Very good post. This is one of the reasons that I always have a problem with the whole “Christian nation” debate, re: the American revolution. While I am satisfied with the outcome of the rebellion, I cannot ignore that it directly contradicts several biblical passages that counsel submission to authorities - and that was the Roman empire, surely more corrupt than the British empire.

But if you believe the Bible counsels simple “submission to authorities”, then you are still left with the question of what a Christian should do when a govt starts murdering 6 million Jews…
I think the point of the Bible is: this world doesn’t really matter all that much.  High taxes, low taxes, whatever: just do what you can to spread God’s Love under any govt.  And “spreading God’s Love”, i.e., “feeding His sheep”, does not include letting Jews get gassed to death.

I’ve said a few times: there really isn’t much connection between politics and Christianity.  Politics is what you use to deal with people who refuse to accept the Supremacy of a Christ-centered life.  As Christians, we aren’t commanded to stay out of politics, but we should never compromise our faith for political reasons.

Anyway: the big difference between the Revolutionary War and the War Between the States?  Simple:  Representation.
King George didn’t allow us to have any say in the tariffs, taxation, etc that applied to us.  But the South had ample say in everything that happened in the US...they were just sore losers who didn’t get their way, so they took their football and went home.  And at that point, everything still might have worked out okay, except that the South attacked Ft Sumter to try and seize the federal arsenal there.  Big mistake.  And yet, States Rights Libertarians try to spin it as the War of Northern Agression. [sigh]

So as long as we can still use democratic means to change our government, we really have no right to rise up with arms to overthrow the govt...even if we lose by democratic means.  But if the democratic process is ever suspended by someone, for our own good, say...like, to make sure that a woman’s right to choose is protected from Right Wing Extremist Justices...well, the reason doesn’t matter.  I’d pick up my rifle to fight against someone trying to impose a theocracy as quickly as I’d pick my rifle to fight against someone trying to establish a white supremist society.

I hope that helps.

Also thos eunreconstructed types view it as the War of Northern Aggression. & quite correctly. See, we seized Ft Sumter cause the damn feds wouldn’t get out even after we took our ball & went home as you put it. Hey, if you’re on my property after I tell ya to leave then I’ll use force to evict ya if necessary. That’s the way it is & it’s not improper at all.

& christianity - look Jesus was political. You may not see it but alot of the things he did were veyr political in his day. It’s just that politics encompassed religion as well as affairs of stae (come to think of it, not too much difference at all). He said he didn’t coem to bring peace, but a sword right? On th eothe rhand he wasn’t about to tell a bunch of folks who were more or less peasants to take up their hoes against the mighty roman army. So he advised submission when it could be done, but resistence when it must be done. Picking battles but not forsaking principles.

& besides the bible is filled with stories of resistence to the state. David fled Saul, etc… & let’s not forget those three young lads who were thrown int he fun=rnace for disobeying a lawful order to not pray as they were accustomed.

But personally I fele that the parts about submission to the earthly authorities - that came from man, not God.

Gettign back to the War of Northern Aggression - the difference wasn’t representation. The South had no representation (albeit some who were sympathetic to The Cause) in the federal congress. That’s cause we left. & let’s not forget that the confederacy grew a bit after the feds decided to invade the Southern states that secedded.

But he real difference between the colonists in 1775 & the confederates in 1861 was siple: the winners wrote the history. Lincoln apologists did a lot to paint it as a war about slavery v. freedom for black people. That tainted the nature of the South’s actions & made it easier for folks to take a pro-federal/anti-federalist/anti-constitution view & say that the victor was morally & legally correct.

The main point though - it isn’t anything quantifyiable per se. You know when you have a good chance at getting the correct votes it’s too early, but when the cattle cars roll up to your door it may be too late. In between covers a lot of ground & I feel it’s something we all have to figure out individually. But a good starting point is when the state (or city or feds) starts disrespecting your Rights to life, liberty or property with no effective remedy other than the use of force. I don’t agree that if we lose a vote then our hands are tied. A majority can be just as tyrannical as a despot. I mean in colorado folks just voted to jack up my cig costs 64 cents a pack. The legislature voted to jack up my hunting & fishing licenses. The denver city council voted to make me a cirminal if I carry a gun openly ont he street or have a scary looking one in my home (if I lived inside that wretched...well, you know). while I don’t think it’d be appropriate to storm city hall over any of these things, I do think that if the state used force to impose these limitations on my Rights (speaking more about the denver gun laws & dog laws than the former items) that I’d feel bad about using equal or disproportionate force to defend them.

It’s kinda like rape - once it happens there can never be full restitution, so you fight like hell to make sure it doesn’t happen.

Again, not sayng it’s time to take it to the streets, but that aving a democratic process in place doesn’t automatically negate that as being a justifiable option.

BTW Z, look up The Smith Act. I think you’ll be surprised how free your speech is on these matters. Almost like the folks in charge don’t want us to discuss it one way or the other.

I have to disagree somewhat.  Ft. Sumter was federal land.  No state owns a military base.  If the South could just declare it to be theirs, and so be justified in attacking to force “interlopers” off, well, then the same logic applies to the Northerners just declaring the entire south to belong to the Union, and so were justified in using military force in taking it back.

Contortionist definitions aside, the South was wrong.

Nathan,
There were negotiations to get the troops out but the feds refused. & states don’t own military bases now, but martial property was something the states as well as the feds held.

To make the analogy you did you have to make a logical ommision: if it’s wrong for a state to claim land in another state, then why is it not equally wrong for the several states to claim land in another state against that state’s wishes? Besides, it’d be more like New england declaring a square mile of France as theirs. SC left the union, remember?

& no; the South was not wrong. The south was seriously mistaken about slavery, but right on everything else.

"So as long as we can still use democratic means to change our government, we really have no right to rise up with arms to overthrow the govt...”

I would disagree on this point, and the rest of my current (but very open to discussion) stance flows from there. As humans we always have the “right” to revolt, even over stupid reasons. As citizens, we must also undertsnd that open revolt is always going to be illegal. We must then recognize that failure in revolt will - and should - result in negative consequences if we are unsuccessful. The simple matter of fact is that might does make right. If a government exists “of, by, and for the people” then our collective will is, by definition right - no matter how that collective will is inacted. Failure of the Germans to put Hitler down is tacit acceptance of his policies. Period. In the Civil War example, had enough northerners believed that the south was correct, then thye would have taken action (deserted from the military, taken up arms for the south, demonstrated against the war, etc.). Ultimately, the government is people.

That being said, the colonies had the right to revolt against England and England had the right to try to put the revolt down. They lost. By the same token, the South had the right to attempt to leave the Union, and the government had the right to attempt to stop it. The South lost. The Germans had the right to try to remove Hitler from power but they chose not to exercise that right. Once Hitler lost, they suffered the consequences.

Trying to make the discussion any more philisophical is ultimately futile. We are talking about armed revolution. If we could develop a neat set of rules that summarized when a government can exercise authority and when the can not we would give them a cool sounding name like “laws” and everyone, including the government, would follow them. The simple fact that the weapons are drawn and the violence has begin means that no agreement is possible.

look Jesus was political. You may not see it but alot of the things he did were veyr political in his day. It’s just that politics encompassed religion as well as affairs of stae (come to think of it, not too much difference at all). He said he didn’t coem to bring peace, but a sword right? On th eothe rhand he wasn’t about to tell a bunch of folks who were more or less peasants to take up their hoes against the mighty roman army. So he advised submission when it could be done, but resistence when it must be done. Picking battles but not forsaking principles.

& besides the bible is filled with stories of resistence to the state. David fled Saul, etc… & let’s not forget those three young lads who were thrown int he fun=rnace for disobeying a lawful order to not pray as they were accustomed.

Three young lads (shadrach, meshach and abednego) did not take up arms against the government. They disobeyed a lawful order, yes, as did daniel. David fled saul, but didn’t overthrow his reign.

He said he didn’t coem to bring peace, but a sword right? On th eothe rhand he wasn’t about to tell a bunch of folks who were more or less peasants to take up their hoes against the mighty roman army. So he advised submission when it could be done, but resistence when it must be done.

Actually, not in any new testament passage I’ve read.

To wit, in the Sermon on the mount, Jesus said: “ 38"You have heard that it was said, ‘Eye for eye, and tooth for tooth.’[g] 39But I tell you, Do not resist an evil person. If someone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also. 40And if someone wants to sue you and take your tunic, let him have your cloak as well. 41If someone forces you to go one mile, go with him two miles. 42Give to the one who asks you, and do not turn away from the one who wants to borrow from you.”

Hardly a manifesto for rebellion.

The passages I spoke to was from the apostle Paul, who wrote: “ 17Do not repay anyone evil for evil. Be careful to do what is right in the eyes of everybody. 18If it is possible, as far as it depends on you, live at peace with everyone. 19Do not take revenge, my friends, but leave room for God’s wrath, for it is written: “It is mine to avenge; I will repay,"[d]says the Lord. 20On the contrary:
“If your enemy is hungry, feed him;
if he is thirsty, give him something to drink.
In doing this, you will heap burning coals on his head."[e] 21Do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good.”

As to the government authorities, this passage seems pretty clear: “1Everyone must submit himself to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God. 2Consequently, he who rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted, and those who do so will bring judgment on themselves. 3For rulers hold no terror for those who do right, but for those who do wrong. Do you want to be free from fear of the one in authority? Then do what is right and he will commend you. 4For he is God’s servant to do you good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword for nothing. He is God’s servant, an agent of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer. 5Therefore, it is necessary to submit to the authorities, not only because of possible punishment but also because of conscience. 6This is also why you pay taxes, for the authorities are God’s servants, who give their full time to governing. 7Give everyone what you owe him: If you owe taxes, pay taxes; if revenue, then revenue; if respect, then respect; if honor, then honor.” Romans 13 (emphasis mine)

By any standard there, the colonists were going against the clear guidance of the bible in rebelling.

BTW, I’m not saying this is an easy thing to do, or you don’t get into problems when you deal with issues like the holocaust. But you also have to remember that the Roman government wasn’t some lily-white democracy for the people of Israel, either.

Jesus spoke about the “kingdom of God” as it was different from the kingdoms of the world. What you’re talking about is akin to liberation theology, where Jesus is seen as some sort of proto-marxist, demanding rebellion for the peasants of the world.

Jerry,
In practice, you are 100% correct, and I nearly included that in my post.  If a group has the power to enforce its will, then it shall be so.  But in theory, if you agree to participate in a system and are given the opportunity to do so, but choose to take arms to enforce your will just because you fail to gain a majority vote, well, it seems like petulant sour grapes to me; absolutely lacking honor.

Bryan,
Your last paragraph is exactly why Jesuits got themselves thrown out of nations across the globe.  They would come in, convert people to Catholicism, then stir them up against their government...I guess to try and win their loyalty to Rome?  ...not sure.

So, my bottom line: the South had every opportunity to win converts to their line of thinking.  The battle of States Rights was fought over several decades before coming to a head in the War Between the States.  Simply put (and this cannot be spun any other way without being dishonest), the South lost the debate and decided it couldn’t live with the results.

If the South had been allowed to succeed, the Confederacy would have been dead within a decade, as each Southern State that didn’t like what the majority decided would split off.  The South used the inane argument that you can vote, but aren’t supposed to be bound by that vote if you lose.  There are an infinite number of disagreements between any large group of people...within two decades, counties would have seceded from states, townships would have seceded from counties.  Or at some point (probably right after the secesssion), the Confederacy would have fought a war to prevent a southern state from seceding, making themselves hypocrites.

Here’s another way to look at it: The Union was a contract, and so secession was a one-sided violation of that contract.  Revolution against England was not a violation of any contract or agreement, because the King refused to allow the colonists any voice in their own governance.  Is that difference so difficult to fathom?

I tell you, the War Between the States saved the South.  They would have been considered absolutely untrustworthy had they been allowed to secede.

Agreements matter.  If you can’t be trusted to keep your agreement when things temporarily don’t go your way, you can’t be trusted with anything.  The South never came close to establishing that the North didn’t play by the rules.  Representation was clearly established in the Constitution, by population and by State.  The numbers didn’t favor the South later, and they acted like spoiled brats.  Libertarians try to spin it into a noble issue of States’ Rights, but the secession was still a violation of the Rule of Law.  Without that, we have nothing.

I always find it odd that secessionists are the first to deny others the right to secede.

Before the Civil War there was no West Virginia, but when Virginia voted to secede half the state decided to stay with the Union. Some of the first battles in the war were fought over that territory, with the South being the aggressor, trying to prevent people who wanted to dissolve a union from doing just that.

Same thing happened in eastern Tennessee. Unionists were violently put down by the Confederates, and captured leaders were tried and hanged as traitors (I suppose, I don’t know what the charges actually were) with Jefferson Davis’s consent. During Quebec’s recent talk of secession the Indian tribes that control the sparsely populated northern territory of the province discussed staying with the rest of Canada. Of course, the leaders of Quebec’s government said this was not their right, that the province of Quebec was not legally divisible.

All this convinces me that secessionists are almost never driven by principles of freedom and self-determination, but almost always by political power and (as Nathan calls it) take-my-ball-home theatrics.

I rather doubt that Jefferson, Madison, Adams, et. al. would have stood for what’s happening today.

The federal govt. is no longer operating within the bounds of the U.S. Constitution. Simple as that. The right to own and control property is fundamental. It is that right whence all others flow. Yes, even the right to life, for isn’t your own life your most inviolate possession? But the Kelo decision has pulled the rug out from under property rights. Not that it was anything but the final tug in a long series. For example, look at the expansion of asset forfeiture laws. Don’t those violate property rights? I mean, even if there’s no conviction, the state, in some or many or most cases, just keeps the confiscated goods. Property rights? Nope, not there any longer.

Nathan, do you think any of us has any voice in SCOTUS decisions? Not that I’m arguing for a tyranny of the majority type government, but is a tyranny of 9 robed justices any better?

Jed,
Of course we don’t have a voice in the SCOTUS decisions.  That’s exactly how Jefferson, Adams, et al, intended it.  Some things shouldn’t be left to popular opinion, as fickle as it is.
That being said, I don’t think the people who developed this system expected that a sub-group of the populace would encourage and support the courts legislating from the bench.  The idea of the court is that they are supposed to just strike down laws that violate the Constitution, and if the people really want the law, they can get enough popular (and thus legislative) support to amend the Constitution.
So, no, of course I’m not happy with the bench legislation of the Florida Supreme Court, Massachussetts Supreme Court, and SCOTUS.  I’m not happy with Sandra O’Conner and am happy to see her retire.  I’m really disgusted with the liberal bloc that rules according to European legal precepts and wish we could replace them.

But is that worth starting a revolution over?  I don’t think so.  The voice we have over the Supreme Court is more indirect, but still there.  We should be throwing our full support behind President Bush to get his nominations confirmed, making it clear that the Senate obstructionism is a career-killer for the Democrats.
Changing the composition of the court in this way takes time, sure.  It takes commitment, and consistency, and persistance.  I also think the liberal power bloc is disintegrating, and so as long as we remain firm over the next 10 years (or so), 90%+ of the US voting populace will recognize the bankruptcy of liberal ideology.
So a revolution probably isn’t necessary.
Now, if we had a SCOTUS packed with activists like the Mass or Fla Supreme Courts, and they helped a liberal get elected President (like just happened in Washington State) who packed the court with even more activist judges, and they started implementing liberal laws with impunity, stifling free speech, dissolvng the channels by which the people can do something to stop it...well, that might be worth a revolution.

Libertarians really screwed up regarding Terry Schiavo, I think.  Because they chose to focus on Jeb Bush and the Fla legislature and Congress trying to do things to save her, instead of focusing on the Fla Courts legislating from the bench to kill her.  They may have won a victory against the so-called Theocrats they hate so much, but it was a pyrrhic victory, because that was just one more brick in the wall of keeping activist judges within popular expectations.

Oh, well.  We’re still making progress toward a strict origionalist court, even if it is agonizingly slow.
When’s Bush going to name O’Conner’s replacement, anyway?!??!

Of course we don’t have a voice in the SCOTUS decisions.  That’s exactly how Jefferson, Adams, et al, intended it.  Some things shouldn’t be left to popular opinion, as fickle as it is.
That being said, I don’t think the people who developed this system expected that a sub-group of the populace would encourage and support the courts legislating from the bench.  The idea of the court is that they are supposed to just strike down laws that violate the Constitution, and if the people really want the law, they can get enough popular (and thus legislative) support to amend the Constitution.

Actually, Jefferson, Adams, et. al. didn’t intend women and blacks to have votes, either, so I’m always somewhat wary of too close a cling to “originalist” language.

As well, the idea of the court as “strik(ing) down laws that violate the constitution” originated with John Marshall in the Marbury v. Madison case (1803), not with the framers necessarily. One could argue that Marbury v. Madison actually opened the door to legislating from the bench in a negative manner, although it wasn’t really used until much later.

Actually, Jefferson, Adams, et. al. didn’t intend women and blacks to have votes, either, so I’m always somewhat wary of too close a cling to “originalist” language.

I’m right with you on that.  I think they set up a pretty good system, but they were hardly infallible.  But I still think judicial activism unbalances the system, and like a tire, the farther out of balance things are, the quicker it wears out.

However, you lost me on saying that striking down unConstitutional laws wasn’t in the original system.
What was the original intent of the Judicial Branch, then?  What did they intend to be the check against legislation that went against the Constitution, then?

I didn’t realize there was a libertartian position on Schiavo. I certainly didn’t side with Michael to stick it to the theocrats, but because this was big government trying to intercede in what should have been the husband’s decision. I’m sorry, but when we get married our spouse gets final say in all decisions medical that we can’t make ourselves. My parents have no say now.

The court deciding for Michael was the correct decision, morally and politically.

Absolutely not.

Ever hear of the term “abandonment”?  Ever hear of the term “Common Law Marriage”?  What happens to guardians who don’t provide basic medical care to their dependents?

He was not acting like a husband.  He did not allow a simple UTI to be treated.  He did not use the settlement money that was supposed to be used to sustain her life and pay for therapy in the manner to which the original court directed.

So much for “morally correct”.

And poliical?  The courts did what you wanted, so you refuse to recognize the “legislation from the bench” aspect of it.  As far as Governers and legislatures are concerned: they are supposed to do things their constituents want.  If their constituents don’t want it, they can vote them out relatively quickly.  That’s the system.  There is no such method for expressing displeasure toward the Fla Supreme Court, which is why they aren’t supposed to be so activist.

So much for “politically correct”.

Maybe the result was correct from some points of view.  The method was absolutely indefensible for anyone who wants a properly-balanced representative government.  Since so many libertarians expressed satisfaction in the result, I can only assume there was a “cut off the nose to spite the face” aspect, and since the most displeasure was directed against the religious bloc, I gotta assume that’s the motivation (until I get more/better evidence to the contrary).

Maybe that’s not all true of you, Matt, but we didn’t have any deep heart-to-heart talks at that time, so you can exempt yourself if you want.

Bottom line: Terry Schiavo’s situation was politicized.  Everyone involved made political decisions.  Governers and legislatures are supposed to be political, courts are not.

He did provide basic care, and he was acting as her husband. He didn’t abandon her, and I think the neglect charges were not based on fact. This was the husband’s decision to make and he made it. The courts acted just as they should have, they protected his (and her) rights. The only thing they did wrong was let it drag out so long.

Forget I said anything.  If you think he gave her proper care, if you think he didn’t do enough to be considered in a common law marriage with the other woman, then we have no common ground from which to discuss anything.

...anything related to Terry Schiavo, that is.

Or the Beatles.

I don’t know the timeline, but I’m pretty sure he started fighting to have the plug pulled before he even met his girlfriend.

And the only people claiming he didn’t give her proper care were her family. They, of course, had their own priorities.

I’m going to have to start a new blog, upon which I only post viewpoints of issues everyone else is already sick of.

Want to rehash Elian Gonzalez while we’re at it?

Sure.  What’s your take on it?

Nathan, you probably noticed that I didn’t argue that the framers would have objected specifically to the judiciary being unresponsive to popular will. But in general, I do think they’d have had enough, if not earlier than now, then certainly with Cabellas, Raich, and Kelo. But not specifically with a “legislation from the bench” aspect, but with the fact that the govt. was upheld. IOW, they’d be just as irritated at Congress now as they were with King George back then, plus disappointed that the courts haven’t done the job of reining in the feds (or othere legislatures, as appropriate).

But the issue of legislation from the bench does bring up an interesting point. It does wind up being legislation without a voice, in a certain sense. Granted, in some municipalities, voters get the chance to remove judges, but not to appoint them in the first place.

Still, the role of the courts as a check on govt. power is nearly gone. However, Article III of the Consitution has very little to say about things. It mentions specifically the trial of crimes being by jury. But what it does say is pretty broad:

The judicial power shall extend to all cases, in law and equity, arising under this Constitution, the laws of the United States, and treaties made, or which shall be made, under their authority; to all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers, and consuls; to all cases of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction; to controversies to which the United States shall be a party; to controversies between two or more States, between a State and citizens of another State, between citizens of different States, between citizens of the same State claiming lands under grants of different states, and between a State or the citizens thereof, and foreign states, citizens, or subjects.

Pretty broad, I’d say. Later it says that the Supreme Court shall have apellate jurisdiction as to both law and fact. If I were feeling quite ambitious, I suppose I’d go re-read Marbury.

However, you lost me on saying that striking down unConstitutional laws wasn’t in the original system.
What was the original intent of the Judicial Branch, then?  What did they intend to be the check against legislation that went against the Constitution, then?
The judicial branch was as stated in the Article III section mentioned above.

The concept of judicial review of the constitutionality of laws was specifically set out in Marbury v. Madison. Up to that time, the court did not rule on constitutionality of federal law.

You may argue that the concept was implied in the constitution, but it was John Marshall who seized that concept and made it the purview of the supreme court. Wikipedia has a pretty good primer on the case, (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marbury_v._Madison).

Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. (1 Cranch) 137 (1803) is a landmark case in United States law wherein the U.S. Supreme Court established judicial review as a legitimate power of the Court on constitutional grounds. The Court ruled that it had the power to declare a statute void that it considered repugnant to the Constitution. Chief Justice John Marshall, in Marbury, legally established the judiciary—and in particular, the Supreme Court—as an equal partner among the three branches of the American federal government.

Jed - Some states do give the people the power to elect judges, not just recall them. North Carolina, for one.

Well, Matt, now you mention it, I have a vague memory, possibly incorrect, that we had elected judges when I lived there, those many years ago.

It’s actually a ridiculous system. They’re not allowed to campaign, so you have no idea what they believe unless you know them personally. Plus, they’re all statewide elections even though the judges serve only in one district. So you end up voting for people you’ve never heard of for courts you’ll never be tried in in counties you’ll never visit based solely on party affliation.

The only time a judge election mattered is if someone fucked up, got drunk, and showed his penis to a woman. Which actually happened. It’s a funny story, I’ll blog about it sometime, if I haven’t already.