LeaderPaths Journal
ENGAGE TRUTH & GRACE
Articles and Thoughts from our Contributors
 Anyone who has spent time on Facebook or Twitter has scrolled past long but meaningless arguments which served no purpose other than rousing the anger of whoever participated in or took the time to read them. I’d wager that most people who have spent a lot of time on these and other social media sites have participated in at least one of these disputes, even if they didn’t recognize it until after the fact. These squabbles often continue over dozens of comments and contain nothing but vitriol and slanted, ill-considered arguments that are usually laced with countless logical fallacies. Even the best of us can be dragged into one of these internet debates. These arguments are almost always fruitless, so why do so many of us still fall into the trap? If we are ever about to insert ourselves into any argument, we should first pause and ask ourselves a couple of questions.
The first question we should ask in making an argument, or, indeed, in any endeavor, is: What do I want to accomplish here? If your goal is to persuade the person to whom your comment is directed, you should ask yourself another question. When is the last time you were actually dissuaded from one of your views by a comment on social media? No matter how well worded your reply is, no matter how much time and thought you put into crafting the perfect response, you will not change the other person’s mind. If you really want to have an honest exchange about an issue, social media is the worst communication medium you can possibly use. On the other side of that screen is a human being with whom you disagree. All too often, at least one party (frequently more than one party) forgets this fact and lays into the other without any concern for how an actual person will respond. This starts a vicious cycle which, at best, will lead to your friend or follower becoming more entrenched in his or her own position. At worst, you may damage, or even lose, a relationship with someone you care about. By no means do I suggest that if you disagree with something that someone says on social media then you should necessarily ignore it and move on. Sometimes that is exactly what you should do. If you know that you or your friend cannot have this discussion and remain calm and rational, then breaching the topic is probably not worth it. Having this discussion will just cause a rift between you and your friend and will likely make it harder for you or someone else to change his or her mind further down the road. However, if you believe your friend is mistaken on an important issue, and you know that both you and your friend can remain calm throughout the discussion, then by all means speak up. However, your protest should not be in the form of a comment. Instead, you should invite your friend to talk about it over lunch or a cup of coffee. This way, you will both be speaking to another person, rather than just typing out into the void that is the internet. You are much more likely to change the other person’s mind when talking face to face, than you are over Facebook. You are also more likely to treat the other person like a real person. Always remember to approach your friend with humility and honesty and try to see how he or she is thinking. Remember, you can’t change everyone’s mind, so be prepared to agree to disagree. If your goal is not to persuade, but to whip up some controversy or just to blow off some steam, then please just stop. Put your phone down and go do something else. Nearly anything else would be better than going down this path. It does feel good to troll people on social media, at least in the moment, but in the long run it will only give rise to tension and animosity. In the end, this will make it harder to convince others to join your side. This type of behavior is one of many factors that make our online environment so toxic. As Christians, we are called to be peacemakers. Matthew 5:9 (NASB) says, “Blessed are the peacemakers, for they shall be called sons of God.” This does not mean that Christians should become pacifists, or that they should silently assent to whatever harsh treatment they receive. Often the opposite is true. Christians should be the first to stand up against injustice, and we should be bold in advancing the things of God. However, Christians should never perpetuate unnecessary conflict for its own sake. We have enough problems in this world without trying to create new ones for ourselves. R. Tate Judicial Review is Democratic, and the People are the Final Interpreters of the Constitution10/21/2020  During Judge Amy Barrett’s confirmation hearings, many Senators, House members, and other notable figureheads tried to avoid conversations concerning the possible overturning of judicial decisions they support. As confirmation proceedings began, those conversations manifested in their questions to the nominee. In those, many have brought up three predominant cases that have shaped much of America’s legislative policies: Roe v. Wade, Obergefell v. Hodges, and National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius (Obamacare). Notable names have appeared fueling the discussion about the possibility of overruling. Among them, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, Senator Dianne Feinstein, Senator Chuck Schumer, Presidential Candidate Joe Biden, and many others. The concern over these issues highlights a prevailing problem among the people and, even more so, among elected officials: the Framers of the Constitution, in giving the Court power to nullify congressional acts via judicial review, never designed our judicial institution to be the final interpreters of the Constitution. And this makes judicial review a democratic process—giving the power of final interpretation to the people of America, not to any one institution.
In 2014, President Obama was facing scrutiny over his executive action concerning immigration. Representative James Clyburn (D-S.C.) committed to the all-too-known “deference to the courts” argument by stating, “Let’s let the courts decide whether it’s constitutional. That’s not for Congress to decide, that’s why we have courts to make that decision.” [1] But we have to ask the question, is it really the job of the Congress to defer to the courts? The short answer, no! Turning back to Article III of the US Constitution, section 2 enumerates, “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 … under their Authority.” [2] Some argue that this is not a clear description of the powers of the courts, and this may have been given some legitimacy given that the process of judicial review was not "codified" until Chief Justice Marshall gave a non-decision in Marbury v. Madison. In that case, although the appellee was entitled to his commission, the proper channels of appellate review had not been met, and the Supreme Court did not possess original jurisdiction under the Judiciary Act of 1789 to hand down a decision. What Marshall formulated was this idea of judicial review, of which even the Founders’ exposited. In The Federalist Papers, Hamilton constructs an argument that judicial review is democratic, and that the power of original Constitutional interpretation did not reside in the courts. That power belonged exclusively to the people, through the Legislative branch but ultimately by the people in the Constitution. The concern of the Anti-Federalist papers was that “the authority which can declare the acts of another void, must necessarily be superior to the one whose acts may be declared void.” [3] But Hamilton, in Federalist no. 78, responds clearly by stating “that every act of a delegated authority, contrary to the tenor of the commission under which it is exercised, is void. No legislative act therefore contrary to the constitution can be valid. To deny this would be to affirm that … the representatives of the people are superior to the people themselves.” [4] Judges, therefore, do not help make law; they merely judge it based upon the controlling standard of the governing document, a.k.a. the Constitution. So yes, the courts do interpret law, but they interpret law based upon the interpretation of the law as it “proceeds from the legislative body,” and the courts must judge as “the intermediate body between the people and the legislature, in order, among other things, to keep the latter within the limits assigned to their authority.” [5] If, however, there is an “irreconcilable variance” between the meaning of the Constitution and the meaning of acts that come forth from the legislature, it must be deferred to Congress for clarity and review so that they can exposit further the intent of the act. [6] All of this to say, the people are superior to any branch of the government. The legislative acts upon its own will, which must proceed from the power of the people, and the executive must enforce that law. The courts interpret based on the Constitution so that the theory of self-government can be actualized in the people’s authority. If the courts do overturn the aforementioned rulings, they would not be doing anything unconstitutional, since none of these cases arose from the proper authority. And if the people wish to do something about it, the Constitution ensures that the will of the majority do have courses for remedy. Elected officials can restructure the courts, impeach judges, “strip” appellate jurisdiction from the Court, and the states of the Union can call for a constitutional amendment, all of which are prescribed in the Constitution. But the desire for political expediency, through the legislative ruling of the courts, is a desire most threatening to the political independence of the people. It destroys any hope for a citizen-governed Republic. And contrary to many Democrats’ beliefs about our country, it is most certainly not democratic. If the citizenry of the US wishes to continue having a voice in their government, they must keep their political desires out of the courts, for “where the will of the legislature declared in its statutes, stands in opposition to that of the people declared in the constitution, the judges ought to be governed by the latter, rather than the former.” [7] [1] Greg Weiner, “When Deference is Dereliction,” Law & Liberty, 26 November 2014, https://lawliberty.org/when-deference-is-dereliction/ [2] U.S. Const., art. 3, sec. 2, cl. 1. [3] Alexander Hamilton, John Jay, and James Madison, “Federalist No. 78,” The Federalist Papers: The Gideon Edition, ed. George W. Carey and James McClellan (Indianapolis: The Liberty Fund, 2001), 403. [4] Ibid. [5] Ibid., 404. [6] Ibid. [7] Ibid. - Matthew Ferri (edited February 12, 2021) |
ArchivesCategories & Authors
All
|
RSS Feed