No one has suggested it was. But Scalia said the authority of the government is derived from God; a very different assertion that makes the Constitution subservient to one religion’s law of God, a notion that certainly was not envisioned by the framers. This is what I am suggesting is not consistent with Scalia’s strict constructionism, a philosophy that he apparently applies only when it is convenient to his politics and his religion.
Huh? If he thought the constitution was subservient to religious law, he’d be advocationg that all religions besides Catholicism be outlawed.
Why is believing that governments derive their authority from God incompatible with strict constuctionism? I’m sure that Scalia blieves many things that the framers did not believe. In fact, I doubt ANYONE alive today has beliefs consistent with those of the framers.
Only to “Nature’s God,” the clockmaker God of the deists – not to the Lord God of Israel, or any deity Moses or Jesus would have recognized.
Exactly! But strict constructionism is a doctrine that determinedly ignores such cultural evolution. It requires that the Constitution be interpreted the way the Framers would interpret it, if they were alive to be asked. And the Framers would flatly reject any notion that government derives its authority from God, however God be conceived.
There’s a difference between UNDERSTANDING the thought process of someone and SHARING those thought process. Justives routinely disregard their personal beliefs in deference to the law. In fact, a judge pretty much HAS to do that, since it’s the rare person indeed who personally supports every law on the books.
I see no contradiction or reason why I cannot agree with Locke’s proposition that government is a result of an agreement among people as to how their common affairs should be handled by government and my complete disagreement with the statement quoted above. Especially the part in bold.
Just because someone is a “devout Puritan” doesn’t mean that they are required to believe that governmental authority comes from a particular one omong the several gods that are claimed to exist by various groups worldwide and within the US.
Nor do I claim that those among us, in or out of government, who believe in any of those claimed dieties should not be allowed to make their decisions based on that belief.
I do strongly believe that government ought to be only by consent of the governed and that the common resources should not be used to promote the beliefs of any particular religion.
But Scalia is not doing that in this particular instance, is he?
Which particular instance? The line of discussion I was having concerned whether or not governments derive their authority from God. I still don’t see how it’s impossible to hold that view (even though I don’t share it) but still take a constructionist view of the constitution.
It is impossible to take a strict constructionist view of the Constitution, and at the same time hold that the Constitution derives its authority from God – because the Framers of the Constitution did not think that way.
You need to do more that just state your thesis to prove that it’s true. I’ve already explained why I think you’re wrong-- pick apart my argument or give some evidence for yours.
Let’s assume for the sake of argument that governmental authority does come from God. In that case the authority of King George III came from God, as was in fact claimed, and our founders were flouting God’s will in revolting. In addition the governments of Louis XIV, Napoleon, Joseph Stalin and Adloph Hitler were also empowered by God.
And if instead of the Constitition we now have the founders had chosen to establish an entirely different government, such as one of one-man rule, that also would have, gotten its authority from God?
The theory behind our government is that the people established it and can change it whenevers and to whatever they decide is best for them. The “authority came from God” then implies that in this case God said, “I hereby empower you henceforth to do as you please in governmental affairs.” and retired from the scene to watch what happens. That’s the God of the Deists and is a sterile concept in which God is superflous.
It could be argued that only governments that benefit the people get their authority from God but that is, of course, defining you way out of the problem. I really can’t see that the “authority comes from God” idea has a leg to stand on, the insufferably morally-certain Justice Scalia notwithstanding.
Since it would be absurd to think that Scalia believs that, one must assume that you are misinterpreting what he meant by his statement.
The question is: Does government come from God? I don’t think I have misinterpreting Scalia at all. Here are a few samples from the cited document in the OP:
Quite obviously Scalia is saying that government and our laws, including those concerning interstate commerce and speeding on the highways, are derived from God.
I don’t think anywhere in the cite Scalia specifically said that only our government comes from God. If he had it would mean to me that he feels he is qualified to judge what God authorises in governmental establishment and what He does not. Somehow that wouldn’t surprise me.
But if we say that the only governments that God authorizes are those that Scalia, and we, approve then the whole discussion becomes frivolous.
Either government comes from God or it does not. If it does then God authorized Hitler, which was a claim of his by the way, Stalin and all others. Otherwise the claim that it does just a bunch of verbiage without any meaning.
Did he really say that all governments, including the Nazis and the Soviets were authroized by God? If so, then I would submit that that interpretation also is a bunch of verbiage without any meaning. If each and every single government is authorized by God, then that authorization has no distinguishing value. Then no action by any government anywhere can be questioned. Again, a nonsense conclusion that means the premise must be incorrect-- otherwise Scalia would NEVER rule against a government action.
If I were to say “everything is good”, then the word “good” has no real meaning. Do you see what I’m getting at? I’m trying to understand how “governments derive their authority from God” is used in an operative sense. The way you describe it, it has no operative meaning.
The first two quotes from Scalia in my post state categorically that “government comes from” or “is derived from” God. If he meant that only good governments do so he must have spoken carelessly and that was in questioning, or chivying, attorneys in an argument before the Supreme Court no less.
And I get the definite sense that Scalia comes down on the side of the government most of the time. I do know that he has said that only those rights exist that are specifically acknowledged by the Constitution.
Government officials are haughty enough. If they have the conviction that they are acting for God they become intolerably dangerous. I think history is on my side in that statement.
But you haven’t offered any argument that the Framers conceived of government as based on divine authority. You have noted only that “the SC has been arguing about this for what seems to be forever” – which tells us something about modern religious politics, but nothing about those of the 18th Century.
Consider:
- The Constitution itself does not mention God anywhere, not even in the Preamble, which reads, “We the People . . . do ordain and establish this Constitution.”
- The Federalist, that seminal document in which the work of the Constitutional Convention was lauded by three of its members writing under an assumed name, nowhere invokes divine authority.
- The first five presidents of the United States (three of whom – Washington, Adams and Madison – had been Convention delegates) were, whatever their nominal religious affiliation, deists. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._Presidential_religious_affiliations Deism was a belief-system remarkably inimical to the idea of human government being based on any divine sanction. Madison is a particularly key figure here because he is generally considered the Constitution’s chief author; he also contributed essays to The Federalist, and proposed the Bill of Rights.
- Benjamin Franklin, a Convention delegate and highly influential patriot, was also a deist. In 1780 he wrote to a Quaker friend (http://www.worldpolicy.org/globalrights/religion/franklin-religion.html):
In 1790, he wrote to Ezra Stiles:
- Alexander Hamilton, Convention delegate and principal author of The Federalist, was a Christian – but did not really start to take it seriously until long after the Constitutional Convention. Certainly he did not view government as having divine sanction, although his political thinking was certainly influenced by his Calvinist upbringing, with its pessimistic view of human depravity. From http://www.catholiceducation.org/articles/history/us/ah0015.html:
- The 1797 Treaty of Tripoli, declaring “the Government of the United States…is not in any sense founded on the Christian religion” (see post 24), was unanimously confirmed by the Senate – at a time when practically every man in American public life could remember the Convention, and the public debates that preceded the Constitution’s ratification.
Based on all this, I feel confident in asserting that the Framers did not conceive of the authority of the government – that established by the U.S. Constitution, or any other – as deriving from God; and no true “strict constructionist” would assert that it does.
It looks like there might be a little wiggle room in the second quote which speaks of the majority “belief.”
However, the first quite seems to me to be pretty categorical. Here is the entire passage:
“JUSTICE SCALIA: And when somebody goes by that monument, I don’t think they’re studying each one of the commandments. It’s a symbol of the fact that government comes – derives its authority from God. And that is, it seems to me, an appropriate symbol to be on State grounds.”
I didn’t so describe the phrase, Scalia did in the cite in my post above. And thanks for agreeing with me that it must be wrong because it is nonsense.
Well, I’ve already said I disagreed with it several times in this thread. I’m an atheist-- how could I possible agree? 
And I would agree that to the extent he uses that opinion to inform his decisions about the constitutionality of a given issue, then he is not being a “strict constructionist”. I still mainain, however, that it is possible to hold an opinion contrary to that of the founders, but sill defer to your understanding of their intent when making judicial decisions. Whether or not Scalia accomplishes that, I honestly don’t know. As I said before, I suspect that his religious beliefs creep into his rulings more often than I would prefer.
I would expect that it’s near impossible for us humans of 21st century to understand the mindset of an 18th century (ie, pre-Darwin) person wrt religion, and man’s place in the universe. For that reason alone, the "establishment clause’ of the constitution almost begs to be rewritten. The clause as it exists, leaves us with too large vague area-- the government isn’t allowed to establish a religion, but the clause doesn’t rule out ALL intersections of religion and government. That’s a vast territory, and we’re never going to agree, as a nation, where the happy medium lies. If it were up to me, I’d put wording in the constution that did indeed ensure a wall of separation between relgion and state-- a solid, insurmountable wall.
I’m having trouble reconciling the statements that I put in bold. I have a really strong hunch that Scalia, the other justices, and those who insist on “original intent,” base their decisions as to what that intent was on what they think will be best today and not what the founders thought would be best in 1790.