You are not seriously proposing, are you, that each of us can determine for ourselves what the constitution means? If I come to believe, for example, that the supreme court determined badly forty-five years ago, and that hence every subsequent decision made utilizing that precedent is likewise contaminated, then can I on that basis decide not to enforce or uphold the law? I would hope you would agree that the law obligates obedience, regardless of my own person belief as to whether it has been properly vetted and determined by the High Court. If I choose, as a private citizen, to break the law, for example to publicize why I think it is a bad law, then I should do so with the full expectation that I will bear the appropriate sanctions for my actions. Most of us are not in positions of public authority, and thus are free to engage in civic disobedience if we so choose. But the authority of the President of the College of William and Mary stems from the power of the state, and hence is granted to him in trust on behalf of all citizens of the State of Virginia. That is the nature of the social contract in a democracy, and it places him under higher obligations. Moreover, he is in an especially important moral position, in as much as he heads an institution of education whose mission is in large part civic in nature. Thus, he is under an especial obligation to model good citizenship, which, conservative that I am, I take to include modeling respect for ordered liberty. Since a core value of ordered liberty is respect for the law, I take the president of that institution to have behaved in a commendable fashion. I would suggest that anyone who thinks that bedrock conservatism matters should find his actions laudable. As a side note, we should note that ordered liberty is itself in good part derivative from Reformed Christianity. If you are an evangelical Christian, you have especially strong reasons to support this notion. To see how and why, I would urge you to take a look at the famous speech by John Winthrop, that he gave in 1645 to the General Court of the Colony of Massachusetts, and which is often referred to as "John Winthrop's Little Speech on Liberty." Too many evangelicals today seem to prefer striving for short term, narrow victories, in the pursuit of which they are willing to sacrifice their long term interests. Such deeply engrained lack of prudence is one reason why they remain marginal in our society. Here, it is very much in the interests of evangelical conservatives to see the law upheld. For our purpose here, the question of whether or not the constitution is a "living" document is irrelevant. The doctrine of strict separation has been the law of the land since the 1960s. It in turn is based on constitutional precedent extending back to the first amendment incorporation cases of the 1920s and 1930s. The ultimate justification for it is to be found in the arguments of James Madison, in his 1785 "Memorial and Remonstrance." If you do not like this well established doctrine, you can and should work to change it. But in the mean time, you should be celebrating the principled actions of the President of William and Mary, who is providing an excellent model of civic responsibility for his students, and for us. All best, Kevin ---- Original message ---- >Date: Thu, 22 Feb 2007 18:27:33 -0500 >From: "Donald W. Moore" <[log in to unmask]> >Subject: Re: The Constitution >To: [log in to unmask] > >> >> Finally, the Constitution IS a living document. The example I gave >> in a previous message--the expansion of the franchise from white >> property-owners to a more inclusive body--is the ultimate example. > >Justice Scalia would disagree, and has. He was quoted a few months >back--in a speech, not in a legal brief (and no, I don't have the >particulars, but it made the news)--as saying that the Constitution >is a legal document, just like the deed to your house. How would you >like the deed to your house to be a "living document" subject to re- >interpretation every few generations? Wonder what would happen to >legal chain of title? His example, not mine. > >___________________ >Donald W. Moore >Virginia Beach, Virginia > > >To subscribe, change options, or unsubscribe, please see the instructions >at http://listlva.lib.va.us/archives/va-hist.html Kevin R. Hardwick, Ph.D. Department of History James Madison University To subscribe, change options, or unsubscribe, please see the instructions at http://listlva.lib.va.us/archives/va-hist.html