The Biblical Authority of America’s Federal System: A Christian's Role
The Biblical authority of America’s Federal System is one objective factor that has remained consistent throughout this nation’s history. On one hand, a state of pluralism seemingly predominates both the State Legislature and the Courts, though it remains tethered to the brevity of culture; therefore bears no other form of tradition other than its own progression, no matter the cost. Disregarding tradition, this state only observes stare decisis; or its own previous rulings. On the other hand, a consistent element has remained observable through the recorded history of America. Historically, this same preexisting element can be traced to predate man himself. Thus, God’s natural laws remain evident and observable in contemporary polity.
State Legislators
Structure. The state governor is the education policy leader in most states; yet legislatures have expanded their own responsibilities, (Bowman & Kearney, p. 414). Thus, the State Legislatures are the primary entities responsible for the shift the has occurred within the structure of power in State government. Moreover, as the structure changes, its authority transfers from the governor unto the legislators. This fluctuation must be acknowledged and controlled as to not upset the balance of hierarchal powers. Oftentimes malevolent forces are found in pockets of centralized power, no matter where it occurs. John Locke wrote of the origins of power—that is the laws of nature and man’s natural state—in his work The Second Treatise. Locke believed that “[t]o understand Political Power right, and derive it from its Original, we must consider what State all Men are naturally in, and that is, a State of perfect Freedom to order their Actions, and dispose of their Possessions, and Persons as they think fit, within the bounds of the Law of Nature, without asking leave, or depending upon the Will of any other Man,” (Capaldi & Lloyd, p. 9). While many duties are left up to the States, interstate compacts themselves (namely with LULU, or locally unwanted land use) have “historically been considered a federal responsibility,” (Bowman & Kearney, pp. 496, 497). States are sovereign within their own jurisdiction, but may not infringe upon any other state without national consent.
Roles. The role of State Legislators in State government are acting as the “final responsibility for enacting broad education policy and for implementing state funding of public schools,” Bowman & Kearney, p. 414). Thus legislators are responsible for the functionality of the state and effectiveness of the entirety of its policies. John Locke believed that acceptance of a state of nature was a prerequisite to understanding how to adopt policy that would curtail man’s tendency to re-enter into this state. Locke wrote that “[p]rinces and Rulers of Independent Governments all through the World, are in a State of Nature, ‘tis plain the World never was, nor never will be, without Numbers of Men in that State. I have named all Governors of Independent Communities, whether they are, or are not, in League with others; For ‘tis not every Compact that puts an end to the State of Nature between Men, but only this one of agreeing together mutually to enter into one Community, and make one Body Politick; other Promises and Compacts, Men may make one with another, and yet still be in the State of Nature,” (Capaldi & Lloyd, p. 11).
Education. State legislators rely on data and research to produce education policy. In State education, the influence of lobbyists have “diminished” due to issue conflicts. Further roles of the State legislator include holding hearings for business, while State chief executives are deeply involved in all major aspects of education policy making, (Bowman & Kearney, p. 408).
Crime. On crime, “Congress and the president provide plenty of rhetoric but little material assistance. In the majority of jurisdictions, crime is under control and citizens feel relatively safe,” (Bowman & Kearney, p. 434).
Poverty. The State has “two critical goals” when it comes to poverty: “the well-being of children and of necessity of the family” with the second goal being “to end welfare dependency,” (Bowman & Kearney, p. 465). The states and localities are the prime innovators in social welfare policy and the governments most responsive to the needs of the poor and disadvantaged,” (Bowman & Kearney, p.465). Moreover, state legislatures are the pioneers of healthcare policy; as the national government and “serve as a roadmap for national reform efforts,” (Bowman & Kearney, p. 470).
Environment. The preservation of the environment is an important factor beyond economic endeavors. A bolstering economy cannot be benevolent, nor sustained in a toxic wasteland. Thus, “aggregate state spending on the environment and natural resources is approximately $15.1 billion per year and represents about 1.4 percent of total state spending,” (Bowman & Kearney, pp. 488, 489). States control the allocations of their federal annual appropriations, insomuch that entire “agencies and natural resources departments” have been established on an individual basis per needs of the state itself, (Bowman & Kearney, p. 489).
Healthcare. States are obligated to be the provider of healthcare for their citizenry. There is no unanimous consensus to this process; “[a]ll states are involved in some way in reforming health care, but each state has its own perspective on what is wrong with health care and its own approach to fixing it,” (Bowman, & Kearney, p. 472). The individual decision making of each state representative of its constituency is the result of pluralistic incompatibilities; the preservation of equal representation, and diverse interests; America is “ideologically and institutionally unable to develop a comprehensive solution acceptable to a sufficient number of interests,” (Bowman & Kearney, p. 472). The primary focus of health care policy are “aimed at expanding health care coverage to the uninsured, including children from low-incokme families, containing escalating costs (particularly of prescription drugs), and maintain or enhancing the quality of health care, (Bowman & Kearney, p. 472).
Reappointment Process. The reappointment process of State Legislators ensures they control who bears the majority of the power; it is not elected representatives. Author Ann Bowman writes that “[s]urveys of past governors indicate that they consider appointment power to be the most important weapon in their arsenal when it comes to managing the state bureaucracy,” (Bowman & Kearney, p. 180).
In New York, “[t]he legislative branch consists of a bicameral (or two chamber) Legislature — a 62 member Senate and 150 member Assembly that, together, represent the 18 million citizens of the State. All members are elected for two-year terms,” (Budget). The State of New York’s executive “consists of a maximum of 20 departments, a result of constitutional reforms from the 1920s that were designed to make State government more manageable,” (Budget). New York’s current nineteen departments include: the Department(s) of (1) Agriculture and Markets; (2) Audit and Control; (3) Civil Service; (4) Correctional Services; (5) Economic Development; (6) Education; (7) Environmental Conservation; (8) Executive; (9) Family Assistance; (10) Financial Services; (11) Health; (12) Labor; (13) Law; (14) Mental Hygiene; (15) Motor Vehicles; (16) Public Service; (17) State; (18) Taxation and Finance; and (19) Transportation. Of these, “[o]nly four statewide government officers are directly elected,” (Budget). The rest are appointed by the Governor, the State Board of Regents, or a Board of Trustees, (Budget).
On the jurisdiction of State Legislators, New York’s State Government observes the doctrine of home rule, noting that “[l]ocal governments are granted the power to adopt local laws that are not inconsistent with the provisions of the State Constitution or other general law. The Legislature, in turn, may not pass any law that affects only one locality unless the governing body of that locality has first approved the bill — referred to as a home rule request — or unless a State interest exists,” (Budget). While this does not constitute a body of composed solely of elected representatives, it offers some aspect of collective representation by locality. Thus, infrastructural needs may be addressed, alongside education and health care. Conversely, crime and poverty may be allowed to persist—as a pretext for the government officer’s need to remain in power, and seek reappointment.
State Court Systems
Structure. The structure of State Court systems are essential to state interests, namely education, healthcare, crime, and environmental policies. Conversely, the authority of the structure of the modern Courts itself has become controversial; specifically subjective rulings from judges in State Courts. A recent trend in contemporary courts is the consistent strive to usurp power from juries into judges. The Founding Fathers never intended for State Courts, nor judges to make laws—judges are not legislators; nor are they juries. But this does not stop them from invoking tyrannical power. On the subject of education, State Courts have “issued rulings on several issues affecting students;” these include “censorship of school newspapers, personal dress and grooming standards, female participation in sports programs, student discipline, student drug testing, and school prayer,” (Bowman & Kearney, p. 415). States are vital in their role of criminal justice, as “[t]he states and lcoalities hold jurisdiction over more than 95 percent of all crime that occurs in the United States,” (Bowman & Kearney, p. 433). Therefore, court selections remain immensely important.
Selections. The selections of State Courts are essential to it impartiality. New York was the first state to formalize this doctrine; in 1883, the Pendleton Act established “an independent, bipartisan civil service commission to make objective, merit-based selections for federal job openings,” (Bowman & Kearney, p. 210). Then, in 1884 “[t]he first municipal merit system was established in Albany, New York,” (Bowman & Kearney, p. 210). The National Archives claims that “today [the Pendleton Act] applies to most of the 2.9 million positions in the federal government,” (Archives). The Committee for Modern Courts, reports that “in the New York State court system, the vast majority of state judges are elected; while some are appointed, the methods vary,” (ModernCourts). The organization writes “[v]acancies on New York’s highest court, the Court of Appeals, are filled via merit selection;” whereas “[v]acancies in the Appellate Division, New York’s intermediate appellate court, are filled by gubernatorial appointment,” (ModernCourts). State Supreme Court Justices are “nominated” by judicial conventions within their district; thereby, “the Supreme Court, New York’s trial court of general jurisdiction, are elected by the voters of the judicial district in which they serve,” (ModernCourts).
Decision making. The decision-making process of State Courts often consider remedies to highly controversial issues.
Crime. State Courts “decide the innocence or guilt of defendants brought before them, based on the evidence submitted,” (Bowman & Kearney, p. 435). As the majority of cases are settle outside of court, the State Courts are tasked with influencing “criminal justice through ruling that specify correct police procedures in criminal cases,” (Bowman & Kearney, p. 435). While the Supreme Court cases “have the final word” when it comes to cases where the defendants claim their Constitutional rights have been violated to some extent; “State courts handle alleged violations of state constitutional rights, (Bowman & Kearney, p. 435). The Federal Courts have historically brough influence on the State Courts in cases of criminal justice. The first example, Gideon v. Wainwright (1963), “the Warren Court ruled that all accused persons have a constitutional right to be defended by counsel,” (Bowman & Kearney, p. 435). Similarly, Miranda v. Arizona (1966) “requires police officer to inform anyone suspectedof a crime of the right to remain silent; the fact that anything said can and will be used against him or her in a court of law; and the right to be represented by counsel, paid for by the state if necessary,” (Bowman & Kearney, p. 435).
Education. State Courts have “stimulated and even ordered changes in education policy,” (Bowman & Kearney, p. 415). In contemporary polity, State Courts are “asked to resoklve numerous legal disagreements spawned by education reforms. Thus, the ruling of Federal Courts play an integral role in the process of State Court decision making. States must consider notable cases that change the political landscape of their jurisdiction. These changes can be for better or worse, yet still influence the methodology of operation when it comes to decision making. Therefore, State Courts are both influenced and limited by previous federal Court rulings. Historically, “[f]ederal courts [first] imposed desegregation policies on public schools through a series of decisions beginning with Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka (1954),” (Bowman & Kearney, p. 415). In Brown v. Board of Education (1954), the Supreme Court held that “racial segregation violated the Fourteenth Amendment’s equal protection clause,” (Bowman & Kearney, p. 415). Following this monumental judicial precedent, the Supreme Court revisited the topic of segregation in Swann v. Charlotte-Mecklenburg County Schools (1971), mandating that Court-ordered busing be implemented to achieve school desegregation, (Bowman & Kearney, p. 415).
While State Courts are not responsible for creating nationwide initiatives, they must make important decisions based on the judgment of previous cases. To enact change at a State-level, legislators “representing minority positions can often capture the attention of top policymakers only through the legal system,” (Bowman & Kearney, p. 415).
Healthcare. In the Courts, medical malpractice lawsuits “complicate the financial issues of healthcare policy,” (Bowman & Kearney, p. 472). The National Institutes of Health (NIH) records that, “[t]he courts have a profound effect on the public's health;” writing “Courts interpret the law and determine the constitutional limits of legislative and regulatory policies that impact the public's health,” (NIH). This works in their favor, while increasing the potential for major pharmaceutical corporations to exploit the public. The NIH adds that “Courts also decide cases brought against people or organizations accused of damaging the public's health and consider the appropriate balance among prevention, rehabilitation, and punishment in imposing criminal sanctions,” (NIH). This can also be weaponized to protect big pharma from being punished for mass experiments on the population using skewed data and controlled self-conducted medical trials.
The Concept of Judicial Federalism
The concept of Judicial Federalism is “[t]he constitutional relationship between federal and state courts of law,” (Bowman & Kearney, D-13). This concept has in effect “[s]ince 1988, a conservative majority has been in control. The Court has been somewhat less intrusive in state and local affairs and has flashed a green light to state courts inclined to activism (see Chapter 2). The result is judicial federalism, in which state courts look first to state constitutional and statutory laws in rendering legal judgments on important state and local issues rather than to the federal courts,” Bowman & Kearney, p. 247).
Black’s law Dictionary defines the term Judicial Power as “[t]he authority vested in courts and judges to hear and decide cases and to make binding judgments on the; the power to construe and aply the law when controversies arise over what has been done or not done under it,” (Garner, B., p. 1012). Bryan garner notes further than, “[u]nder federal law, this power is vested in the U.S. Supreme Court and in whatever inferior courts Congress establishes. The other two great powers of government are the legislative power and the executive power,” (Garner, B., p. 1012).
Judicial federalism, as defined by author Otis Stephens, Jr., is found “[u]nder the relevant language of their constitutions and statutes, state courts are free to recognize greater (but not lesser) protections of individual rights than are provided by the U.S. Constitution as interpreted by the federal courts. This idea is sometimes referred to as the new judicial federalism. It holds that state courts are free to further protections of civil rights and liberties beyond the federally established minimums.
John Locke
Environmental Policy. John Locke believed that property was essential to the prospect of commonwealth through individual “support” or “comfort” to his existence, despite the obstacles that life may inflict upon him. Locke wrote that “[f]rom all which it is evident, that though the things of nature are given in common, yet man, by being master of himself, and proprietor of his own person, and the actions or labor of it, had still in himself the great foundation of property; and that, which made up the great part of what he applied to the support or comfort of his being, when invention and arts had improved the conveniences of life, was perfectly his own, and did not belong in common to others,” (Capaldi & Lloyd, p. 19).
Poverty. John Locke wrote of poverty that all men have created economic disparities by consent. Locke chose his words carefully to depict his view of man; writing that men had “found out” a method to produce consensual inequality, evidence his view on the inherent depravities inherent within all men. Therefore Locke’s writings further revealed a necessity for effective public policy to be enacted for all aspects of society. Poverty was an inherent quality in any society, as Locke revealed; and should not be sought to be eliminated but reduced. It seems likely from John Locke’s writings that he believed poverty was a factor that could not be completely eliminated. This notion eases the burden of government policy by directing legislators to consider specific aspects of poverty, and ways to reduce the burden—but should not encourage any state of permanent dependency. Any society must offer a pathway to prosperity and not limit the endeavors of any man wishing to ascend himself by consistent effort and hard work. Locke was a strong supporter of the homestead; writing that “[b]ut since gold and silver, being little useful to the life of man in proportion to food, raiment, and carriage, has its value only from the consent of men, whereof labor yet makes, in great part, the measure, it is plain, that men have agreed to a disproportionate and unequal possession of the earth, they having, by a tacit and voluntary consent, found out, a way how a man may fairly possess more land than he himself can use the product of, by receiving in exchange for the overplus gold and silver, which may be hoarded up without injury to any one; these metals not spoiling or decaying in the hands of the possessor. This partage of things in an inequality of private possessions, men have made practicable out of the bounds of society, and without compact, only by putting a value on gold and silver, and tacitly agreeing in the use of money: for in governments, the laws regulate the right of property, and the possession of land is determined by positive constitutions.
Criminal Justice. John Locke believed that man must come forth from his own wilderness, and commit his mind to the efforts of a society; producing a collective balance of union deemed Community. Thus criminality has no place in Locke’s view of government. The purpose of Lockean Political Theory proposes a state of agreement between all citizens whereby allotting all individual freedom within their personal jurisdiction should it not contribute to the degradation of society in any way. Locke wrote that “[w]hosoever therefore out of a State of Nature unite into a Community, must be understood to give up all the power necessary to the ends for which they unite into Society, to the majority of the Community, unless they expressly agreed in any number greater than the majority,” (Capaldi & Lloyd, p. 23).
On judgement, Locke believed that “it is unreasonable for Men to be Judges in their own Cases, that self-love will make Men partial to themselves and their Friends. And on the other side, that III Nature, Passion and Revenge will carry them too far in punishing others, (Capaldi & Lloyd, p. 10). Moreover, that “God hath certainly appointed Government to restrain the partiality and violence of Men,” (Capaldi & Lloyd, p. 10).
Health Care Policy. John Locke wrote in The Second Treatise, that “[t]he State of Nature, has a Law of Nature to govern [it] which obliges every one, and Reason, which is that Law, teaches all Mankind, who will but consult it; That being all equal and independent, no one ought to harm another in his Life, Health, Liberty, or Possessions; for Men being all the Workmanship of one Omnipotent, and infinitely wise maker; All the Servants of one Sovereign Master, sent into the World by his order and about his business, they are his Property, whose Workmanship they are, made to last during his, not one anothers Pleasure, (Capaldi & Lloyd, p. 9).
Biblical Role
A Christian’s role in ethical research is to utilize their gifts that God has endowed upon every individual. A Christian ought to consider the abilities and gifts that the Lord has positioned us. Their most important role is placing more focus in the future than in their past. John Locke’s entire political theory presupposed the existence of natural law bestowed unto earth prior to the formation of government—even man himself. Although critics may decline to ascribe to such prospects of government; natural laws are placed over everyone equally. Gravity may descend a more weighted person; but its substance and purpose does not change. It is not dependent on man; nor can it be changed. These natural laws were recognized in Locke’s work, and remain acknowledged by government today. The U.S. Constitution’s Bill of Rights and subsequent Amendments do not grant rights but recognize the inherent liberties granted unto man before his existence—of which ought not be infringed.
But limited government must exist for two reasons: the first, (1) to preclude the depravity of fallen man in his natural state; and (2) to prevent the tyranny of a centralized power placed upon the constituency. Man needs some regulative body to facilitate the means to a society, yet these citizens within its jurisdiction mustn’t become subjects. This delicate balance is explained by God through Scripture; first a reminder, “[f]or through the grace given to me I say to everyone among you not to think more highly of himself than he ought to think; but to think so as to have sound judgment, as God has allotted to each a measure of faith;” and second, that “[f]or just as we have many members in one body and all the members do not have the same function, so we, who are many, are one body in Christ, and individually members one of another.” (Romans 12:3-5; NASB). Thus, every man ought to aim to fulfill his purpose by implementing the gifts God hath endowed upon him in order to contribute back to contemporary polity and upholding His intended Kingdom—especially in our current culture of seemingly impending detriment. This universal solution can be found in the proceeding passage, “[s]ince we have gifts that differ according to the grace given to us, each of us is to exercise them accordingly,” (Romans 12:6a; NASB).
Christians ought not forget Who they are representing when utilizing these individual gifts and abilities Christ endowed upon them, no matter their place in the spectrum of social hierarchy and cultural status; as to not conform to the patterns of culture, (Rom 12:2). As He warns of self-righteous gift bearers; or those who use their abilities to exploit or harm others, “[f]or even though they knew God, they did not honor Him as God or give thanks, but they became futile in their speculations, and their foolish heart was darkened. Professing to be wise, they became fools, and exchanged the glory of the incorruptible God for an image in the form of corruptible man and of birds and four-footed animals and crawling creatures,” (Romans 1:21-23; NASB).
Scripture should form the framework for impartiality when conducted by the Christian Researcher. The Old Testament prophet Ezekiel warned that “[y]ou corrupted your wisdom by reason of your splendor,” (Ezekiel 28:17b; NASB). The Passion Translation reads “your thirst for glory corrupted your wisdom.” ((Ezekiel 28:17b; TPT Ezekiel & Daniel). And the New Living Translation reiterates “[y]our wisdom was corrupted by your love of splendor,” (Ezekiel 28:17b; NLT). The bottom-line, legislators and judges must regulate their own personal actions in accordance with eternal natural law—as recognized by John Locke, and our Founding Fathers of this Constitutional Republic—if they are to maintain their positions within the legislature and the judiciary; alongside sustain the traditional structure of this exceptional nation.
The purpose of politics, according to John Locke, is the stewardship of power; namely political power. This political power, once attained, must be properly utilized to delegate the needs of the citizens and to allocate the limited resources of the State. As Locke concluded, “[p]olitical power, then, I take to be a right of making laws with penalties of death, and consequently all less penalties, for the regulating and preserving of property, and of employing the force of the community, in the execution of such laws, and in the defense of the common-wealth from foreign injury; and all this only for the public good,” (Locke, J., p. 9).
In sum, contemporary legislators and judges ought to consider the specific wording of Locke’s text, whereby using “all this only for the public good.” There is no partiality or pluralistic interpretation of Locke’s delegation of power as he considered it. In alignment with the Apostle Paul, who scribed an important concept that remains central to all men; especially state government,namely the legislature and judiciary; “[f]or it is by grace you have been saved, through faith —and this is not from yourselves, it is the gift of God— not by works, so that no one can boast. For we are God’s handiwork, created in Christ Jesus to do good works, which God prepared in advance for us to do. (Ephesians 2:8-10; NIV). Americans must implement their gifts endowed by God whether be it policymaking, or within the Courts, to uphold the dignity, professionalism, and reverence that has remained tangible throughout the course of recorded history. Power must be used for good. Judgment must be impartial. The legislature must represent the citizenry. Citizens must be ruled by consent. Thus, a simultaneous partnership and separation of citizens and State government will ensure the nation advances the prosperity of all that reside within its jurisdiction. This multifaceted duty is the obligation of the modern generation and must draw wisdom from the past while crafting innovative ideas for the future of America.
Bibliography
Archives. (Accessed on October 7th, 2024). Pendleton Act (1883). National Archives. https://www.archives.gov/milestone-documents/pendleton-act.
Bowman, A. et al. (2018). State and Local Government. Cengage Publishing.
Budget. (Accessed on October 6th, 2024). Structure of State Government. Citizen's Guide. https://www.budget.ny.gov/citizen/structure/index.html.
Capaldi, N et al. (2011). The Two Narratives of Political Economy. Wiley. Kindle Edition.
ModernCourts. (Accessed on October 7th, 2024). Judicial Selection in the Courts of New York. The Fund For Modern Courts. https://moderncourts.org/programs-advocacy/judicial-selection/judicial-selection-in-the-courts-of-new-york/.
NIH. (Accessed on October 7th, 2024). Public Health Advocacy in the Courts: Opportunities for Public Health Professionals. PMC. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2773956/.