Antonin Scalia v. Thomas Jefferson

[LyricalReckoner]

In the Declaration of Independence, Jefferson wrote that government derives its authority from the consent of the governed. Scalia doesnÕt see it that way. In a speech in 2002, he reminded his audience what it says in the Bible: the government is ordained by God. During arguments in Van Orden v. Perry, Scalia said Jefferson was wrong. Our government doesnÕt derive its authority from the consent of the governed. It Òderives its authority from God.Ó And, he insisted, itÕs a fact that Òthe foundation of our laws is God.Ó


http://www.misterthorne.org/ESSAYS/scalia_v_jefferson.htm

Enjoy!

[The Barbarian]

The Founders expressed their opinions in the Declaration of Independence:
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed,...

So Scalia is dead wrong. The intent of the founders, as expressed in the Constitution is that governments derive their powers from consent of the governed. Our rights are conferred by God.

More precisely, governments do not grant rights; they recognize them. But Governments do not derive their powers from God; they derive them only from the governed, and no other.

People derive their rights from God; governments derive their rights from the people. Scalia has it upside down. He doesn't mind giving God top billing, since God is unlikely to come into court. Being a worshipper at the idol of federal power, he wants individual rights subject to government control

[kalel29]

The Founders expressed their opinions in the Declaration of Independence:
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed,...

So Scalia is dead wrong. The intent of the founders, as expressed in the Constitution is that governments derive their powers from consent of the governed. Our rights are conferred by God.

More precisely, governments do not grant rights; they recognize them. But Governments do not derive their powers from God; they derive them only from the governed, and no other.

People derive their rights from God; governments derive their rights from the people. Scalia has it upside down. He doesn't mind giving God top billing, since God is unlikely to come into court. Being a worshipper at the idol of federal power, he wants individual rights subject to government control


:first:

[Nick M]

Antonin Scalia = :thumb:

[The Barbarian]

Some agree with Jefferson; some with Scalia. Fortunately, the good guys are still winning, although it's been a little rough the last few years.

Scalia is probably the third most enthusiastic proponent of the state over the individual in the Western Hemisphere. Unless Castro rallies, he'll soon move up to second.

And Hugo Chavez, of course, will take first. But it will be close.

[billwald]

Scalia would have supported King George.

[elected4ever]

Scalia is right and Jefferson is wrong. Men are not created equal. We are not endowed by the creator to certain unalienable Rights. A democracy by definition is anarchist. A lawless people.

[kalel29]

Scalia is right and Jefferson is wrong. Men are not created equal. We are not endowed by the creator to certain unalienable Rights. A democracy by definition is anarchist. A lawless people.


Hmm...I always find that funny that you agree with Jefferson when it suits your needs, and don't when it counters the fundamentalist ideals. :nono:

[Nick M]

Man's law is not above the Lord's.

[elected4ever]

Hmm...I always find that funny that you agree with Jefferson when it suits your needs, and don't when it counters the fundamentalist ideals. :nono:We as Christians are to follow the law of the land and in the United States that is the constitution of the United States. As for as God's Law is concerned it has no bearing on the issues. No man is subject to God's law. So the point is mute. We as Christians know the mind of God concerning our actions and those of God do right and suffer the consequences. That is not a matter of law but of character.

[Delmar]

In the Declaration of Independence, Jefferson wrote that government derives its authority from the consent of the governed. Scalia doesnÕt see it that way. In a speech in 2002, he reminded his audience what it says in the Bible: the government is ordained by God. During arguments in Van Orden v. Perry, Scalia said Jefferson was wrong. Our government doesnÕt derive its authority from the consent of the governed. It Òderives its authority from God.Ó And, he insisted, itÕs a fact that Òthe foundation of our laws is God.Ó


http://www.misterthorne.org/ESSAYS/scalia_v_jefferson.htm

Enjoy!
Scalia is correct except when the government just makes up laws that are not inspired by God! In that case we must obey God rather than man!

[Ktoyou]

Scalia is right and Jefferson is wrong. Men are not created equal. We are not endowed by the creator to certain unalienable Rights. A democracy by definition is anarchist. A lawless people.


Well, I don’t know about that, perhaps in God’s eyes people are created equal, but as to ability no one is equal to anyone else.

Regarding democracy, I find it extreme to calling it is lawless in theory, perhaps in practice, it has become to tolerant of lawlessness, but I think when one adds the word ‘social’ as in ‘social democracy’ they are not speaking of honest democracy, rather a socially managed society with limited elections.

I like Scalia and from my readings, Thomas Jefferson wished to extend voting rights to small landowners, not to everyone. That policy, 'one man, one vote' is more fitting with Andrew Jackson than Jefferson.

[The Barbarian]

Scalia is right and Jefferson is wrong.

Nope, Scalia is wrong, completely so. Our government, as the founders established it, receives its authority from the people, not from God.

Men are not created equal.

God disagrees with you. He says to him there is no male or female, no free or slave. All men are created equal, not in having equal abilities, but in equality of dignity and rights before the law.

We are not endowed by the creator to certain unalienable Rights.

Wrong there, too. Governments don't grant rights; they merely recognize rights people have by virtue of being people. God grants rights.

A democracy by definition is anarchist.

No, that's wrong. A pure democracy is a dictatorship of the people. That's why we are a constitutional democracy.

A lawless people.

Maybe you need to learn the difference.

[elected4ever]

Nope, Scalia is wrong, completely so. Our government, as the founders established it, receives its authority from the people, not from God. Wrong, Not really because we receive our rights from the constitution which we have all agreed to obey. Even the government.



God disagrees with you. He says to him there is no male or female, no free or slave. All men are created equal, not in having equal abilities, but in equality of dignity and rights before the law.Your mixing apples and oranges. The unsaved do not have the liberty that God gives His children. Their identity is not even the same.



Wrong there, too. Governments don't grant rights; they merely recognize rights people have by virtue of being people. God grants rights.No, God did not grant rights. God just gave man responsibilities that man has failed to live up too.



No, that's wrong. A pure democracy is a dictatorship of the people. That's why we are a constitutional democracy.That may be what we have now but that is not what was intended. We were intended to be a constitutional republic with the equal protections and application of the law. Another pipe dream.



Maybe you need to learn the difference. I do know the difference. It is you who has not thought the matter through.

[The Barbarian]

Barbarian observes:
Nope, Scalia is wrong, completely so. Our government, as the founders established it, receives its authority from the people, not from God.

Not really because we receive our rights from the constitution which we have all agreed to obey. Even the government.

Sorry, that's wrong. The Founders made it clear in the Declaration and in the Constitution that people get their rights from God, but the Government gets it's power from the people. That's how it is in America.

Barbarian observes:
God disagrees with you. He says to him there is no male or female, no free or slave. All men are created equal, not in having equal abilities, but in equality of dignity and rights before the law.

Your mixing apples and oranges.

No, I'm accepting what God said. You should, too.

The unsaved do not have the liberty that God gives His children. Their identity is not even the same.

Sorry, that's wrong, too. The Constitution guarantees the same freedom, regardless of belief. That's the American way. You may not agree with it, but that's how it is.

Barbarian observes:
Wrong there, too. Governments don't grant rights; they merely recognize rights people have by virtue of being people. God grants rights.

No, God did not grant rights.

Of course He did. Who else? The government isn't God. Please think again.

Barbarian observes:
No, that's wrong. A pure democracy is a dictatorship of the people. That's why we are a constitutional democracy.

That may be what we have now but that is not what was intended. We were intended to be a constitutional republic

Perhaps you don't know what "republic" means. It means that the government is responsible to the people. A democracy, where powers are delegated to elected representatives.

with the equal protections and application of the law.

You just objected to that in the same post.

Barbarian
Maybe you need to learn the difference.

I do know the difference.

Apparently not.

It is you who has not thought the matter through.

As you see, you aren't even being consistent with your own statements.

[elected4ever]

Barbarian observes:
Nope, Scalia is wrong, completely so. Our government, as the founders established it, receives its authority from the people, not from God. All government of every kind is the minister of God for the good of man. Humans are the instrumentality that God uses to establish government. That is true but Government itself of what ever form is God ordained.



Sorry, that's wrong. The Founders made it clear in the Declaration and in the Constitution that people get their rights from God, but the Government gets it's power from the people. That's how it is in America.No, God did not give man rights. He gave them responsibilities. God gave no man the right to act outside of his assigned responsibilities. When man takes rights that God did not give him it is because that man is dead to God.

Barbarian observes:
God disagrees with you. He says to him there is no male or female, no free or slave. All men are created equal, not in having equal abilities, but in equality of dignity and rights before the law. That only applies to God's children and not to man in general. Where we make the mistake is to apply those words to man in general.



No, I'm accepting what God said. You should, too.No, you are misapplying what God said as most do.



Sorry, that's wrong, too. The Constitution guarantees the same freedom, regardless of belief. That's the American way. You may not agree with it, but that's how it is.True. We are a nation of law and not of people. We are not to be a democracy.

Barbarian observes:
Wrong there, too. Governments don't grant rights; they merely recognize rights people have by virtue of being people. God grants rights. Yes, the government does. The power of a lawless government to grant and restrict rights is unlimited. Terror is the function of a Government when it turns upon its own people to protect itself from its people.



Of course He did. Who else? The government isn't God. Please think again.Where does that appear in scripture.

Barbarian observes:
No, that's wrong. A pure democracy is a dictatorship of the people. That's why we are a constitutional democracy. A constitutional democracy is is where the will of the majority is forced upon the minority by force of law and that law can be changed at the will of the majority unless there is a law to prevent it and the law is honored by the government.



Perhaps you don't know what "republic" means. It means that the government is responsible to the people. A democracy, where powers are delegated to elected representatives.Wrong, republic means a government of law. A government of democracy is a government of the majority suppressing the rights of the minority. Law, defeats democracy. That is why a democracy is called a lawless government. We have Constitutional Republic and not a constitutional democracy. A constitutional democracy is an oxymoron



You just objected to that in the same post. I did not. You have a skewed vision of what a democracy is.


As you see, you aren't even being consistent with your own statements.We are just having trouble understanding because we use different meanings for the same words. As we work our way through this maybe we can understand what we each mean.

[The Barbarian]

Barbarian observes:
Nope, Scalia is wrong, completely so. Our government, as the founders established it, receives its authority from the people, not from God.

All government of every kind is the minister of God for the good of man. Humans are the instrumentality that God uses to establish government. That is true but Government itself of what ever form is God ordained.

No. Demonstrably so. Because as you might know if you were paying attention in school, there are a variety of goverments in the world. If you're right, God seems to be having trouble making up His mind.

Barbarian observes:
Sorry, that's wrong. The Founders made it clear in the Declaration and in the Constitution that people get their rights from God, but the Government gets it's power from the people. That's how it is in America.

No, God did not give man rights. He gave them responsibilities.

You're going to have a hard time convincing Americans and Christians of that. We think God is the author of our rights.

Barbarian observes:
God disagrees with you. He says to him there is no male or female, no free or slave. All men are created equal, not in having equal abilities, but in equality of dignity and rights before the law.

That only applies to God's children and not to man in general. Where we make the mistake is to apply those words to man in general.

Nope. All men have rights. As God says.

Barbarian
No, I'm accepting what God said. You should, too.

No, you are misapplying what God said as most do.

Christians would differ with you on that. The Founders for example. Most of them were Christians, and they would find your argument completely wrong.

Barbarian observes:
Sorry, that's wrong, too. The Constitution guarantees the same freedom, regardless of belief. That's the American way. You may not agree with it, but that's how it is.

True. We are a nation of law and not of people. We are not to be a democracy.

The founders were afraid of an excess of democracy. But they also wanted democracy. Hence, they consciously chose the Roman Republic as a model, which moderated democracy by rule of law. But ultimately, the law is at the will of the people. The Constitution is the supreme law, but that can be changed, if the people determine a need.

Barbarian observes:
Wrong there, too. Governments don't grant rights; they merely recognize rights people have by virtue of being people. God grants rights.

Yes, the government does. The power of a lawless government to grant and restrict rights is unlimited.

Such goverments don't grant or restrict rights. They merely observe or violate them. Rights are not subject to government.

Barbarian Observes:
Of course He did. Who else? The government isn't God. Please think again.

Where does that appear in scripture.

God gave us everything. Not everything that's true is in scripture, BTW.

Barbarian observes:
No, that's wrong. A pure democracy is a dictatorship of the people. That's why we are a constitutional democracy.

A constitutional democracy is is where the will of the majority is forced upon the minority by force of law and that law can be changed at the will of the majority unless there is a law to prevent it and the law is honored by the government.

Not quite. It's where the constitution is the supreme law, but can be altered by the majority. That's how it is here. The purpose is that a transient or slight majority has almost no hope of altering the Constitution; it takes a serious effort to change it. And that cuts off a lot of stupid amendments.

Barbarian
Perhaps you don't know what "republic" means. It means that the government is responsible to the people. A democracy, where powers are delegated to elected representatives.

Wrong, republic means a government of law.

No.

The United States is, indeed, a republic, not a democracy. Accurately defined, a democracy is a form of government in which the people decide policy matters directly--through town hall meetings or by voting on ballot initiatives and referendums. A republic, on the other hand, is a system in which the people choose representatives who, in turn, make policy decisions on their behalf. The Framers of the Constitution were altogether fearful of pure democracy. Everything they read and studied taught them that pure democracies "have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention; have ever been found incompatible with personal security or the rights of property; and have in general been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths" (Federalist No. 10).

By popular usage, however, the word "democracy" come to mean a form of government in which the government derives its power from the people and is accountable to them for the use of that power. In this sense the United States might accurately be called a democracy.
http://www.thisnation.com/question/011.html

A government of democracy is a government of the majority suppressing the rights of the minority.

In a pure democracy, it can happen. But as in New England town meetings, that seems not to be the case. In fact, one can show that democratic New England has been less oppressive than other areas of the country such as the deep south.

Law, defeats democracy. That is why a democracy is called a lawless government. We have Constitutional Republic and not a constitutional democracy. A constitutional democracy is an oxymoron

Nope. We have one. The Constitution is the supreme law, but it can be amended by the people, if they are determined to do it.

Barbarian observes:
You just objected to that in the same post.

I did not. You have a skewed vision of what a democracy is.

Rather, you think the only possible democracy is a pure democracy. In fact, as the Romans observed, a separation of democracy, oligarchy, and kingship was the system that made the Roman republic great.

Barbarian observes:
As you see, you aren't even being consistent with your own statements.

We are just having trouble understanding because we use different meanings for the same words. As we work our way through this maybe we can understand what we each mean.

Well, let's take a look at the definitions:

de·moc·ra·cy
–noun, plural -cies. 1. government by the people; a form of government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised directly by them or by their elected agents under a free electoral system.
Random House Unabridged Dictionary

re·pub·lic –noun 1. a state in which the supreme power rests in the body of citizens entitled to vote and is exercised by representatives chosen directly or indirectly by them.

That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.
The Founders, in the Declaration of Independence

[yankeedoodled]

Our heritage clearly speaks of this nation based on God and representing the people. Clear as day, yet as obsure as mud to those with p.c. blinders on.