Schall on Roberts' Decision

Fr. James Schall, arguably one of the best political science scholars, has some thoughts.  By no coincidence, they parallel the essay of Schindler (noted here earlier) in the exposition of the root of Robert's jurisprudence. 

...A constitution is in essence a promise. It is designed to make the future orderly and just. It is a contract between generations. A constitution cannot work if its definitions and wordings are not clear and intelligible, if they keep changing. Words refer to definite things and ideas. But their original intelligibility is what binds.

In this context, the controversy whether America was a “modern” founding or an extension of classical and medieval ideas is a crucial one. If it is a modern founding, it has its origins in Hobbes, Locke, and Hume, among others. It is a voluntarist contract whose roots are in the individual’s right to all things for his security and prosperity. If it is a classical or medieval founding, it has a sense of common good and natural or transcendent law. It is aware that government is limited not just by itself or a constitution but by what it is....

...A few things were specifically set down that government could do. The best thing it could do was to let everyone’s intelligence, incentive, and liberty operate. There were things the government could not do, even if it followed the letter of the constitution. This is why the tradition of natural law has always held any constitution itself to be subject to a higher law.

In the American system, two or three levels of government existed. At all levels the famous principle “that government governs best which governs least” was good advice. The Federal Constitution was one of enumerated powers.

...Within the mechanism of rule, some designated officials had to be able to pronounce and act when the constitution was being violated, when some governmental instrumentality was not acting properly. Some things, the important ones, were to be left to the people. This whole system was based on the integrity of subsequent officials and, yes, on the stability of words to convey what was and was not “according to the constitution.”

The great shock of the recent Roberts’ decision on Obamacare thus was that the words of the constitution do not bind that official most responsible to uphold the constitution. Hobbes, I think, would approve this decision.

That's not a compliment, Justice Roberts.

Ultimately, the American people must declare whether the Constitution is or is not subject to natural law.  If not, then Hobbesinaism is the future.