If you listen to my words, it would have the same suggestion: that only Latinos would come to wiser decisions, but that wouldn’t make sense in the context of my speech either, because I pointed out in the speech that eight—nine—white men had decided Brown v. Board of Education. And, I noted in a separate paragraph of the speech that no one person speaks in the voice of any group. So, my rhetorical flourish, just like hers [Justice O’Conner’s], can’t be read literally. It had a different meaning in the context of the entire speech.

Judge Sotomayor offered this explanation with such regularity and apparent sincerity that one would actually be led to believe that words can only mean what their author intended them to mean. A novel concept, indeed!

It seems that Originalism has found a defense from another unlikely advocate: the Obama administration. The Obama administration has gone on offense after a YouTube compilation video caught fire when Matt Drudge linked to it on his site. Among many clips of Obama speaking on different occasions was one in which he explained that he was a “proponent of a single-payer, universal health care plan.” The title of the clip is, “SHOCK UNCOVERED: Obama IN HIS OWN WORDS saying His Health Care Plan will ELIMINATE private insurance.”

Well, the White House is firing back via a response from former ABC news correspondent Linda Douglass. In it, she criticizes the compilation video on very interesting grounds. Countering the suggestion that President Obama’s health care plan will eliminate private insurance, Douglass says:

Well, nothing could be farther from the truth. You know, the people who always try to scare people whenever you try to bring them health insurance reform are at it again. And they’re taking sentences and phrases out of context, and cobbling them together to leave a very false impression.

The truth is that the President has been talking to the American people a lot about health insurance reform, and what is at stake for them. So, what happens is that, because he is talking to the American people so much, there are people out there with a computer and a lot of free time and they take a phrase here and there—they simply cherry pick and put it together—and make it sound like he said something that he didn’t really say.

Let us assume, for the moment, that Linda Douglass is correct. The gist of Douglass’ argument is that President Obama has never said anything that would indicate that he wants to eliminate private insurance. The video appears to show him in his own words, but what we really see is a bunch of clever edits of multiple clips spliced together so it appears that the President has said something that he has never said. We will therefore stipulate that the President has never publicly stated that he wants to eliminate private health insurance.

But for our purposes, let us assume even more in order to make the President’s argument as compelling as possible. That is, we shall not only assume that President Obama has never publicly stated that he wants to be rid of private health insurance, but we will go further and assume that President Obama genuinely does not want to eliminate private insurance. We will, of course, have to ignore the uncut video of him saying, with his own words, that he is a “proponent of a single-payer, universal health care plan.” Yes, friends, what I am asking you to do is, for a brief moment, behave as the left tends to behave, and ignore plain, dispositive facts. With these assumptions in place, I want to examine what Douglass’ (and the White House’s) objection actually is.

The objection is that, despite a video that seemingly reveals otherwise, it is not true that President Obama wants to eliminate private health insurance. His words have been taken out of context, moved around, and spliced together, making it appear that he said something that he really did not say. Is this not an objection grounded in Originalism? I think it certainly is. And I think the following assumptions are essential to Douglass’ objection:

1. The President’s words have a fixed meaning. If this were not so, then it would make no sense to say that it is untrue that the President’s words mean that he wants to eliminate private health insurance.
2. The fixed meaning of the President’s words is not set by those listening to/reading his words. If this were not so, then it would make no sense to object to the video editor’s particular interpretation of the President’s words.
3. The fixed meaning of the President’s words, whatever it be, is accessible to the public at large. If this were not so, then it would make no sense to suggest that someone is deliberately misconstruing the President’s words.
4. The President’s interpretation of his own words is authoritative. If this were not so, then it would make no sense to suggest that the President’s interpretation of his own words is true, while the interpretation made by the person who created the video is false.
5. The President’s intended meaning is the only legitimate meaning of the words he speaks/writes. If this were not so, it would make no sense to criticize someone for taking his statements out of context in order to splice them together in a way that leaves a “very false impression.”

If these assumptions are not true, then Douglass’ objection falls flat. It is common to hear the left argue that the words in the Constitution have no fixed meaning. “The Constitution,” we are often told, “is a living, breathing document, the meaning of which must change to adapt with the times.” An important thing to note is that the change advocated by most proponents of this argument is not achieved by amending the Constitution, a process that adds words to the document to update its meaning. Rather, the change is achieved by reinterpreting the words that are already there. Changing the Constitution by this method runs contrary the the five assumptions above. Thus, if the previous assumptions are true, then there is a glaring inconsistency between the standard by which the Obama administration wants us to understand the President’s words, and the standard by which that same administration wants us to understand the words of our Framers.

A question that is now prominent on my mind is this: if cutting up various words of the President and splicing them back together results in an illegitimate interpretation of his words, then why does it not follow that cutting up various Amendments in the Constitution and splicing them back together similarly results in an illegitimate interpretation of the Constitution? This is, of course, what happened in Griswold vs. Connecticut, the decision that gave us a sweeping, undefined Constitutional right of privacy–a right that we have since learned is “broad enough to encompass a woman’s decision whether or not to terminate her pregnancy.” (Roe v. Wade). The President insists that we interpret his words according to their original meaning. Is it really too much, then, to insist that the President afford our Framers the same courtesy?

1.  What do you mean by that?

2.  Where do you get your information?

3.  How do you know you are right?

4.  What happens if you are wrong?

Can you think of other questions to ask?  Comment below.

Psalm 1:1-3

Blessed is the man who walks not in the counsel of the wicked, nor stands in the way of sinners, nor sits in the seat of scoffers; but his delight is in the law of the Lord, and on his law he meditates day and night.

He is like a tree planted by streams of water that yields its fruit in its season, and its leaf does not wither.  In all that he does, he prospers.

HT Pics: interfacelift

Dr. Mohler expresses disagreement with the claim that parents do not have a constitutional right to homeschool their children. He writes:

The words, “parents do not have a constitutional right to home school their children,” is nothing less than explosive…This is a controversy that demands the attention of all parents. After all, if parents have no constitutional right to educate their own children, what other aspects of the parent’s choices for their own children lack protection? This question reaches far beyond educational decisions.

I understand the desire to express disgust with a ruling whose result one may disagree. But we must be very careful when assessing the ruling that we are not letting our particular policy preferences stand in the way of analyzing the decision on appropriate grounds. It is not true that everything one might think is a good idea is necessarily a constitutional right, and that is the case with many, many issues. Allowing for homeschooling may be a good idea, but that does not make it a constitutional right.

It must be noted that saying, “parents do not have a constitutional right to educate their children at home” is not the same thing as saying “it is unconstitutional for parents to educate their children at home.” The former asserts that homeschooling may be allowed, but is not required by the constitution. The latter asserts that homeschooling may not be done. The court held the former, and that holding places in the hands of the legislature the ability to provide whatever means of education it chooses.

We must resist the temptation with all due force to hope that a court will declare homeschooling as a constitutional right when the relevant constitution does not declare as much. Many state constitutions delegate broad authority to the state legislature to determine what education policies will be enacted in the state, and that seems to be the case in California. It is very common to hear people decry judicial activism; but it is peculiarly interesting to hear the same people suggest that judicial activism should be employed to reach results they feel are best.

Dr. Mohler’s criticism is also misplaced when one considers the result of the decision. According to this analysis, it simply is untrue to say that homeschooling parents are subject to criminal penalties as a result of the ruling.

In sum: homeschoolers, TAKE A BREATH. You are not about to be criminally charged for choosing to educate your children at home, as the LA Times and the various commentators I mentioned above imply. You can still homeschool your kids, assuming that you can pass a criminal background check and aren’t totally incompetent. The lawyers for these parents and homeschool advocates all over the state are gleefully watching all the outrage this has stirred up, but I think they should be ashamed of themselves for terrifying the parents of homeschooled children.

The sum of this case appears to be that California, by statute, does indeed allow for parents to homeshcool their children provided they follow the prescribed means of seeking that option. The parents in this case did not follow the prescribed means of legally homeschooling their children, and that is why they lost this case.

The Gospel of John deals often with the subject of truth. In this Gospel, Pontius Pilate comes face to face with Jesus and is confronted with the claim of absolute truth. Pilate responds to Jesus by asking, “What is truth?” Truth is a subject which continues to be questioned in our day. As the modern age has given way to the postmodern age, our culture’s embrace of absolute truth has given way to an embrace of relative truth. Gone are the identifiable reference points, the meaningful language and understanding, and the understanding of context in the fabric of culture. What is left is a culture that worships the ideals of multiculturalism and diversity. What is left is a culture of fragmented groupings of people who have coalesced around their own versions of truth and personal principles. For a culture to embrace relative truth, absolute truth must first be suppressed. This exercise in futility has indeed been embraced by this culture.

“I Am”

When talking to his disciples earlier in the Gospel of John, Jesus lays claim to the title of absolute truth in declaring, “I am the way, and the truth, and the life.” Ultimate absolute truth exists in the person of Christ and in every word that proceeds from his mouth. The invisible attributes and truth of God, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived by men, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. From a context of absolute truth the Gospel of God proceeds into a world that has suppressed and rejected the truth.

Matters of Truth

Mattersoftruth.com is a gathering friends who have been encountered by Christ, who are united in Him, and who have been (and are being) transformed by the truth of the Gospel. The participants have come from varied cultures and bring along diverse backgrounds. Through this website these individuals will interact with their culture using the framework of a Biblical worldview. We welcome your visit and invite you to come often and converse with us.

Click here to view the embedded video.