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
The Sioux Falls mayor just said today that Covid rates in Sioux Falls are going down now. He replied that he is not sure why. Like Bert, he shared his observations but did not make dogmatic pronouncements about the reasons. I find it interesting that someone out in PA is making dogmatic statements about what is happening here. I am starting to think that our own eyes are not the right sources because we are not “Never Trump” even though we are not all that pro Trump either. I am starting to wonder if some will ignore all information sources unless they are anti-Trump and believe any news sources that are rabidly against Trump. I am sick of Trump and how people are using him as an excuse to ignore the truth. Sadly I am not convinced that getting rid of Trump will allow the truth to come back into journalism.
We were in Rapid City a week before Sturgis. We visited some friends just outside Rapid and they commented on how it was a record tourist season out there and had been for months. The hotel we stayed in was packed. We asked them if the Rapid City hospital was overwhelmed with Covid cases at that time. It was not. We saw license plates from all over the USA there. Covid took a bit of a break over the summer- not sure why- but it was not spreading much and there was no serious problem in the Black Hills of SD. Our state was able to take advantage of that break and stay open, save jobs, stabilize mental health, and thus save lives. Our governor made that decision, not Trump.
I still hope Newsmax et al. get sued and severely fined.
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.
The reason we didn’t have a huge spike in COVID cases after Sturgis was most likely because bikers are not exactly the most compliant group of people out there to begin with, and hence when they got to Sturgis, they most likely did exactly the same social distancing that they did before—which might be minimal. So a big “duh” for me. :^)
Aspiring to be a stick in the mud.
Not just Newsmax. Fox News did the same with a 3-minute prerecorded segment before several Fox News hosts that accused Dominion and Smartmatic of Fraud without any evidence. If you have been continually publishing false information without any evidence that damages a company’s reputation, which then costs the company several hundred of millions of dollars worth of contracts, the libel damages against them will be huge.
What I could never understand was how the tinfoil narrative that Dominion corroborated with Smartmatic to use their software in order to defraud Trump of votes was taken seriously by certain conservatives. The two companies don’t like each other. Back in 2013, they sued and countersued each other. https://casetext.com/brief/smartmatic-usa-corporation-et-al-v-dominion-voting-systems-corporation-et-al_reply-memorandum-of-law-in-support-re-10-motion-to-dismiss They attempted to work together but it completely fell apart. They are fierce competitors of each other.
You mean the SD Emergency room nurse’s story that all of the hospitals say is not at all reflective of what is going on in their facilities? The one that co-workers said did not match up to any of their experiences working with the *same exact* patients?
Her? She is your source?
I have *many* friends that are nurses here in South Dakota (where I live). They aren’t seeing what Jodi Doering claims is going on in our hospitals. The National Review even couldn’t find anyone to corroborate her story.
[Joel Shaffer]Not just Newsmax. Fox News did the same….
What I could never understand was how the tinfoil narrative that Dominion corroborated with Smartmatic to use their software in order to defraud Trump of votes was taken seriously by certain conservatives. The two companies don’t like each other. Back in 2013, they sued and countersued each other. https://casetext.com/brief/smartmatic-usa-corporation-et-al-v-dominion-voting-systems-corporation-et-al_reply-memorandum-of-law-in-support-re-10-motion-to-dismiss They attempted to work together but it completely fell apart. They are fierce competitors of each other.
Also worth noting: Smartmatic wasn’t even used in the contested states.They’ve only done recent work in the U.S. for one county in California.
And people wonder why courts “don’t look at the evidence.”
About the difficulty of knowing what sources are reliable….
On that topic, from a few posts up the thread: it’s really not all that hard. I’ve done some writing on the topic here at SI already, and plan to do some more, but it’s pretty easy to look at reports on a controversial topic and sift them like this:
- Toss out all the ones with clear partisan loyalties
- Toss out all the ones making the most dramatic claims in the most dramatic language
- Looking at what’s left, what points of fact do both left-leaning and right-leaning sources agree on?
- What do centrist sources say?
- What do the most boring, fact-filled, analytical sources say?
It usually takes about fifteen minutes to see a clear pattern. Maybe an hour to see what the best sources are saying in detail. (This is all reading, by the way. Video is always highly suspect unless it’s extremely boring.)
But one more step should precede all of those: what’s the probability that story X is true to begin with? If you start out putting the burden of proof in the appropriate place, that also sifts claims pretty rapidly. You don’t have to do an enormous amount of digging to find out if an extremely improbable claim is true. File it under “almost certainly not” and maybe revisit it after looking into the “well, maybe” items and the “very likely” items.
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.
The trouble with tossing out those with clear partisan loyalties is that almost all of the mainstream media clearly put their finger on the scales for Obama, and again for Biden. Let’s not mince words; failing/refusing to cover the information found on Hunter Biden’s laptop is a courtesy that would not have been extended to any Republican. Same thing with Biden’s obvious mental decline—had Trump shown the same symptoms, you know it would have been on page one on CNN and such. So when you advocate tossing media with clear partisan loyalties, that’s just about everybody—and as a reader of Fox, I’ll concede that includes Fox somewhat on the other side.
Some real soul searching is needed on the part of the media, because the 4th Estate is taking a big role in leading the decline of civic discourse. And back to this topic, that’s a big reason that many on the right aren’t trusting the reports which “clear” the process in Detroit, Philadelphia, Milwaukee, and Atlanta.
Aspiring to be a stick in the mud.
The trouble with tossing out those with clear partisan loyalties is that almost all of the mainstream media clearly put their finger on the scales for Obama, and again for Biden. Let’s not mince words; failing/refusing to cover the information found on Hunter Biden’s laptop is a courtesy that would not have been extended to any Republican. Same thing with Biden’s obvious mental decline—had Trump shown the same symptoms, you know it would have been on page one on CNN and such. So when you advocate tossing media with clear partisan loyalties, that’s just about everybody—and as a reader of Fox, I’ll concede that includes Fox somewhat on the other side.
Some real soul searching is needed on the part of the media, because the 4th Estate is taking a big role in leading the decline of civic discourse. And back to this topic, that’s a big reason that many on the right aren’t trusting the reports which “clear” the process in Detroit, Philadelphia, Milwaukee, and Atlanta.
The impeachment hearings were quite revealing as well. I did not have time to watch them all, but instead had to get key points from the media. It was quite interesting to see what was highlighted and what was hidden by various sources. The best part is that we actually had the testimony available so we could check the accuracy of the reporting. I feel like we no longer have reliable sources of journalism. I wish Aaron’s approach would always work. It does seem quite reasonable on the surface, but our news sources have proven over and over the reality of the depravity of mankind.
Before the election the sources that were reporting the Hunter Biden email stories would not have passed Aaron’s test, but sources that would pass Aaron’s test are now reporting the same thing. The point that I am making is that we cannot assume something is false just because a news source has a bias nor should we assume something is true just because we like the news source. We have reason to be skeptical and we also have reason to ask for more information when we have multiple witnesses.
The multiple witness issue is something that should not be constrained by the media reporting. Multiple states have broadcast hearings were multiple witnesses have been able to give their accounts. It does not matter who reports these witnesses an who does not. Evidence was presented by multiple witnesses and it thus needs to be investigated. Who reports on it or who does not- which media sources credit or discredit it is not the issue. We should not have trial by media, because the media is tainted. That is why state legislatures are calling for investigations and asking for specific information. Depending on your media sources you may not know that when these legislatures are asking for the information that would prove the allegations of voter fraud to be true or false, they are being hindered from getting that information. It appears that in some cases the media is doing all it can to hinder the exercise of the rule of law and so are some state officials.
If you curate your news media and understand their respective biases, you’ll get a very well-rounded and informed view of the world. It isn’t hard. The refrains about the “mainstream media” remind me about “mainline denominations.” They’re legacy institutions that are part of the narrative, but certainly not the whole story. We don’t have to reference “mainstream media” as though we’re helpless consumers, held fast in the steely grasp of their demagoguery. You can, each one of you, curate your news media intelligently and discriminately … if you choose to do so.
Tyler is a pastor in Olympia, WA and works in State government.
The point that I am making is that we cannot assume something is false just because a news source has a bias nor should we assume something is true just because we like the news source. We have reason to be skeptical and we also have reason to ask for more information when we have multiple witnesses.
This sums it up how I see it pretty well, but I would nuance the part about witnesses. Numbers of witnesses are not all of equal weight. In the case of the stolen-election narrative, a public figure known to have legions of devoted fans made a public appeal for “reports.” So, this really poisoned the witness pool, so to speak. I can’t really fault the courts much for choosing not to sift through mountains of junk to find a few credible witnesses of process failures or wrongdoing. So, ironically, Trump et al.’s publicity campaign made actual prosecution of actual misconduct cases more difficult. A court swamped with lies is going to be hindered in its pursuit of truth.
I suspect that was the goal. It’s not about truth, it’s about sustaining belief in the narrative, which, if you’re Trump, translates into money and political influence post-presidency.
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.
Andre McCarthy points out some strongish points in the case, then…
There are, moreover, the now-familiar flaws: The campaign continues to complain about the potential for fraud while not alleging any actual fraud — even as, for public consumption, the president persists in portraying the election as pervasively fraudulent to the point of being “rigged.” And, without having established that the alleged misconduct materially affected the outcome of the election, much less resulted in massive fraud, the campaign would have the high court nullify the election, disenfranchise 6.8 million Pennsylvanians, and delegate the state legislature to select new electors — never mind that the electors have already been chosen by popular election, been certified under state law, and cast their votes pursuant to federal law.
He goes on to talk a bit about what he thinks needs fixing to better ensure election integrity. (He thinks mail-in ballots should only be permitted as absentee and only for specified reasons.) Then adds,
All that said, though, what I’ve just described is a prospective project. As far as the 2020 election is concerned, the Trump campaign has already lost on at least three of these issues, and arguably on all of them.
Later…
The campaign is simply wrong in its claims about signature review. The theory of its claim is that, in eliminating signature review, Secretary of State Kathy Boockvar effectively amended law enacted by the state legislature. But there is nothing in Pennsylvania election law that requires signature verification.
The Commonwealth’s law calls for proof of identity (an examination of the voter’s driver’s license or similar statutorily approved form of identification). While the ballot certification must be signed, the statute does not mention signature comparison.
It’s a pretty detailed analysis. I’ve quoted some excerpts to illustrate, but also because it tagged “NR Plus” which is usually paywalled (though my subscription has expired and I can still see it, so…?).
The link: https://www.nationalreview.com/2020/12/a-fatally-flawed-trump-petition-…
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.
Seventh Circuit upholds dismissal of suit seeking to declare Trump winner in Wisconsin
This happened Christmas Eve, I guess.
The suit alleged that Wisconsin violated the Electors Clause of the US Constitution. The president claimed that guidance released by Wisconsin voting commissions facilitated voter fraud by allowing unmanned drop-off boxes and expanded absentee voting due to the pandemic.
The lower court had dismissed the case on the merits, citing that the time to bring suit was before the recounts and the official certification of the election.
The Seventh Circuit affirmed the decision ….
On the merits of an Electors Clause claim, the court found that the clause “could be read as addressing only the manner of appointing electors and thus nothing about the law that governs the administration of an election.” In this case, it said, the electors were rightfully appointed according to the process set forth by the Wisconsin Legislature.
So, the objection that the courts aren’t looking at the actual evidence is technically true in this particular case. The law doesn’t allow for the legal maneuver the plaintiffs were attempting, so the evidence wasn’t relevant. However, in Wisconsin, the legislature has already had some hearings looking at the actual evidence, and those efforts are continuing. Which is how election fraud problems actually get fixed—locally, case by case, by officials who have that responsibility… not by candidates trying to flip whole elections in their favor (or candidates trying to bring lots of cash for their post-election careers!)
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 think Trump lost but the charge of sedition or treason that is being floated around is ridiculous. It is not sedition or treason to take every legal avenue and to make your case to the American people. Yes, he is a clown. He is arrogant and brash and unpresidential and all that. But that is not sedition.
We all know that the vote was fraudulent to some degree. No one thinks that every single one of 160 miilionish votes were completely above board, cast by the legal voter whose name is attached to it. In the best of cases, that wouldn’t be true. And given the number of anomalies in this election, it is clearly worth questioning. Again, I think Biden won, but it seems nearly impossible that he did so legitimately. It was the perfect storm.
“Fraudulent to some degree…” Well, every election is. Do we have real evidence this one was at all special? 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.
“take every legal angle”….. 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, there has also been a massive propaganda campaign. The legal efforts have mostly been spurious. Just for show.
Does it rise to the legal act of treason or sedition or something like that? I had written that this is ridiculous, but looking at the definition of sedition—or at least one definition—I’m not sure it deserves that label.
https://dictionary.thelaw.com/sedition/
An insurrectionary movement tending towards treason, but wanting an overt act; attempts made by meetings or speeches, or by publications, to disturb the tranquillity of the state.
The distinction between “sedition” and “treason” consists in this: that though the ultimate object of sedition is a violation of the public peace, or at least such a course of measures as evidently engenders it, yet it does not aim at direct and open violence against the laws or the subversion of the constitution….
It could never be proven in a court of law unless written communications or video or audio recordings or something could be found, showing both intent and strategy.
I still can’t decide if Trump…
- Really believes the election was rigged
- Knows deep down that he genuinely lost, but refuses to face it (so he’s lying to himself basically)
- Knows the truth, has faced it, and has engaged in a deceitful propaganda campaign
- To pad his pockets (many millions have come into his election legal fight fund)
- To enhance his post-election influence
- To enhance his ability to keep getting a lot of attention and feel important
- Out of spite
- A mix of the above
Maybe some days he believes it and some days he doesn’t. That wouldn’t be surprising either.
If he even mostly believes he got robbed, it’s not sedition or treason to say so and try to use legal means to get justice.
But one more distinction is important here: it’s one thing to do due diligence and then have a well-informed, responsible view that a crime was committed against you. It’s another thing assume that you couldn’t possibly lose unless it was rigged, then try to dig up evidence to fit what you want to believe.
So there’s sincere responsible (though incorrect) belief and there’s sincere, irresponsible, self-indulgent and lazy (and incorrect) belief.
Which is it, in Trump’s case? Well, what fits his character? Secondly, it’s almost impossible to have a responsible belief that the election was rigged/stolen from Trump.
Irresponsible indulgence in egotistical fantasy is more likely than sedition in this case. Still, the whole charade has done a lot of social/civil damage.
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.
Joeb wrote:
the Proud Boys and other White Supremacist Groups
I am not a fan of the proud boys. Proud really describes what this group is all about. They come across as brash and arrogant. In some cases they have been involved in physical altercations and it appears that their pride was a contributing factor to these altercations. Anyone who calls them white supremacists is clearly ill informed. They are made up of men from many racial backgrounds. Leaders within the Proud Boy groups are black, white, and Hispanic.
We have people on this site labeling Proud Boys as white supremacists and conservatives as fascists. Clearly people are being influenced by propaganda rather than truth.
Discussion