorialist John Forester. Today's editorial uses Mitt Romney's speech on his faith as a springboard into a lamentation that

Today, it would appear that the ideal president would be someone who took his orders directly from the Almighty himself.

Well, I'm going to use his editorial as a springboard myself...

Mention Separation of Church and State and people usually take it to mean a denial of any mention of religious belief in the public sphere. Thanks to several SCOTUS decisions we've come to this place. In a poor attempt at originalism, Justice Black in Everson v. Board of Education (highlights mine) sought to use Thomas Jefferson's letter to the Danbury Baptist Association to insert the "wall of separation" phrase into Constitutional jurisprudence.

The Constitution is a federal, not a state document.
Therefore, the limitations in the Constitution are federal, not state, unless specifically designated.
If you read the letter, you see Jefferson's opinion that the states ought to follow the federal government's lead.

Of course, the previous paragraph is no longer true because this same Justice introduced incorporation, which applies the Bill of Rights to the states. We may talk more about that later.

Even in Jefferson's letter, there is a distinction between governmental establishment and support. Under our Constitution, government has always been free to support one particular religion over another. Federal government was restricted from coercing its citizens into a particular religion by way of taxation or religious tests for office, for example.

The idea of a cleansing of religion from the public sphere is thoroughly unconstitutional. Those that support strict separation can only point to past cases that have all developed from Everson...not the undergirding philosophy in the Declaration or the text of the Constitution.

Constitutional Originalism

I consistently talk about the importance of proper Constitutional interpretation. In this essay, I attempt to address one argument against originalism...that this philosophy of interpretation led to the persistence of slavery in America.

I'll be writing an ongoing series of posts discussing the importance of this philosophy of interpretation.