Archive for the ‘ legal theory’ Category

President Obama: the First Year

Wednesday, January 20th, 2010

Some Thoughts on the State of the Union

I am not satisfied with President Obama’s first year, but I temper that with the idea that one year is not long enough to get everything done that a president would probably like to accomplish.

I hope that whatever health care reform comes out of this is smart and, more importantly, sustainable without burdening the middle class with more tax liability.

I do not think that the president has done enough to either disengage from the Middle East conflicts or to go all out and accomplish the goals there. It’s got to be one or the other — win or go home (whatever ‘win’ there means). I know the soldiers work their butts off there, but after so many years there, it is time to either eliminate the radicalized threats from the inside or get out and contain them from the outside. Maybe neither of those is possible.

I am disappointed that Mr. Obama has not closed down the ‘faith-based initiatives’ yet. Such blatant entanglement between church and state is unacceptable, and yet he is carrying on without any obvious deviation from his predecessor (though now I guess they’re called ‘faith-based and neighborhood initiatives’, or something of the sort).

I am displeased with the lack of openness in government, in opposition to what the president promised during his campaign. There are still too many secrets, too much rushing, too many hidden aspects to the federal government. I hope that Jim Webb of VA and others can convince the rest of the Democrats that the loss in Massachusetts means it’s time to slow down and open up the process.

I am happy with a few things, as well, like the way the economy is beginning to recover and Mr Obama’s clear and continuing message to the world that we are not a bunch of self-centered jerks over here and that we’re not a Christianist Nation, but of course it’s easier to be critical than praising when there’s so much to be critical about.

Source of Law Is Not Religion

Friday, November 20th, 2009

What is the source of law? Many people are taught, or come to conclude on their own, that religion is the source of law. This misguided belief is probably more widespread in monotheistic religions, which tend to have as their godhead some sort of divine lawgiver, than in pantheistic or maybe even polytheistic religions.

The religion-as-source-of-law is particularly common among Americans who believe the U.S. is a Christian nation and espouse all sorts of Judeo-Christian nonsense.1

My own hypothesis is that religion and law may have evolved in proximity, and indeed very closely, but by no means does law come from religion and by no account is religion required for law, or ethics, or morality. In my hypothesis, law and religion don’t evolve together; rather, law and ritual evolve together, and it is ritual and not law that is tied to religion. (more…)

Rebuttal to Hamilton and No Possible Secular Purpose to Stupak

Friday, November 20th, 2009

Professor and legal commentator Marci Hamilton posted an article on why she believes1 the Stupak amendment to the recently-passed health care bill in the House of Representatives is unconstitutional. Her theory is, in part, that the amendment violates the Establishment Clause. The basis for this claim, according to Hamilton, is that the “anti-abortion movement is plainly religious in motivation, and its lobbyists and spokespersons represent religious groups, as is illustrated by the fact that the most visible lobbyists in the Stupak Amendment’s favor have been the Catholic Bishops.” The Establishment Clause does not care whether this or that movement is religious.

We care about whether the legislation is religious. This religious-movement bit is a red herring.
(more…)