Eric- and Turley- are right
Eric Phillips has replied to my post Roberts is right, and Turley is wrong... except for one thing.
Eric has this to say:
Eric is right. Given the actual content of the U.S. Constitution, I find it inconceivable that the Catholic church would regard any good-faith interpretation of that document as immoral. And for the same reason, any other law which raised moral questions for a Catholic would almost certainly also raise constitutional questions. The situation Turley posits would never happen- the more so for the very reason Eric states: a judge's job is merely to interpret the law, not to make it. The legislature would bear the moral responsibility for the law being the law, and any judicially-legislated law (in the manner fashionable since the Warren Court) would raise an obvious constitutional issue on its face.
The principle, of course, stands: a Christian public official's first loyalty remains to God, as is the case with a Christian in any other vocation. As Eric suggests, an official in an Executive Branch office could indeed face the dilemma Turley presents- in which case he would have an absolute obligation not to enforce that immoral law, but to resign instead.
But mere interpretation is a different matter, essentially when the ultimate matter to be interpreted is a document as inherently benign as the United States Constution.
Thanks for the rebuttal- and the correction, Eric.
Eric has this to say:
I agree in principle, but this isn't an executive position we're talking about; it's a judicial one. If a judge is doing his job correctly, he's only interpreting the laws and the constitution the way they were written (and the best thing I've heard about Roberts is that he's a strict constructionist, and therefore will take this responsibility seriously). If a good judge is asked to interpret a bad law, and there is no good grounds for finding that law unconstitutional, simply by being honest and doing his job he may end up with a ruling he dislikes as much as he dislikes the law on which the case had to be decided. That's not his fault; it's the fault of the legislature.
I would still respect a judge's choice to recuse himself, but I wouldn't expect it.
Eric is right. Given the actual content of the U.S. Constitution, I find it inconceivable that the Catholic church would regard any good-faith interpretation of that document as immoral. And for the same reason, any other law which raised moral questions for a Catholic would almost certainly also raise constitutional questions. The situation Turley posits would never happen- the more so for the very reason Eric states: a judge's job is merely to interpret the law, not to make it. The legislature would bear the moral responsibility for the law being the law, and any judicially-legislated law (in the manner fashionable since the Warren Court) would raise an obvious constitutional issue on its face.
The principle, of course, stands: a Christian public official's first loyalty remains to God, as is the case with a Christian in any other vocation. As Eric suggests, an official in an Executive Branch office could indeed face the dilemma Turley presents- in which case he would have an absolute obligation not to enforce that immoral law, but to resign instead.
But mere interpretation is a different matter, essentially when the ultimate matter to be interpreted is a document as inherently benign as the United States Constution.
Thanks for the rebuttal- and the correction, Eric.
Comments