12 July 2012

Kirk Cameron's Monumental Part 5: The Enforcement of Original Intent and The Road to Oligarchy

From the standpoint of non-Sacral Christianity, a composite society is highly desirable and allows for maximum freedom. In the end that's not what we're supposed to spend all of our time and energy looking for, but, if it's a possibility we ought to support it in the civil sphere.
And yet at this point, I cannot in good conscience support the American Establishment in any sense. America's economic and foreign policies promote violence and bloodshed and so like a Christian living in Rome I go about my business, but I will not worship Caesar nor will I support the legions or the machine that empowers the empire.
Unlike many of my ancestors, I wouldn't have supported the Rebellion of 1776, but once the new American state was established I would have been content to live within it.

But I also believe the experiment failed miserably and was dead within just a couple of generations, certainly by the 1850's. It was just another Babylon that turned into a Beast. But these folks would place a Whore on its back, a harlot decked out in historical lies and theological error... a false Church with a false gospel encouraging others to worship the Beast and join its system and endeavours.
If Jeffersonian Democracy is rooted in power being derived by the consent of the governed, a social contract...what happens when the cultural consensus, the voice of the people wants the legal foundations to change? What if the social changes, the expression of consent are so profound there's no way to express the changes in amendment form?
You either must throw out the foundational document...the Constitution...or, try and retain it and work out a way of reading original intent combined with amendments and precedent to form a consensus regarding the ever changing foundation. You can keep it, but different points will be emphasized.
Constitutional Originalism will contradict democratic impulses in the Judiciary and in order to maintain itself, it has to look to the Executive. This can only lead to draconian power grabs and enforcement.
The Judiciary must reject legislation reflecting democratic change. The Legislature will continue to get voted out when they don't reflect the will of their constituents and the Executive once empowered will either use/grab power to force liberal change, or constrain democratic expression. It's really a Constitutional crisis, a breakdown of the system. It might be argued you can have Executive Power or Democracy. Historically it's been pretty difficult to have both at the same time. Rome wrestled with this and Executive Power won in the end. No one is sure what will happen in the United States. Will we end up with a Caesar or will the country breakup long before that? I incline toward the latter.
The Christian Right is in a real dilemma both in terms of its agenda for the country and within its own ranks. The Theonomic thesis is coherent and philosophically sound...though theologically erroneous. Rejecters of Theonomy within the ranks of the Christian Right are forced to try and change the cultural consensus back to where it was in the past. They've tried for years to do this through policing pop culture and boycotting stores and fighting to get some form of Christianity back in the schools. It isn't working and the Theonomists are enjoying telling them, 'we told you so'.
A loose construction view or Living view of the Constitution is of course anathema to those who wish to look to the Constitution as unchangeable. Again there are dilemmas. The Theonomist who professes to be a Constitutionalist has a problem with the fact that the Constitution isn't explicitly Christian and thus he would wish to change it.... and thus they lose the argument. Because in wanting to change it they're effectively treating it the same way the 'liberals' are...saying it can be modified.
But there are many other 'conservatives' who wish to retain the Constitution as is, in its non-Theonomic form, and believe Democratically derived power is sufficient. Everything was fine under the loose arrangement when there was a cultural consensus.
But it's not 1912, it's 2012, and now what do you do?
If somewhere between 51% and 98% of the country is no longer 'Christian' (using the term in a Sacralist sense)...then how do you retain its 'Christian' form....again assuming the idea of a Social Contract is Christian in the first place? I hope you see what a mess they have on their hands? Unless they embrace Theonomy, their concept of law is rooted in social contract. If their position isn't socially sustained, how do they keep things as they are? How do they retain their hold, their vision...let's call it what it is...their power in society?
Basically you have to end up with some kind of council, a guardian council which runs the country and overrules the will of the people...which of course means you don't have Democracy at all. That's not a social contract, that's an Oligarchy or from the standpoint of the population (the governed)...Tyranny.
The non-Theonomic Christian society thesis is untenable. Theonomists have been telling them this for years.
Communist countries have functioned this way by establishing individuals or groups to 'guard the Revolution'.  I guess many of these so-called Conservatives in overthrowing the values and authority base established by the Founders...somehow are guarding the Revolution of 1776?
Their vision of America is a dream idol they've created in their own power-lusting hearts.
to be continued....

No comments: