Many of us are eagerly following the healthcare reform play out on Capitol Hill. Here is one piece articulating opposition based not on economic argument but on the oath of office to uphold the constitution. I found it interesting, for Brad Green argues that in supporting the nationalization of healthcare, proponents are
"calling for their elected federal officials to violate the law of the land, and to violate their oath of office, by clearly and unabashedly taking one more step in the destruction of the very Constitution they have sworn to uphold."
The very statement charges that support of the measure is an encouragement to sin and violate Jesus teaching on honesty and truth. Whether or not you agree with his logic, or argument, I encourage you to read the piece. It is a distinctly different approach than I have seen on either side of the issue to date.
Brad Green teaches theology at Union University in Jackson. He is a co-founder of Augustine School in Jackson
Read the original article
How Do I Find a Good Church?
1 week ago
Posts
Hi Scott - Very interesting, but I find it unconvincing. If I read him right his basis is: "Such an expansion of federal power is not even legal, since the U.S. Constitution does not grant the federal government such power." I don't even know where that is coming from. The implication would be that Jesus would not pay federal taxes either, right?
ReplyDeleteHi elmucho - Not knowing how familiar you are with the US Constitution and its interpretations I will try to hold out his view as I understand it. It appears Green is a strict constitutionalist, meaning that unless the US Const. expressly authorizes government to do it, the states retain the power.
ReplyDeleteThey draw this from the 10th Amendment, "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people." If one refers to Article 1 Section 8 you find a list of responsibilities of government of which nothing related to healthcare exists. In fact the final statement in that section tells congress that they are "To make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers, and all other powers vested by this Constitution in the government of the United States, or in any department or officer thereof."
Strict constitutionalists argue that this limits the authority of the Govt to only that which is expressly articulated, while all others argue that they can expand and legislate beyond these expressly stated powers.
As it relates to taxes, the constitution expressly authorizes the collection of taxes in Article 1 Section 8 opening words saying, "The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States; but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;" So Jesus isn't opposed to taxes.
Hey Scott elmucho = rob (fellow traveler). That's just the way it worked out. Anyway, without knowing the details of the position as in depth as you do I figured that was the basic idea. I guess I'm too much of a pragmatist to go along with that line of thinking. This is the world we live in. No doubt there are many federal laws that break that principle (though I wrongly thought the IRS was one of them). I think it's a mistake to associate evolution of a system of government in a democratic society with "breaking the law" as Green does. I also think it's a mistake to associate law in a democratic society with Law (if you know what I mean). All law is really common consent, right? I also wonder how it could possibly be profitable to consistently argue and apply that position. Well, check out my blog. I had some things to say about Green.
ReplyDeleteFurther question for you: Do you think that since Christians have an "ad fontes" hermeneutic (back to the source, the Bible) we tend to apply that perspective to the constitution, and further (if that is so) is that really an ethically necessary parallel? We should probably just talk about his in person... :o) Blessings
I like your thought about reading biblical hermeneutics back into governmental documents. A fascinating thought that hadn't occurred to me. While I agree that all systems evolve and change in the human world so this type of hermeneutic may be dangerous.
ReplyDeleteAt the same time, to fail to look back to the original meaning and intent, the original fence, governmental or religious, would mean that humanity in general and constitutional government in particular is open to the whims of interpretation. Furthermore, none of the freedoms guaranteed by the constitution are actually guaranteed at all. It is a giant hoax, just waiting to be ripped from us. I guess I end up more on the constitutionalist side for other pragmatic reasons.