September 2005     

Philosopy or Motive?

By E. Ralph Hostetter

These are exciting times for America. They are stirring times. We might even quote the great pamphleteer Thomas Paine, an inspiration for the American Revolution, when he wrote, "These are the times that try men's souls." Were he alive today, no doubt Thomas Paine would be called a blogger.

All this excitement revolves around President George W. Bush's nomination of Appeals Court Judge, John G. Roberts, Jr. to a vacancy on the U.S. Supreme Court, replacing retiring Justice Sandra Day O'Connor.

Appeals Court Judge, John G. Roberts, Jr.

The big question is: Will Judge John Roberts bring with him to the Court a sound philosophy of the law, or will he bring with him a motive to change the law? Does he understand the deep philosophical background of the Founding Fathers, that formed the underpinnings of the U.S. Constitution, or does he bring with him a motive to change the law, for the vacuous notion of benefitting society, thus destroying the very fabric of the Constitution?

On confirmation as an Associate Justice of the Court, would he live up to the oath he would take "to uphold and defend this Constitution of the United States?"

Webster's definition of philosophy follows:

"Love of, or the search for wisdom or knowledge. Theory or logical analysis of the principles underlying conduct, thought, knowledge, and the nature of the universe; included in philosophy are ethics, aesthetics, and logic."

Now, compare this to motive. Webster says:

"Motive: Some interior drive, impulse, intention, etc..., that causes a person to do something, or act in a certain way."

Thomas Jefferson and James Madison, two of the Founding Fathers, were principals in the writing of America's basic law. Thomas Jefferson wrote the Declaration of Independence. James Madison was a principal architect in the writing of the U.S. Constitution, and with George Mason, was a principal architect in composing the Constitution's Bill of Rights.

In writing the first federal Constitution in the world, these men, and the other Founding Fathers, were sailing in uncharted waters. Their compass was a sound knowledge of the philosophical studies coming directly, first of all, from the Bible; from philosophers of the Era of Enlightenment, such as Montesquieu, Locke, and others; and particularly from Sir William Blackstone's Commentaries on the Laws of England.

Thomas Jefferson's reference in the Declaration of Independence to, "The Laws of Nature and of Nature's God" came directly from Blackstone. This phrase refers to our God-given natural rights of life, property and liberty.

The fact that the Bible played such an important role with the Founding Fathers, was revealed in a study of their writings, which showed that of all the quotations from their sources of study, 34 percent were directly from the Bible, and 24 percent were from philosophers of the Enlightenment Era.

All these studies formed the foundation of the U.S. Constitution, often heralded as the most brilliant work of the mind of man.

We can only hope that Judge John G. Roberts, Jr. will take the philosophical route of the Founding Fathers.

Associate Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg announced, upon her appointment, that she had different thoughts.

The exact words of Justice Ginsburg, upon the announcement of her nomination by then-President Bill Clinton, are found in the last line of a lengthy statement she made at the time:

"I look forward to stimulating weeks this summer and, if I am confirmed, to working in a neighboring Court (U.S. Supreme Court) to the best of my ability, for the advancement of the law in the service of society..." [Emphasis supplied].

To translate the phrase, we turn again to Webster:

"Advance: to bring closer to the present..." (the "Living Constitution" concept). For "the law in the service of society," Webster has a term, "Social engineering: An effort to solve a social problem to improve the condition of society."

The statement, in its entirety, spells legislation, not interpretation.

Congress is charged with legislation of the law, and the Supreme Court with interpretation of the law.

The Constitution is the fundamental law, or the foundation law of the United States. As such, it was not intended to be changed, except if amended. Webster defines fundamental law as,

"a law or laws, as a constitution, regarded as basic, and irrevocable by ordinary judicial or legislative action..." [Emphasis supplied.]

The foundation law of the United States was never intended to be advanced, anymore than the foundation of your home, if you wish to remodel it, and bring it forward to modern times. If you move the foundation, the house will collapse. Likewise, if you move the foundation law - the nation, as we know it - will collapse.

America awaits the confirmation of Judge John G. Roberts, Jr. Only time will reveal whether Judge Roberts takes a classical philosophical approach to the law, or whether he is motivated to change it.

E. Ralph Hostetter, a prominent businessman, and agricultural publisher, also is a national, and local award-winning columnist.