Thank God for the Rule of Law
Image
Man-made laws are a mixed bag. Motivations range from desire to build a better society to desire to pander to a constituency, increase personal power, settle a score, or cover up wrongdoing. Even when well meant, laws often bring unintended consequences.
Rule of law, though, is better. As an alternative to the rule of mere men, it’s a rare and precious blessing. A portion of the Oxford English Dictionary definition captures what I mean by the term.
… the principle whereby all members of a society (including those in government) are considered equally subject to publicly disclosed legal codes and processes.
Events of the past four years, especially the last four weeks, have exposed the fact that many who ought to be the most devoted and disciplined in support of the rule of law have lost sight of its value and importance.
Rule of law is God’s invention.
When God organized ancient Israel into a nation, He chose to do more than put Moses in charge and rule through him. He provided words etched in stone (Exodus 32:16). Eventually He provided the entire Torah (Pentateuch), and Moses and later rulers were expected to apply it to the needs of the nation—and also obey it themselves.
We might argue that Hammurabi introduced the rule of law first. Regardless, its invention was an act of God’s gracious providence in the world (James 1:17). By providing a written law to Israel, God made that clear.
Rule of law points to greater realities.
Decrees from autocrats and oligarchies inspire people to look no further than the arbitrary will of humans. They’re the ones in control and we do what they want.
Rule of law separates authority from personality, basing it outside the people in charge. But it does even more: it appeals to moral principles that are bigger than us—even all of us collectively.
In Israel’s case, those principles included “you shall be holy” (Exod. 22:32; Lev. 11:44, 19:2, 20:26) as well as principles such as the rightness of being kind to foreigners (Lev. 19:34, Deut. 10:19), respecting other people’s property (Exod. 20:15), and taking responsibility for unintended harm (Exod. 21:33, Deut. 22:4).
From a natural law perspective, the rule of law points to a transcendent order built into creation itself. From a biblical perspective, it points to the Transcendent Orderer who created. Either way, though secularists may try to deny it, law points beyond the merely human.
Of all people, Christians should treasure and zealously uphold the rule of law!
Rule of law seeks wisdom.
Legal proceedings privilege facts and reasoning over the passions of the moment, and it’s a blessing to all of us that they do. Scripture reveals that this elevation of careful though over emotion is characteristic of wisdom.
- Whoever is slow to anger has great understanding, but he who has a hasty temper exalts folly. (Prov. 14:29)
- Whoever trusts in his own mind is a fool, but he who walks in wisdom will be delivered. (Prov. 28:26)
- An intelligent heart acquires knowledge, and the ear of the wise seeks knowledge. (Prov. 18:15)
- If one gives an answer before he hears, it is his folly and shame. (Prov. 18:13)
- The one who states his case first seems right, until the other comes and examines him. (Prov. 18:17)
- The heart of the righteous ponders how to answer, but the mouth of the wicked pours out evil things. (Prov. 15:28)
- But the wisdom from above is first pure, then peaceable, gentle, open to reason, full of mercy and good fruits, impartial and sincere. (James 3:17)
- By me [wisdom] kings reign, and rulers decree what is just; (Prov. 8:15)
The conflict over the 2020 presidential election result boils down to one question: Will the political right honor the rule of law—in most cases, long-standing state laws—or will we be ruled by our passions? The latter is the path of folly but also the path of instability and oppression. The fact that the left demonstrated the same tendencies (though on a far smaller scale) in 2016 only underscores the point. If the right doesn’t champion the rule of law, who do we think we should leave that job to?
Many conservatives believe claims of large scale election fraud and efforts to keep Donald Trump in power are honoring the rule of law. But there’s a fundamental problem with that view: the rule of law includes due process and the burden of proof placed on accusers. Accusers are required to prove that their accusations are true using credible evidence (which is not the same as “someone saying what we want to hear;” see Prov. 19:28).
Any attempt to shift the burden of proof from “innocent until proven guilty” to “guilty until proven innocent” is a direct assault on the rule of law. It’s not how we do law in America—and that reality is a blessing to all of us every day we live here.
Rule of law resists idolatry.
It’s easy to idolize a Queen Elizabeth or a Dear Leader Kim Jong-il, or a President Donald… or Ronald, or Barack or Joe. We’re constantly tempted to “put our trust in princes” (Psalm 146:3, 118:8-9).
It’s harder to idolize laws. It can be done (Rom. 10:2-4), but we’re much more prone to idolize people.
Where law is king (see Rutherford and Paine), power is distributed in written codes across regimes and generations. In the U.S., the law embodied in the Constitution spreads power across the legislative, judicial, and executive branches, and also spreads it across states. Though candidates and voters often act as though the President gets all the credit for national accomplishments, that’s not really how it works. U.S. presidents have substantial policy power, strong influence over what happens in Congress, and enormous cultural influence. But the rule of law ensures that achievements are the result of many individuals and groups working together.
It also has a way of throwing a wet blanket on our hero worship. We need that. We should thank God for it.
Rule of law is defining.
Given our national cultural decay, I think this is not overstatement: If we don’t have the rule of law, we don’t—as a nation, have anything. It’s ultimately all that keeps us from becoming Venezuela, Somalia, Russia, or China.
It’s also what makes all our other policy pursuits worthwhile. There’s no point in electing officials who are against murder if those officials are against the rule of law. This remains true if the murder we’re talking about is the killing of human children still in the womb.
This is a major shift in where we are as a nation, and one that many conservatives don’t yet seem to recognize. The rule of law used to be assumed on both the left and the right, but we can no longer take that commitment for granted—on the left or the right. Our first question about any potential president or legislator or judge can no longer be “are they pro-life”? Our first question must now be, are they pro-rule-of-law? Do they contribute to the strength of our national commitment to the rule of law or do they—directly or indirectly, through policy or rhetoric—weaken it?
Other things might be equally important to our national life. Nothing is more important.
Photo: Bill Oxford.
Aaron Blumer 2016 Bio
Aaron Blumer is a Michigan native and graduate of Bob Jones University and Central Baptist Theological Seminary (Plymouth, MN). He and his family live in small-town western Wisconsin, not far from where he pastored for thirteen years. In his full time job, he is content manager for a law-enforcement digital library service. (Views expressed are the author's own and not his employer's, church's, etc.)
- 42 views
Do we have real evidence this one was at all special?
We don’t know. There appears to be strong evidence of a variety of serious problems in some places.
I suspect Christopher Krebs’ take on it is closer to the truth than the politicians’ and pundits’ and lawyers’ take on it. He would know.
Here’s what Krebs actually said at the hearing: “The focus of the statement, the joint statement was security. It was secure. I think terms have been conflated here alleging that we were speaking to the fraud aspect. We absolutely were not. We were talking about security, hacking, manipulation of these machines. That was the thrust of the statement” (2:33:29).
Krebs told NBC, “”It is important to distinguish between the security of the systems and the ability to resist foreign interference, foreign tampering, and machine algorithms and fraud” (https://www.newsmax.com/politics/christopher-krebs-election-security-fr…).
In addition, he specifically said he did not dispute the claims of others at the hearing regarding problems for instance in Nevada. So we can believe Krebs and still wonder about fraud in the election because Krebs has not investigated fraud (so he says).
Watch particularly the claims about Nevada and Wisconsin in this hearing. I have heard no reports that those claims have actually been tried in a court of law. It would be interesting to know.
A distinction worth noting here. Knowingly trying to reverse a legal election is morally treason, even if the means of attack is partly “legal.”
In this case, the “legal” status of the election is what is under dispute. Calling it a “legal election” does not make it so. Contrary to some, we do not have the power to speak reality into existence. And if there are legal ways to attack it, those are not treasonous by definition.
As for what Trump believes, who knows. I certainly don’t and I don’t care. I think people are too focused on Trump in this. The real issue is the integrity and trustworthiness of elections.
Pennsylvania Reported About 200,000 More Ballots Cast than People Who Voted
It is bad enough that people can vote without ID or signature verification, but now it looks like votes can actually be counted without voters. I am pretty sure that does not fit with the rule of law. The easy explanation would be that mass amounts of ballots were manufactured and counted that were not legitimate votes. Of course we could also just assume that someone typed in the wrong numbers at the state level, but with all the testimony from multiple witnesses who saw ballots that had not been folded and had perfectly matched oval stamps, I think that is grasping at straws. How much evidence do we need? I fear for some, it does not matter how much evidence there is- they have already made up their minds.
I was warned as a young Christian to be very careful about words like always or never. Saying I am never Trump is kind of like saying I will never believe evidence. I have had a lot of respect for those who are “not Trump” supports and that respect continues, but I do not respect the “Never Trumpers.” The very term is evidence of a closed mind that refuses to ever be persuaded.
This link is to the site of a PA lawmaker who broke this story:
http://www.repdiamond.com/News/18754/Latest-News/PA-Lawmakers-Numbers-Don
BTW: bringing up fringe accusations of fraud that many of us had not even heard of and then discrediting them, does not negate the legitimate concerns that must be investigated.
[JD Miller]Pennsylvania Reported About 200,000 More Ballots Cast than People Who Voted
It is bad enough that people can vote without ID or signature verification, but now it looks like votes can actually be counted without voters. I am pretty sure that does not fit with the rule of law. The easy explanation would be that mass amounts of ballots were manufactured and counted that were not legitimate votes. Of course we could also just assume that someone typed in the wrong numbers at the state level, but with all the testimony from multiple witnesses who saw ballots that had not been folded and had perfectly matched oval stamps, I think that is grasping at straws. How much evidence do we need? I fear for some, it does not matter how much evidence there is- they have already made up their minds.
I was warned as a young Christian to be very careful about words like always or never. Saying I am never Trump is kind of like saying I will never believe evidence. I have had a lot of respect for those who are “not Trump” supports and that respect continues, but I do not respect the “Never Trumpers.” The very term is evidence of a closed mind that refuses to ever be persuaded.
This link is to the site of a PA lawmaker who broke this story:
http://www.repdiamond.com/News/18754/Latest-News/PA-Lawmakers-Numbers-Don
BTW: bringing up fringe accusations of fraud that many of us had not even heard of and then discrediting them, does not negate the legitimate concerns that must be investigated.
What if a person is a “Never those policies” person? Please don’t respond with the lesser of two evils argument. Can a person legitimately only vote for people that approximate their political position? Have we now ended up in a place where that is “pie in the sky”?
I can understand a never those policies position. But the reason I would not use the term “Never Trump” or “Never Biden” is because policy positions can change. Further what makes things difficult is that with both Trump and Biden there is a lot of inaccurate information about what their policies actually are. The other challenging position for all voters is that we may like some of their policies and not others. That is why we need to extend grace to those who make different choices in the voting booth than we do.
Yes I agree. I do think that a candidate’s political history (Trump had none) can be well-established enough to rule them out no matter what they claim campaigning.
More evidence of fraud continues to come out, but while some are skeptical of the election process others are skeptical of the fraud accusations. We now have representatives and senators on record saying that they will object to accepting the electoral college votes on January 6th. Such objections are not unprecedented, but are unlikely to change the final vote.
What I do think is possible, is that there will be a debate on the subject on the House and/or the Senate floor and if the debate provides an opportunity for the evidence to be brought forth and also provides the opportunity for the evidence to be refuted, that can provide important information to the public. My hope is that the information that comes from this can then lead to reforms on the state levels.
Regardless of who the next president is, I want fair elections and I am convinced that changes should be made to further safeguard vote integrity. Fraud likely affected more than just the presidential election. I do not mean to imply that the choice of president is insignificant, but if the fraud was as widespread as many are claiming, then many other offices from senator to school board were likely affected.
If nothing else, I hope the debate over the subject leads to a more uniform application of the rule of law.
(Please note that evidence and proof are 2 different words and I would caution those who use them interchangeably. I have consistently used the word evidence in these threads even though the word proof has been falsely attributed to me. In fact, I reread my posts to make sure and multiple times I made it clear that that there was room for the evidence to be argued against. Still when the evidence keeps piling up, the rule of law requires that it be investigated. This should not just be about the presidency, but about states looking into this and reforming their election laws and about bringing violators to justice).
Here is a defining question for you JD. If it was in your power or you knew of a way to accomplish it would you make Donald Trump President for Life would you. Yes or No. I hope it’s a resounding No.
No. I have made it very clear here and in other threads that I am not a big fan of Trump. I did vote for him once (not both times he ran), but there is much about him I do not appreciate. It is wrong to characterize those who simply voted for him as Trump cultists. It is also wrong to assume that all the election concerns I have are coming from the Trump campaign or that my positions on Covid come from Trump. I do not read Trumps tweets or Trumps statements about the election or anything else unless they happen to be in some other news article and thus I seldom come across them. I do not get my positions from Trump. In fact, I am not all that interested in hearing what Trump lawyers have to say about the election. I am more interested in the testimony of first hand witnesses that are testifying before the state committees and legislatures.
I have made it clear that when it comes to voting, we should show love and grace for one another when different choices are made. I fear that position has become controversial on SI.
Joe B keeps using my name, but I think he is arguing with someone else. I would prefer to ignore him, but I want to clarify what I have said so that others do not read his posts and get the wrong impression of what I said earlier. As far as the Michigan witness he just referred to, I already made it clear on page 2 of this long thread that I do not find her credible. I am not sure why this has become so personal. Here is what I wrote (bold and underline added for this post).
Even if you are suspicious of Mellissa Carone’s testimony- as I am- there are other witnesses as well.
I have no problem with others disagreeing with my statements, I just do not want them misrepresented. I am praying for you Joe. I hope you are able to find comfort in spending time with loved ones during this holiday season.
The stolen election story absolutely depends on the voting machines/software manipulation claim that Krebs rejected.
Individual cases of fraud here and there are a different question and don’t really have any bearing on the national outcome.
In Pennsylvania, the courts have clarified what the law means. The rule of law was upheld both in the election and after.
So here’s what it boils down to: either the election was rigged (this story only exists at all because Trump created it) and every American has an interest in correcting that, or there were isolated irregularities/cases of misconduct/fraud which were local and really only of interest to people who live there.
There is evidence of the latter and none of the former. (So also said AG Barr, for example, no never-Trumper)
What the GOP is doing to fuel the rigged election lie is all about Trump. It’s irresponsible, short sighted, anti-rule of law, and anti-conservative.
Edit: Blessedly, the rule of law continues to win.
Views expressed are always my own and not my employer's, my church's, my family's, my neighbors', or my pets'. The house plants have authorized me to speak for them, however, and they always agree with me.
I’ve lost track of where, but the idea seems to resurface here and there that arguments and facts against the stolen election narrative are only coming from Never Trump sources. Or that was my impression.
So, some helpful, usually well reasoned and factual sources that aren’t never Trump:
- National Review (several Trump supporters, and several “critical but voted for him twice” people… only one never-Trumper I know of: Kevin Williamson; might be one or two others.)
- Washington Examiner (the opinion columns feature passionate Trump fans like Scarry, but also consistently Trump critical guys like Quin Hillyer)
- WORLD Magazine/website (in my view, has not been critical enough of Trump, but certainly not a never-Trump source)
- Wall Street Journal - used to be generally seen as leaning right of center, though I’m not sure about that. I can’t afford it. I do know they feature views all over the map on Trump and his actions.
In addition, NY Post is usually very pro-Trump but even their editorial board has had enough of the rigged election/flip the election charade: https://nypost.com/2020/12/27/give-it-up-mr-president-for-your-sake-and…
Then you have all the Trump-appointed judges and until-lately Trump-backing local GOP officials who have rejected the stolen election canard, as well as some Senators, such as Sasse and Kinzinger. I don’t know what Kinzinger’s history is vis a vis Trump, but Sasse has been a sometimes defender and sometimes critic. He hasn’t earned being accurately termed a Never-Trumper.
Speaking of non-Never Trump Sasse: Some of his recent thoughts… (It’s difficult to copy paste any text from Facebook, so this is OCR… It probably has some scan errors and the links are almost certainly broken, but my link to the source is good. You can read it all there and follow the links.)
2. IS THERE EVIDENCE OF VOTER FRAUD SO WIDESPREAD THAT IT COULD HAVE CHANGED THE OUTCOME OF THE PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION? No.
For President-Elect Biden’s 306-232 Electoral College victory to be overturned: President Trump would need to flip multiple states. But not a single state is in legal doubt.
But given that I was not a Trump voter in either 2016 or 2020 (I wrote in Mike Pence in both elections), I understand that many Trump supporters will not want to take my word for it. So, let’s look at the investigations and tireless analysis from Andy McCarthy over at National Review. McCarthy has been a strong, consistent supporter of President Trump, and he is also a highly regarded federal prosecutor. Let’s run through the main states where President Trump has claimed widespread fraud:
* In Pennsylvania, Team Trump is right that lots went wrong. Specifically, a highly partisan state supreme court rewrote election law in ways that are contrary to what the legislature had written about the deadline for mail-in ballots — this is wrong. But Biden won Pennsylvania by 81,000 votes — and there appear to have been only 10,000 votes received and counted after election day. So even if every one of these votes were for Biden and were thrown out, they would not come close to affecting the outcome. Notably: Stephanos Bibas (a Trump appointee) of the U.S. Third Circuit Court of Appeals, ruled against the president’s lawsuit to reverse Biden’s large victory, writing in devastating fashion: “calling an election unfair does not make it so. Charges require specific allegations and then proof. We have neither here.”
* In Michigan, which Biden won by 154,000 votes, the Trump team initially claimed generic fraud statewide — but with almost no particular claims, so courts roundly rejected suit after suit. The Trump team then objected to a handful of discrepancies in certain counties and precincts, some more reasonable than others. But for the sake of argument, let’s again assume that every single discrepancy was resolved in the president’s favor: It would potentially amount to a few thousand votes and not come anywhere close to changing the state’s result.
* In Arizona, a federal judge jettisoned a lawsuit explaining that “allegations that find favor in the public sphere of gossip and innuendo cannot be a substitute for earnest pleadings and procedure in federal court,” she wrote. “They most certainly cannot be the basis for upending Arizona’s 2020 General Election.” Nothing presented in court was serious, let alone providing a basis for overturning an election. (https:// www.azcentral. comistoryinewslpolitics/elections/2020/12/09/federal-judge-throws-out-last-election-challenge-pending-arizona/6506927002)
* In Nevada, there do appear to have been some irregularities — but the numbers appear to have been very small relative to Biden’s margin of victory. It would be useful for there to be an investigation into these irregularities: but a judge rejected the president’s suit because the president’s lawyers “did not prove under any standard of proof’ that enough illegal votes were cast; or legal votes not counted, “to raise reasonable doubt as to the outcome of the election.” (https://www.8newsnow.com/i-team/judge-no-evidence-to-support-voter-frau…vegas-clark-county/)
* In Wisconsin, as McCarthy has written, the Wisconsin Supreme Court ruled against President Trump, suggesting that President-Elect Biden’s recorded margin of victory (about 20,000 votes) was probably slightly smaller in fact: but even re-calculating all of the votes in question in a generously pro-Trump way would not give the president a victory in the state. (https://www.nationalreview.com/2020/12/biden-won-wisconsin-but-it-was-e…)
* In Georgia: a Georgia Bureau of Investigation complete audit of more than 15,000 votes found one irregularity — a situation where a woman illegally signed both her and her husband’s ballot envelopes.
At the end of the day, one of the President Trump’s strongest supporters, his own Attorney General, Bill Barr, was blunt: “We have not seen fraud on a scale that could have effected a different outcome in the election.” (https://apnews.comiarticlelbarr-no-widespread-election-fraud-blf1488796…)
Read the whole thing.
So, as a for instance, it’s really not that hard to get at truth by looking for points of agreement among non-extreme sources that have differing biases.
Views expressed are always my own and not my employer's, my church's, my family's, my neighbors', or my pets'. The house plants have authorized me to speak for them, however, and they always agree with me.
No mention is made of sending money to Timmons.Timmons to Object to Electoral College Certification on January 6
America is a Republic whose leaders are chosen in democratic elections. Those elections, in turn, must comply with the Constitution and with federal and state law.
When the voters fairly decide an election, pursuant to the rule of law, the losing candidate should acknowledge and respect the legitimacy of that election. And, if the voters choose to elect a new office-holder, our Nation should have a peaceful transfer of power.
The election of 2020, like the election of 2016, was hard fought and, in many swing states, narrowly decided. The 2020 election, however, featured unprecedented allegations of voter fraud, violations and lax enforcement of election law, and other voting irregularities.
Voter fraud has posed a persistent challenge in our elections, although its breadth and scope are disputed. By any measure, the allegations of fraud and irregularities in the 2020 election exceed any in our lifetimes.
And those allegations are not believed just by one individual candidate. Instead, they are widespread. Reuters/Ipsos polling, tragically, shows that 39% of Americans believe ‘the election was rigged.’ That belief is held by Republicans (67%), Democrats (17%), and Independents (31%).
Some Members of Congress disagree with that assessment, as do many members of the media.
But, whether or not our elected officials or journalists believe it, that deep distrust of our democratic processes will not magically disappear. It should concern us all. And it poses an ongoing threat to the legitimacy of any subsequent administrations.
Ideally, the courts would have heard evidence and resolved these claims of serious election fraud. Twice, the Supreme Court had the opportunity to do so; twice, the Court declined.
On January 6, it is incumbent on Congress to vote on whether to certify the 2020 election results. That vote is the lone constitutional power remaining to consider and force resolution of the multiple allegations of serious voter fraud.
At that quadrennial joint session, there is long precedent of Democratic Members of Congress raising objections to presidential election results, as they did in 1969, 2001, 2005, and 2017. And, in both 1969 and 2005, a Democratic Senator joined with a Democratic House Member in forcing votes in both houses on whether to accept the presidential electors being challenged.
The most direct precedent on this question arose in 1877, following serious allegations of fraud and illegal conduct in the Hayes-Tilden presidential race. Specifically, the elections in three states-Florida, Louisiana, and South Carolina-were alleged to have been conducted illegally.
In 1877, Congress did not ignore those allegations, nor did the media simply dismiss those raising them as radicals trying to undermine democracy. Instead, Congress appointed an Electoral Commission-consisting of five Senators, five House Members, and five Supreme Court Justices-to consider and resolve the disputed returns.
We should follow that precedent. To wit, Congress should immediately appoint an Electoral Commission, with full investigatory and fact-finding authority, to conduct an emergency 10-day audit of the election returns in the disputed states. Once completed, individual states would evaluate the Commission’s findings and could convene a special legislative session to certify a change in their vote, if needed.
Accordingly, we intend to vote on January 6 to reject the electors from disputed states as not ‘regularly given’ and ‘lawfully certified’ (the statutory requisite), unless and until that emergency 10-day audit is completed.
We are not naïve. We fully expect most if not all Democrats, and perhaps more than a few Republicans, to vote otherwise. But support of election integrity should not be a partisan issue. A fair and credible audit-conducted expeditiously and completed well before January 20-would dramatically improve Americans’ faith in our electoral process and would significantly enhance the legitimacy of whoever becomes our next President. We owe that to the People.
These are matters worthy of the Congress, and entrusted to us to defend. We do not take this action lightly. We are acting not to thwart the democratic process, but rather to protect it. And every one of us should act together to ensure that the election was lawfully conducted under the Constitution and to do everything we can to restore faith in our Democracy.
I really respect Tom Cotton’s position. He has concerns about the 2020 election and wants further investigation (not ignoring evidence or multiple witnesses) but he also respects the rule of law so much that he does not want to go against the electoral votes that were certified. IE Joe Biden will be president, but that does not mean that there will be no investigations or reforms. Here is an article that explains Cotton’s position: https://pjmedia.com/news-and-politics/tyler-o-neil/2021/01/04/tom-cotton-blocking-electoral-vote-will-only-embolden-democrats-to-undermine-the-constitution-n1304212
I would hope that there could be bipartisan support for such an approach.
Discussion