“How little people know who think that holiness is dull. When one meets the real thing…it is irresistible.” CS Lewis
“No man says, ‘There is no God’ but he whose interest it is there should be none.” Augustine
One secret act of self-denial, one sacrifice of inclination to duty, is worth all the mere good thoughts, warm feelings, passionate prayers, in which idle people indulge themselves. John Henry Cardinal Newman
Suspicion often creates what it suspects. CS Lewis
If one’s interpretation of the Constitution leads to the destruction of the Constitution itself and the country that has adopted it, then the interpretation is wrong.
There is a history of such interpretations that weaken the country and reduces its capacity to survive and flourish. We have the old meme that freedom of speech does not mean the right to yell “fire” in a theater, which threatens the very lives of those who are there.
All simple assertions in our Constitution have limits and are not “purely” true in the sense that in application they do not require prudence both in interpretation and application. For instance, the right to life does not, cannot, mean eradication of capital punishment. If fact, the right to life entails capital punishment, taking that right which applies to all away from some. The right to life cannot mean the right to kill.
So this model applies to border security. Asylum and refugee status are within the purview of our Constitutional order. In order to facilitate this process requires the setting up of courts, facilities, and administrative bureaucracies. In the past the large numbers of people rushing the border has broken down the system to the point where proper oversight was not provided and illegal immigrants were admitted to the country and then lost to the court system.
It has now become a technique to rush the borders with such numbers to overwhelm judicial resources and gain entrance merely be the inability to fairly apply law. To rule in such a way that these immigrants have a right to be in the country because they could not be processed or to that the US must provide resources for immigration that are an extreme financial and judicial burden is in both cases the wearing away of our constitutional order and the public welfare.
It is prudential at such times to close down the borders under the principle that the Constitution is not a suicide pact. Here I refer to Aristotle’s Golden Mean – to balance out competing interests with prudence. Those who demand that we follow the Constitution in such a way that the country following it will cease to exist as a constitutional republic must necessarily be wrong in their interpretation of the Constitution.
U.S. Supreme Court Justice Robert H. Jackson was the first to use the “suicide pact” language specifically, in his dissent in the 1949 case Terminiello v. Chicago, in which the majority ruled that a Chicago city ordinance banning speech that “stirs the public to anger, invites dispute, brings about a condition of unrest, or creates a disturbance” violated the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution. Dissenting, Justice Jackson wrote: “This Court has gone far toward accepting the doctrine that civil liberty means the removal of all restraints from these crowds and that all local attempts to maintain order are impairments of the liberty of the citizen. The choice is not between order and liberty. It is between liberty with order and anarchy without either. There is danger that, if the Court does not temper its doctrinaire logic with a little practical wisdom, it will convert the constitutional Bill of Rights into a suicide pact.”
I would not favour a fiction to keep a world out of hell. The hell that a lie would keep any man out of is doubtless the very best place for him to go to. It is truth, yes, The Truth that saves the world. George MacDonald
Here’s the story in the Boston Globe by Jeff Jacoby. A brewing company run by an Orthodox monk who wears a black cassock, lives under a vow of poverty, and has devoted his life — and exceptional business talents — to God appears to give state officials the heebie-jeebies.
We have seen similar stories time and again, whether it be a baker of cakes or a brewer of beer. Once upon time it was an issue of separation of church and state. Now it is simply the desire to exclude the church.
According to the brewer, agency officials have told him his loan will not be approved “because you’re a church” and the state doesn’t want to be in the position of suing a church if a loan weren’t repaid.
Like episodes are mounting up so fast and so many that it is not hard to conclude that churches and religious opinion are out of bounds.