Tag: #Republic

Foundations: What We Stand On

(A Declaration)

Preamble

Truth In Focus started as a blog to share ideas, peer into American culture, and establish principles by which to follow in life that look beyond the mere political lines of left versus right but established on Christianity first and Conservatism secondly; a place for faith and principles; theology and philosophy. That commitment not only remains, it is emboldened at a time when the world “does what is right in their own eyes” (Judges 17:6, ESV). Faith has always been important, however, our faith could never be more important at time when political leaders, multinational corporations, billionaire globalists, and radicals of either leftist or right political persuasion who seek to topple goodness and faithfulness and righteousness for their own sake. History does repeat itself and it does so through a single source, human-nature.

Man may proclaim they are above and beyond pride, greed, lust, envy, gluttony, wrath, and sloth; however human nature and human history demonstrate an entirely different story. Today injustice and irrationality thrusts the United States of America and the Western World into a spiral, yet based on whose justice and which rationality, as Alasdair MacIntyre titled his 1988 book.

Our Christian Faith

Here at Truth In Focus that answer begins and ends with Scripture by support of the Universal Christian Church and Philosophy as her handmaiden. While there may be no perfect answers to every cause or issue, there are a plethora of sources that Christians and Conservatives can obtain in working towards a better and brighter future with people of all races and backgrounds. A sacred place of common ground. For Christians, such a common ground begins and ends with Jesus Christ alone at the center.

There can be no compromise in terms of Jesus Christ as established by the Apostles Creed and the Nicene Creed:

The Apostles Creed

I believe in God, the Father almighty,
      creator of heaven and earth.

I believe in Jesus Christ, his only Son, our Lord,
      who was conceived by the Holy Spirit
      and born of the virgin Mary.
      He suffered under Pontius Pilate,
      was crucified, died, and was buried;
      he descended to hell.
      The third day he rose again from the dead.
      He ascended to heaven
      and is seated at the right hand of God the Father almighty.
      From there he will come to judge the living and the dead.

I believe in the Holy Spirit,
      the holy catholic church,
      the communion of saints,
      the forgiveness of sins,
      the resurrection of the body,
      and the life everlasting. Amen.

The Nicene Creed

We believe in one God,
the Father, the Almighty,
maker of heaven and earth,
of all that is, seen and unseen.

We believe in one Lord, Jesus Christ,
the only Son of God,
eternally begotten of the Father,
God from God, Light from Light,
true God from true God,
begotten, not made,
of one Being with the Father.
Through him all things were made.
For us and for our salvation
he came down from heaven:
by the power of the Holy Spirit
he became incarnate from the Virgin Mary,
and was made man.
For our sake he was crucified under Pontius Pilate;
he suffered death and was buried.
On the third day he rose again
in accordance with the Scriptures;
he ascended into heaven
and is seated at the right hand of the Father.

He will come again in glory to judge the living and the dead,
and his kingdom will have no end.

We believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the giver of life,
who proceeds from the Father and the Son.
With the Father and the Son he is worshiped and glorified.
He has spoken through the Prophets.
We believe in one holy catholic and apostolic Church.
We acknowledge one baptism for the forgiveness of sins.
We look for the resurrection of the dead,
and the life of the world to come. Amen

Indeed there are a great many creeds, confessions, and statements that make Christianity and Christian History rich in study and practice. Learning the The Thirty-Nine Articles of Religion (1571), The Westminster Confession (1646), or the London Baptist Confession of Faith (1689) demonstrate our similarities and differences. This is not a weak advocating that all Christian churches are the same because they are not. Simplistically, accounting for great doctrinal differences without deep detail, the Christian faith can be described in one essence as Catholic, Orthodox, Lutheran, Reformed, Arminian, or Anglican. While these historical differences exist and cannot go ignored, there is a real sense that Christianity must be a faith as Christ intended His Church to always be: a Sacred Body with Christ as the Head, that stands on dogmas and doctrines, working through our differences, proclaiming Christ Alone through His Grace Alone by means of faith and repentance, upholding eternal biblical truths, and critiquing the culture by ultimately pointing to Jesus Christ.

As they relate to each other in coequal First Principles of the Christian Faith: Affirming the death, resurrection, ascension, and return of Jesus Christ; that Christ died for the sins of the world and only through Him can a person be saved through faith/repentance to enter the Kingdom of Heaven; and affirming the truth of the Triunity of God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit. Without these affirmations there is no Christianity. Christ is Lord or there is no faith, church, or a foundation to build upon as Christians (1 Corinthians 15: 12-34).

Our Conservative Philosophy

Either there is a philosophy established on truth, reality, and virtue or there is nothing. Anchors therefore are discovered and maintained to build such a structure. Conservatism is that philosophy under the context of what I call Primitive Conservatism:

A form of conservative thought detached from a particular time or place, but rather seeking to incarnate eternal principles discovered throughout all human history. It values the rights of individuals through the understanding that liberty and freedom are not detached from principles that uphold their stability. In order to maintain individual rights there are required responsibilities and encouraged responsibilities laid upon citizens, institutions, and governments alike. No society on earth lacks responsibilities rather fewer societies openly acknowledge the necessity of holding society toward standards choosing instead a lesser form of liberty. Primitive Conservatism seeks to frame and structure responsibilities into laws, norms, and mores. Virtue is its primal source. Liberty is a living structure that requires constant care. Specifically, primitive conservatism is concerned with three areas pertaining to the survival of liberty at large: Morality, Justice, and Dignity.

Under no circumstances does philosophy triumph faith rather it assists to construct where Scripture and Theology are silent, unclear, or in need of further structuring . The Christian faith pronounces the underlying determinations of morality, justice, and dignity; it structures virtue versus vices. Nothing can come without God.

More progressive, liberal, and libertarian minded individuals may find themselves conservative under these circumstances once they grasp the value of its philosophical though surely imperfect discourse. Humility is the first of many virtues, nothing good is gained from pride for “[o]nly by pride cometh contention: but with the well advised is wisdom” (Proverbs 13:10, KJV). Even Warren Buffett quotes the Book of Proverbs in his Buffet reports (annuals and letters). Why? Because Lady Wisdom has a source. Another acknowledgement, there are no “races” but the human race (Acts 17:26), an ideal Darwin himself sought to confirm through Evolution in respect of persons, yet neither Darwin nor Christianity ignore the trials and tribulations of different cultures or ethnicities or races. A Primitive Conservative holds to that same standard of belief. We can reject differences without rejecting the human-being, for example, a person may freely reject all religious beliefs (an Atheist) without necessarily rejecting the entirety of personhood. No one will always believe equally but they can be held to an equal respect as a human life created by God. Granted nothing comes easy from such discourse as it requires hard thinking and real restitution. Hence the value and principles of Justice, Morality, and Dignity. Liberty must be watered by virtue. True philosophy demands thinking hard and faith in Christ requires holiness from imperfect beings. A mystery worthy of embrace.

Tradition, Faith, Imagination, and Reason are pillars of conservative minds yet hardly the only institutions of established belief. Since the time of Plato (and prior but one has to start somewhere) questions concerning justice and morality have been considered essential to a societies livelihood. Over the centuries the question of justice has been centralized or trivialized; Thomas Sowell wrote, The Quest for Cosmic Justice (1996), argues that attempts to achieve justice too often results in injustice. Perplexing and a reminder that no perfect justice can be achieved on this side of heaven. At best humanity can consider the deep complexity of matters at hand while holding firm to proven methods of easing concerns.

Dignity has entered the modern lexicon as a central theme by legal thinkers and political activism at the turn of the 20th century out of reaction to horrific events. Modernity forewarned internal dilemmas of freedom and totalitarianism as Nazi Germany and Stalin’s Communist Russia arose to power threatening the entire globe, clear distinctions now but saviors at their insurrection points. Yet today totalitarian desire remains as Hannah Arendt (Philosopher) analyzed:

The ideal subject of totalitarian rule is not the convinced Nazi or the convinced Communist, but people for whom the distinction between fact and fiction (i.e., the reality of experience) and the distinction between true and false (i.e., the standards of thought) no longer exist (The Origins of Totalitarianism 1976, p. 172).

Modern American culture suffers these preset delusions as the lines of reality blur further and further into nonexistence. Distinctions turn extinct at the risk of unraveling all that is human, nature, and God. Technology and science are purported in late modernity as saviors for a Secular Age. Mammon is worshiped at the altar of the global economy served ferociously with hopes of maintaining a decaying decadence while people suffer, reality distorts, and the environment both the natural world and cultures decline. Meaning and purpose are in shambles.

Our Promise, Our Purpose

In light of human events the only right recourse is to build a set of institutions that seek truth over lies, reality instead of irreality, and virtue rather than the unvirtuous life. That is where Truth In Focus (TIR) comes in. A statement of principle that purposes itself on a foundation of truth; a voice for the voiceless and a defense of the defenseless based on the Christian Faith and Conservative philosophical principles. Nothing could be more important at this time.

TIR Stands On Five Pillars:

  1. We are obligated to the truth regardless of the individual or institution in question. Truth stationed in the Christian Faith and Conservative Principles.
  2. We support principles over politics; people over profits; and the practical over the utopian.
  3. Society is at the mercy of Multinational Corporations, Powerful Institutions, Big Pharma, and Big Government who serve at the seat of Crony Capitalism and Woke Socialism; TIR serves neither and seeks to bring the powerful into the light regardless of their political leanings.
  4. Rebuilding the Community is essential but under the understanding of a Republic; a nation and a people who respects a virtueous individualism rooted in God, Family, and Country. TIR supports Federalism (the Rights of States), the Rule of Law, the Constitution, and a Living Liberty ingrained in virtue.
  5. Knowledge, Meaning, Purpose, and Reality are at risk; TIR serves to be a place that inquires facts over emotions to establish real meaning and purpose in the lives of our readers. Presently the globalized world is captured by a hyperreality of biased journalism, deep fakes, unsubstantiated science, and technological sedation. Therefore, we seek to break these trends for the sake of rebuilding the Good Life.

Future articles will be using these principles as guides for our readers; Food Politics, Black America, Rights to Privacy, Constitutional Issues, Corporatism, Christ & Culture; Theology; Women & Society, Men & Society; Indigenous Groups; and The Family are only a few topics that will be Our Focus at Truth In Focus.

So the question is now on you, the reader, will you join us? If so, sign-up to our email list, share TIR, like our articles, and join our groups.

Sincerely,

EKR

Riled By Politics: The Fate of the U.S. Supreme Court & The Constitution

(Special Report/Special Edition)

Politics had become the possession of a regime, not an establishment, and there was no role for him, unless he were somehow to create a new one.

– Anthony Everitt, Cicero: The Life and Times of Rome’s Greatest Politician, p. 233

Political discourse has turned acrimonious at the federal level. America’s constitutionally instituted branches are demonstrating immense wear against present social and economic pressures. The latest comes at the wake of Justice Ginsburg’s death this past Friday September 18, 2020 within months of the presidential primary election between incumbent President Donald John Trump and potential candidate elect Joseph Robinette Biden Jr. Yet the U.S. government also faces internal uncertainty as the government grows far and wide beyond the Constitution and the rule of law.

He Said, She Said

Reported by the The Annenberg Public Policy Center’s Fact Check, Joe Biden has blundered on multiple occasions since the passing of Justice Ginsburg1:

  • Biden falsely claimed that “there’s no court session between now and the end of this election.” The next Supreme Court session begins Oct. 5, nearly a full month before Election Day.
  • Biden said, “I think the fastest justice ever confirmed was 47 days.” That’s false; since 1975, the shortest time from formal nomination to confirmation was 19 days. 
  • Biden exaggerated when he said that 30% to 40% of Americans “will have voted by Oct. 1.” His campaign later told us he meant by Nov. 1 — two days before Election Day.
  • He also wrongly claimed the Trump campaign asked him to release a list of potential Supreme Court picks “only after” Ginsburg’s passing. President Donald Trump and his campaign had called on Biden to produce such a list prior to her death.

Democrats fervor over the potential SCOTUS nominee selected by President Trump as Senator Chuck Schumer and Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez take to the podium to announce their dismay that the President would dare to defy Justice Ginsburg’s last wish that no nominee be chosen until after the election2:

Senator Schumer: She was an amazing woman. So, the first reason we’re here is unity, and the second is to honor her legacy, to demand that her last wish be fulfilled by the Senate… But the third reason we’re here is the most important of all. So many people’s rights are at stake in this election. The right of people to health care. The President is pursuing a policy which would get rid of all protections for preexisting conditions, which would take healthcare away from 7 million people, and he will appoint a justice that will enact that in the Supreme court case that is due only a few weeks after election day. We are here to protect the rights of women, their rights to their own body, their rights to choose, their rights to healthcare, their rights to equality would all go down the drain if that wish were not realized. We’re here to protect the rights of working people.

Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez: So, we need to make sure that we mobilize on an unprecedented scale to ensure that this vacancy is reserved for the next president. We must use every tool at our disposal, from everyday people, especially in swing states. We need everyday people to call on senators, to call on folks on the bubble to call Republican senators, to make sure that they hold this vacancy open. We must also commit to using every procedural tool available to us, to ensure that we buy ourselves the time necessary. We must commit to allowing and to considering and to utilizing every single procedural tool available to us, again, to buy that time. We need to make sure that we realize and fight this fight with the weight of every person who sacrificed for voting rights, every person who sacrificed their wellbeing and their lives to make sure that they could marry whomever they love, to make sure that they can live freely and safely in a workplace, to make sure that they can live in this country and make sure that dreamers can stay in this country, and that families can have the path to citizenship that they deserve.

Here for a complete transcript.

Strong claims considering that the U.S. Supreme Court is not a political institution that merely overturns politically “left” or “right” hot button issues such as abortion, healthcare, and voting rights anymore than the second amendment, religious freedom, or property rights. It is an institution of law and justice; a constitutional interpreter not a maker of statutory laws (though it does review congressional statutes and offer legal remedies per a Constitutional relationship), but nothing happens until a real living case is brought before the Court which has often gone through the rigors of a Federal or State Court and an Appellate Court. Even if a case makes it through the system, rarely does a case reach the Supreme Court for as few as 100 to 150 cases are heard each session out of the thousands of certiorari asking for the ear of the nation’s highest court. That’s real talk. Nothing political about its intended functionality. Egregiously what made this institution malfeasant are the political parties themselves.

In 1995 the Presidential Studies Quarterly published an article by attorney Michael A. Kahn titled, The Appointment of a Supreme Court Justice: A Political Process from Beginning to End.3 Kahn’s main argument was that the Supreme Court justices have always been appointed for political reasons throughout America’s developing history. Judge Robert Bork was not the first appointee to be denied by the Senate either:

In 1881, President Hayes’ nomination of Stanley Matthews met this fate; and, in 1930 Judge John Parker was rejected because his political views were unacceptable to the Senate. The Parker Senate fight was every bit as political and nasty as the Bork fight and the vote in the Senate was even closer.4

Hayes nominated Matthews on January 26, 1881 only for the Senate to never take action until President James A. Garfield renominated Matthews on May 12, 1881 who was confirmed by the Senate May 17 that same year.5 Although Matthews would only live eight more years, passing at the age of sixty-four, he did become a Supreme Court Justice unlike Judge Bork.

Robert Bork, nominated by President Reagan on July 31, 1987, nomination hearing took place in October 1987. Perhaps the most intellectually informative nomination hearing ever recorded, Bork openly explained his legal philosophy for the Senate. Sen. Ted Kennedy, who had been leading the front against Bork6 (very similar to AOC and Schumer today), during that hearing said:

In Robert Borks America there is no room at the inn for blacks and no place in the Constitution for women and in our America there should be no seat on the Supreme Court for Robert Bork.7

For a complete reading of Bork hearings.

For Part 1 and Part 2 of Day 1 of hearings by video.

Hyperboles are not new to American politics from either political party. After the Courts famous conservative Justice Antonin Scalia passed away unexpectedly, President Obama was preparing to nominate Merrick Garland but Republican Senator Mitch McConnell responded with the “Biden Rule” going on to say:

The next justice could fundamentally alter the direction of the Supreme Court and have a profound impact on our country, so of course the American people should have a say in the Court’s direction…The American people may well elect a President who decides to nominate Judge Garland for Senate consideration. The next President may also nominate someone very different. Either way, our view is this: Give the people a voice in the filling of this vacancy.8

Whatever the reasoning the American people have little say in the nomination process if any at all. Nevertheless the political ploy worked in 2016 for Republicans who mirrored a consistent message that the nation was in dire straits, the American people had a voice, and the Senate must wait until after the election to selected a new Supreme Court justice.9

Professors Bryon J. Moraski and Charles R. Shipan published in the American Journal of Political Science, The Politics of Supreme Court Nominations: A Theory of Institutional Constraints and Choices (1999).10 In their 27 page study they demonstrate the varying limitations a President has in nominating their selected choice for the Supreme Court. Two limitations have historically prevented a nomination: 1) Ideologically the candidate is out of step with the Senate; or 2) The candidate is less-qualified.11 Everything comes down to the attitude of the Senate, “Whether the Senate constrains the president, however, depends on the configuration of institutional preferences… there are three distinct regimes, and which variables affect the position of the nominee depends on which regime exists.”12

According to Moraski and Shipan there are three regimes: 1) Unconstrained President; 2) Semi-Constrained President; 3) Fully Constrained President.13 The President unsurprisingly has the most control under Category 1, Category 2 the Senate’s indifference has a greater impact, and in Category 3 the median of the Court affects the Senate’s decision-making.14 The Supreme Courts median was measured by the voting score on civil liberties from the Court’s previous term.15

During the 2018 nomination of Brett Kavanaugh, whom the Senate voted down political lines 51 yeas, 49 nays, President Trump was replacing the retiring Justice Anthony Kennedy. Kennedy remained a conservative justice throughout his career while moving liberal overtime on big key issues (e.g. gay marriage) but hardly the moderate he was proclaimed to be.16 Kavanaugh has been portrayed as far-right and more recently a “man in the middle.”17 His track record shows a mild lean to the right while voting most consistently with Justice Roberts 95% of the time and Justice Breyer at 86%.18 A record that I suspect will continue, making Kavanaugh likely a Chief Justice in the making who, like Chief Justice Roberts, is concerned more about the institutional stability of the Court over their own ideological leanings.

The Regime

In Cicero’s time the regime was Julius Caesar, Pompey, and Marcus Licinius Crassus; military men set on taking Rome. While modern America is layered in partisan politics with Democrats moving further to the left and Republicans growing stagnant19 underneath is a real Deep State (not Trumps Deep State) but a nexus of Private-Public institutions including corporations, national security agencies, military networks, and financial powers all too big to fail due to their interconnectedness in maintaining a global economy.20 As Nero fiddles while Rome burns the U.S. Supreme Court dwindles right along with the U.S. Constitution.

Perplexingly democrats have argued for decades against the rise of corporations in government while republicans rage against the increasing size of government; the politically left and right having written hundreds of books between them concerning the alarming demise of our government, our liberties, our constitution but neither party nor the ideologues seem willing to actually acknowledge the elephant in the room that is Deep State in its entirety. Wall Street to Main Street progressives voice all the while Amazon, Google, Facebook, and dozens of multinational corporations enforce “anti-racism” training, censor their workers and the public, and commoditize data, information, and knowledge of millions outside the purview of average Americans. While conservatives rail against the U.S. government for spying on every American they push for the next war with Iran, North Korea, or Russia. Granted both parties support war when it is politically savvy.

Crumbling beneath their feet is the very structure that provides them existence, hardly unaware rather perhaps most keen to the situation, the U.S. Supreme Court holds on tightly.

Now with alarming rhetoric the nation once again is told that the future stands or falls on the nomination of a justice and of a president. At the RBG Vigil one speaker exclaimed that healthcare, economic rights, reproductive rights, women’s rights… everything is at stake this year.21 Yes, the election is important. No two candidates could be more different, the established parties hold very different visions for the United States. But the historical ignorance displayed by both sides of the political aisle is abysmal. Their partisan attitude damages an already weakened system.

Unless the old Washington establishment can muster enough of a push against the partisanship there is little hope that they will address the political mangling taking place in our nation today. Richard Allen Epstein, legal scholar and professor made famous by Biden during the nomination process of Clarence Thomas, has been warning for over a decade against the Administrative State that started to rise during Franklin Roosevelt’s New Deal. A “fourth branch” of government the administrative state today is a conglomerate of agencies that have their own laws, courts, powers, and authority. Congress pushed away their responsibility and the responsibility of the States by creating agency after agency. Epstein warns that the very rule of law itself is weakened by this structure:

As I have made clear on many occasions, I do not accept, even today, this vision of the administrative state. First, I do not think that it is possible to shield administrative agencies in highly sensitive areas from various forms of factional and political influence that have little or nothing to do with technical expertise. These risks are, if anything, increased once it is possible to select persons exclusively for their views on a single topic. Now all interested parties can hone in on single issues in selecting key administrative officials. Unlike the situation in choosing people for courts of general jurisdiction, these parties need not be slowed down by worrying whether their favored candidates on one issue will disappoint them on a second. Stated otherwise, expertise is an overrated virtue, while the risk of political capture by interest groups and the discord that faction produces is an underappreciated vice.22

And in The Atlantic last year while promoting his new book, The Dubious Morality of Modern Administrative Law (2020), Epstein writes:

The administrative state, of course, is not unconstitutional in all its manifestations. The large and sophisticated corpus of 19th-century administrative law offers us a benchmark by which we can evaluate post–New Deal developments. The success of that body of law depended heavily on the limited mission that it was asked to discharge, given its deep respect for both the doctrine of federal enumerated powers and a relatively robust conception of property and contract rights. But the New Deal expansion of the constitutional order has failed, as I argue in my new book, The Dubious Morality of the Modern Administrative State. To understand the extent and character of that failure, look only to what administrative law now allows: excessive government discretion to implement vast statutory schemes, many of which impose overbroad controls in such critical areas as environmental, labor, and food and drug laws.23

America’s fourth branch is now in line with its fifth branch, the National Security State24 completing a globalized out of control Deep State. How can America’s constitutionally established third branch truly function when it and our nations founding document are overridden by a network larger and more powerful than ever intended? Reviewing Professor of International law at The Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy at Tufts University Michael J. Glennon’s book, National Security and Double Government (2014), CATO Institute’s Gene Healy explains “that the national security state has become a runaway train and that presidential elections are contests that determine who gets to pretend he’s driving.”25

Congress must put away the pettiness but that is too much to hope for at a time when the President can either do no wrong or no right; when radicals burn down cities in the name of a movement whose real aims are to overthrow an entire social structure rather than reform a broken system; when threats of adding more seats to the Court are made; and Cultural Marxism takes center stage.

Today America needs statesmen not men of the state. We can only pray that one will rise to the occasion.

Sources

1 Gore, D’Angelo., Kiely, Eugene. (21 September, 2020). Biden’s False and Exaggerated Supreme Court Claims. https://www.factcheck.org/2020/09/bidens-false-and-exaggerated-supreme-court-claims/

2 The Hill. (20 September, 2020). AOC says NOTHING IS OFF THE TABLE to ensure Supreme Court seat is filled by next president. YouTube. (Video). https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yk2ba4LONXY&ab_channel=TheHill

3 Kahn, M. (1995). The Appointment of a Supreme Court Justice: A Political Process from Beginning to End. Presidential Studies Quarterly, 25(1), 25-41. Retrieved September 22, 2020, from http://www.jstor.org/stable/27551374

4 Ibid, p. 26.

5 The Supreme Court Historical Society. Stanley Matthews, 1881-1889. https://supremecourthistory.org/timeline_matthews.html

6 Reston, James. (5 July, 1987). Washington; Kennedy And Bork. New York Times. https://www.nytimes.com/1987/07/05/opinion/washington-kennedy-and-bork.html

7 ABC News. Kennedy Mounts Ideological Attack on Bork. (Video). YouTube. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GvFLXFCJvJA&ab_channel=ABCNews

8 McConnell, Mitch. (16 March, 2016). McConnell On Supreme Court Nomination. Mitch McConnell Senate Majority Leader. https://www.republicanleader.senate.gov/newsroom/remarks/mcconnell-on-supreme-court-nomination

9 Desjardins, Lisa. (22 September, 2020). What every Republican senator has said about filling a Supreme Court vacancy in an election year. PBS News Hour. https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/what-every-republican-senator-has-said-about-filling-a-supreme-court-vacancy-in-an-election-year

10 Moraski, B., & Shipan, C. (1999). The Politics of Supreme Court Nominations: A Theory of Institutional Constraints and Choices. American Journal of Political Science, 43(4), 1069-1095. doi:10.2307/2991818

11 Ibid, p. 1070

12 Ibid, p. 1074

13 Ibid, p. 1075

14 Ibid, p. 1085

15 Ibid, p. 1079

16 DeVeaux, Amelia. (3 July, 2018). Justice Kennedy Wasn’t A Moderate. FiveThirtyEight. https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/justice-kennedy-wasnt-a-moderate/

17 Stohr, Greg. (23 September, 2020). Kavanaugh Emerges as Man-in-the-Middle With Supreme Court Set to Shift Right. Bloomberg/Quint. https://www.bloombergquint.com/politics/kavanaugh-emerges-as-unlikely-liberal-hope-for-court-swing-vote

18 Feldman, Adam. (3 April, 2019) Empirical SCOTUS: Is Kavanaugh as conservative as expected? SCOTUSblog. https://www.scotusblog.com/2019/04/empirical-scotus-is-kavanaugh-as-conservative-as-expected/

19 Richey, Edward K. (1 September, 2020). Welcome to the Party: America’s Established Political Parties By Race. Edward Kyle Richey. (Blog). Truth In Focus. https://edwardkylerichey.org/2020/09/01/welcome-to-the-party-americas-established-political-parties-by-race/

20 Lofgren, Mike. (21 February, 2014). Essay: Anatomy of the Deep State. Moyers On Democracy. https://billmoyers.com/2014/02/21/anatomy-of-the-deep-state/

21 Now This Politics. (19 September, 2020). RBG Vigil. (Video). Facebook. https://www.facebook.com/NowThisPolitics/videos/vb.908009612563863/2671486516401954/?type=2&theater

22 Epstein, Richard. (2008). Why the Modern Administrative State Is Inconsistent with the Rule of Law. New York University Journal of Law and Liberty, 491-515; 492 cite. https://chicagounbound.uchicago.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2355&context=journal_articles

23 Epstein, Richard. (20 October, 2019) How Bad Constitutional Law Leads to Bad Economic Regulations. The Atlantic. https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2019/10/how-bad-constitutional-law-leads-bad-regulations/600280/

24 Kaizen, Michael. (Fall 2017). The Rise of the Security State: From the Great War to Snowden. Dissent Magazine. https://www.dissentmagazine.org/article/world-war-i-aftermath-security-state-nsa

25 Healy, Gene. (1 March, 2015). National Security State. (Book Review) National Security and Double Government By Michael J. Glennon. https://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/national-security-state

Visual Philosophy

(Month of September, Series 2020)

Mere Beauty In Truth

Mere Beauty In Truth (click link for Instagram) is my theory of the Aesthetic. Influenced by the late Sir Roger Scruton I aim to use art, nature, architecture, and other mediums to witness a higher form, reality and truth about life through perception. 

Beauty requires us to recognize the ugly, the profane, and the false through a keen sense of what is true beauty i.e. that which strikes a profoundness inside us all putting us at its mercy. We do so by training our heart on the full range of emotions experienced in our lives. Fear, anger, happiness, and anxiety all mean something deeper within us. A friend once explained that to recognize a forgery one must study the real thing in complete and absolute detail. Mere Beauty In Truth is the study of the real thing we call beauty.

My ultimate hope it to show the Transcendence and the Immense of God through beauty and design, the ugly and the broken, so as to help us grasp truth and ultimate reality to the best of our limited ability. 

Aesthetic value is not merely art. Art is simply one principled medium of interpretation. We would not necessarily call a person or nature art but each can serve as an expression through a medium. Aesthetics targets the full range of expression through taste, smell, sound, sight, and intuition. 

Please enjoy.

The Oath of the Horatii by Jacques-Louis David

Overview: Prior to the Roman Republic, Rome was founded by Romulus (753-715 B.C.) Rome’s first King as myth would have it and of which there would be Seven Kings total. Of the Seven Kings the third, King Tullus Hostilius (673-641 B.C.), would commission the three Horatii sons (triplets) to save Rome from a costly war the king commanded them to fight another group of brothers, the Curiatii Alban. Rather having war after war, per their agreement, whomever wins the battle between the brothers settles the dispute. Out of love for their country, the three Horatii brothers swear an oath before their father to save Rome or die.

Patriotism is the central theme of this work of art.

There are three central themes within this piece: The Three Brothers, The Women and Children, and The Father.

At First Glance: The Three Brothers. Nothing about war is beautiful; war is rift with bloodshed and gore, screams and fear, chaos and uncertainty. War eventually exhausts the soul of a people. Even the best of men comprehend its deepest and darkest repercussions. What the three Horatii brothers submit themselves before is not merely heroic, courageous, and dutiful but sacrificial and righteous and just as they symbolically represent Rome yet literally put forth their lives. The tension of the moment is expressively seen in the gripping hands between two of the brothers:

The arm wrapped around the waist of one brother, his hand hardly relaxed rather tense and prepared with a hint of healthy fear as they prepare themselves for battle. And the hand of the brother at the foreground, gripping his pilum, knowing full well his life is dependent upon its durability and the dexterity of his brothers.

Notice the brother’s forearms. Strong, resilient, determined; those are the arms of real men; men set on saving a kingdom and her people from despair. The gradual rising of each arm, one, two, three as each hand slightly rises above another, one, two, three in oath but equal in cause, purpose, and rank. Three marks the divine, the triunity of brothers whose willpower can overcome even the gods in this glorious moment. Divine! Nothing can lay asunder a brotherhood founded on ideals above themselves. Thy kingdom come, thy will be done! It is patriotism personified. Not a brainwashing or a corrupt cause this is courage on a canvas.

Feet of fortitude, aligned nearly perfectly as they unify with the foot of their father. Their shadows even marking the moment as if it were transposing on sacred ground before the feet of hero’s. Those are feet that march and run toward their enemy never turning their backs for defeat. And the foot of a father who bestows his sons as worthy. Standing alone, simply studying the feet of these men, tells the story of a sacrum testimonium; a testimony of an oath that all hero’s must give.

Two of three brothers would die, however, the third would be triumphant and bringing a long line of glory for Rome.

Key Point: Patriotic duty can be a sacred cause but it must be a worthy and just cause. And duty requires an oath of commitment by righteous men who know the difference between right and wrong; good and evil.

At First Glance: The Women and the Children. Woe and sorrow befall on the family; the brothers cannot show their tears; the father must not weep so as to keep their spirits soaring; and so the women take on the brave cause of shedding what is felt by all in the room. Hardly weak, it should be said that the woman and children are the strongest as their emotions rightly rise to the occasion. Perhaps even demanding before slumping into a tearful surrender that they can go fight for them! No, that would not be honorable to the men who desire to fight. Our modern distaste for good men revolts at the idea that women were not allowed to fight in war. But we fail to consider the preciousness of this act and that no Roman nor Greek nor Jew nor American would simply say that all women are incapable of fighting; no they knew better, they each understood the strength of one woman, a woman who bears life itself, can kill a thousand men if they had to in the name of their family and countrymen. Vessels meaning worthy of protecting not objects nor property to be abused, these women had real men who respected womanhood and the power of the feminine. Make no mistake about it.

Together they share grief. Perhaps these are wives of two brothers, now sisters, sharing in their pain. If a feminine epistemology exists, this exemplifies it because only women can share such eternal bonds of birth and deep love and a heavy sorrow for their men. The woman in white, her arms dangling lifelessly to her side, faint and unnerved, her white stola represents purity, loyalty, and chastity. She wears her feelings on her sleeve.

The woman in red, symbolic of war and battle, her body drained by the event as her arms also lay lifeless, she weeps with her sister-in-law. Nothing more to do but pray and shed tears that will water the grounds of the land and people they love.

Alas a different strength appears. A grandmother of comfort, a dutiful wife, and a mother who loves her sons. Draped in purple, an aristocrat, she has seen much and done even more for her family. Now as her daughters cry over their men, she comforts their children. She knows this pain all too well.

Innocence, the eyes of a boy whose father must go into battle; the eyes of a child who has seen nothing that life offers him either good or bad; that is a terrified boy who dare not cry for the sake of his baby brother. That boy will one day be a man, a man of honor who cares for his younger brother, his mother, and his grandparents.

Egypt’s Coptic Orthodox Church blindfolds a child each time they choose their pope during the final selection, that child then picks a name from a bag; an act representing a child’s innocence and goodness from God. Indeed, this boy carries that innocence; an unknowing goodness that loves his mother, his father, his grandmother, his grandfather, his uncles, and his aunts. However, the striking look of the older boys face pierces the soul of all who dare peer into his eyes. Perhaps an innocence too holy for us all?

Key Point: The Women and Children are examples of real and justifiable emotions. They are not in the background hiding away from the men and their oath; they are part of the sacred oath to protect and serve their nation in need.

At First Glance: The Father. Likely in his sixties, wearing a red cloak as a means of bonding with his sons in preparation for war, the father bestows upon them three swords; a Triumvirate whose power is to decide the fate of Rome through a single battle. This Triumvirate would be prophetic yet very different from those of Julius Caesar, Pompey, and Crassus (60 B.C.) and Antony, Lepidus, and Octavian (43 B.C.). Nothing political was being held that day, no rhetoric, no false appearances. Simply a proud father speaking boastfully with clarity so his sons knew what awaited them. An oath he had likely said generations ago, words even today that hold a sacred tone; “I do solemnly swear before God and before Man…” words that have meaning and purpose, words that reign true for all eternity. Nothing could make a father more proud than to see his sons fighting for a just cause. Notice no helmet is to be found, those days are gone for an old man but his spirit remains. He fought and lived. Now he sends forth the next generation.

Though two of his sons would never return the man knew a greater good would be accomplished should they succeed. Like the waiting of the prodigal son this father was waiting for their return in preparation to celebrate. He had faith in his sons.

Key Point: Fatherhood is a servants role in raising children, caring for your wife, and in service to your country.