Reason and Purpose

“XXXIX.  As to the second question: Are politics susceptible of being treated in an ethic point of view? the answer is simply this: Either the state, and all the institutions and laws which have emanated from it, exist for the satisfaction of an ambitious and interested or privileged few, or the state is an institution for a distinct moral end, or politics are the effect of mere chance.  One of the three must necessarily be the case.  The first is so repugnant to every man’s feeling as well as to common sense, that none have ever dared publicly to acknowledge it, however they may have been inclined to act on some such view.  If man is a rational being, the state must have a rational end, i. e. it must be founded in reason, which would not be the case, were it a mere contrivance for the benefit, or rather the satisfaction of the desires and appetites of a few.  For science would then have to single out the few, and establish scientifically their claims.  None can possibly be above reason.”

-Francis Lieber, Manual of Political Ethics

To Make Freedom Work

“The freer a country, that is, the more action is guaranteed to every individual, the more necessary becomes a well-founded and general knowledge of political duty.  Without it, that free action will serve but for evil ends.

“No doubt can be entertained, but that there are at all times, among millions, some individuals endowed with great gifts, with talents equal to those of the eminent and successful men of happier periods, but they cannot make and construct a state, and breathe into it the inspiration of life, nor can they guide it by the noblest principles, if the people do not correspond to their exertions, or if the times do not call upon them.”

-Francis Lieber, Manual of Political Ethics

Even the best laws could not relieve us of our responsibilities....

“Many subjects, however, though useful or necessary to some, are not so to every one.  Political ethics may form a very proper branch for a leading statesman, or the citizen who makes a profession of politics, yet ought they to be well understood by every body?  Is it, in particular, necessary to instruct the young in them?  I believe they are most emphatically so.  It is every man’s business to know his duty, and his duties as citizen are among the most sacred and important, especially so in countries which enjoy civil liberty, and have what is commonly, though inaptly called a free government.  The success of the whole, depends upon the whole; and there is no subject connected with the state, which does not vitally affect the interests of every one.  Laws and institutions are nothing more than dead forms of words, unless they operate.  Constitutions do not create liberty; political welfare cannot be decreed or effected by an edict or statute.  Liberty must grow and live, live in the heart of every one, not only as an ardent desire, or an indefinite though exciting notion, but as a knowledge of our political obligations and a profound reverence for political morality.”

...

“The wisest statesman is in this respect but like the poet.  He cannot delight, elevate or inspire, unless the elements to act upon are in the hearts of the hearers.  He cannot make new truths, and if he could, how could he gain entrance for them into the hearts of the people, who were wanting in the very sense to perceive them?  But he can boldly and strikingly pronounce what until then was but dimly felt in the soul of the hearer, or latent though unperceived in his heart.  So can the statesman clearly pronounce and boldly act out or gradually cultivate what was but vaguely felt by the masses, he can concentrate what was scattered, awaken what was dormant, impel, regulate, restrain, but he cannot create his elements.”

-Francis Lieber, Manual of Political Ethics

In the Application of Natural Law

 “The confusion of natural law and politics proper has produced evil, and not unfrequently disastrous consequences.  On the one hand, men have seen that, without establishing firm and absolute principles, all would be confusion and insecurity.  On the other hand, they have been so far misled by principles drawn from natural law, as to judge every political question by theory alone, disavowing experience, expedience, and a due regard to the elements which were given wherewith to work....”

“Again, men felt that the abstract principles of natural law were insufficient to guide them in many practical cases, and they fell into the error of rejecting it altogether, relying only on power as the foundation of all right, on mere expediency as the sole guide of political action.

“Analogous to the term abstract law for natural law, we might call this branch applied law, which would include both political, civil and penal law, in as far as it remains general.  The existing law is called positive.”

-Francis Lieber, Manual of Political Ethics

Natural Law

 “It appears to me, that the only axiom necessary to establish the science of natural law is this: ‘I exist as a human being, therefore I have a right to exist as a human being.’  This once acknowledged, the rights of men in their various relations as individuals, husbands, or wives, fathers or mothers, as citizens individually and collectively in the state to other independent states and to the collective citizens within the state, may consistently and justly be established.  Though some ancient and modern writers have maintained that no right exists antecedent to the magistracy deriving the right of this from some extra-political, and in some cases even from some extra-human source, it is nevertheless true, that if we do not deny our own existence and the existence of truth, the reality and truth of natural law can be scientifically and irresistibly established with as much certainty as that of other sciences....”

“Natural Law then inquires into the rights of man to be derived from his nature, both physical and moral, for the latter is closely connected with the former; it inquires into quid sit justum aut injustum, not into quid sit juris, (what is law or lawful).  The word nature is a term used in so many various significations, that it has led to great confusion of ideas in several branches; and it is not an uncommon mistake to believe that natural law is that law which existed in the erroneously supposed state of nature, on which, as has been indicated already, I shall have to dwell in the next book.  The law of nature, or natural law, on the contrary is the law, the body of rights, which we deduce from the essential nature of man....”

“Nor are natural law and moral law or ethics the same.  The difference is material.  Ethics treat, among other subjects, of the duties of man, and secondarily of his rights derivable from his duties; natural law, on the other hand, treats, as the fundamental and primary subject, of man’s rights, and secondarily of his obligations flowing from the fact of each man’s being possessed of the same rights.  This distinction, though essential, has been, and to this day is frequently overlooked.  An equally good name with that of natural law, might be abstract law or pure law, as we have pure mathematics.”

-Francis Lieber, Manual of Political Ethics

The Answer Key, Item #3

If you are in the habit of leaving people messages ending with a request that they reply "at your earliest convenience": I think you're on pretty solid ground.  That should be fine.

If you are in the habit of leaving messages informing others that you will respond to them "at my earliest convenience": I really think that you are making a mistake, and for your own good, I urge you to stop.

Fugitive Legislators

Against the backdrop of contentious faceoffs throughout the United States on the subject of election laws, a group of Democrats from the Texas state legislature (specifically, its House of Representatives) recently fled the state in order to hinder the Texas legislature's efforts to enact election-related legislation.  Their excursion has received a great deal of sustained media attention from the start, so readers are presumably aware that the departure of these legislators leaves the Texas House of Representatives without the quorum (the presence of no fewer than two-thirds of the members of the House) that the Texas Constitution requires it to have in order to proceed with substantive legislative business.  This does allow them to keep the bill from moving forward for the time being, but if Texas Governor Abbott keeps his promise to continue calling special sessions of the legislature until the election legislation is enacted, the "quorum-busting" strategy of Texas Democrats can only obstruct action on that legislation for as long as enough of these fugitive representatives remain willing and able to stay out of their home state of Texas.  I don't think that their strategy is limited to denying the Texas House of Representatives a quorum indefinitely, and at some point, the representatives will undoubtedly want to return to Texas.

I do not know when that time will come, but the aspect of all of this that caught my attention (which is not to say that I do not think that what becomes of election legislation makes a difference) is that Governor Abbott has threatened to arrest the legislators when they return to Texas.  Now, like most of the U.S. state constitutions, that of the State of Texas does empower both houses of its legislature to compel the attendance of their own absent members.  The way the Texas Constitution phrases its grant of this power to the houses of its legislature, it might appear to grant them a more or less open-ended power -- provided that the grant is read and contemplated in isolation, ignoring all other relevant considerations (including everything else in the Texas Constitution and in the United States Constitution).  Article III, Section 10 of the Texas Constitution reads, "Two‑thirds of each House shall constitute a quorum to do business, but a smaller number may adjourn from day to day, and compel the attendance of absent members, in such manner and under such penalties as each House may provide."  If everything apart from Article III, Section 10 of the Texas Constitution were to be ignored, that grant could very reasonably be understood to extend so far as to empower the Texas House of Representatives or Senate to have its own absent members arrested with the objective of either punishing a member for being absent (by inflicting "penalties") or directly compelling the member's attendance by forcibly transporting the member to the state Capitol.  (Supposing that this grant of power does extend that far, I still question the propriety, if not the constitutionality, of the governor of the state having a role in it.)  After all, Section 10 contains nothing that identifies any limits (or suggests that there are any limits) to the discretion it allows to either house in selecting the "manner" or the penalties for which "each House may provide."

However, of course, that grant does not exist in isolation; it is not independent of the rest of the Texas Constitution or of the United States Constitution, and there is a part of the Texas Constitution that is so critically relevant to Governor Abbott's threat that I find it surprising that I haven't heard or read any mention of it by anyone else, yet.  The Texas Constitution, like most of the state constitutions in the United States (and the United States Constitution, and the Articles of Confederation before it), prohibits the arrest of members of its legislature (unless for treason, felony, or breach of the peace) while the legislature is in session.  Article III, Section 14 of the Texas Constitution provides, "Senators and Representatives shall, except in cases of treason, felony, or breach of the peace, be privileged from arrest during the session of the Legislature, and in going to and returning from the same."  If the fugitive legislators have committed treason, felony, or breach of the peace, the legislature being in session would not present a legal obstacle to arresting them for that reason (provided that they are within the territorial jurisdiction of Texas at the time of the arrest).  As far as I am aware, however, nobody has accused them of any of these*.  Unless and until that changes, Governor Abbott must comply with his state's constitution and keep his hands off of the legislators.  (Also, even as I say this, I think that a "quorum-busting" strategy is inappropriate other than in extreme situations; legislators are elected to participate in the legislature.)

A Reminder: Neither disliking a person nor disliking a person's political views or activities is a justification for intruding upon and violating the person's right to liberty.

* Some people (who can easily be found on the Internet) call almost everything "treason".  We can safely ignore whatever such people might have said about the fugitive legislators.

Among Other Grievances

Those who have read far enough into the Declaration of Independence (I suspect that a fair number of readers quit once the list of grievances begins) may well have noticed that quite a few of them describe acts interfering with or undermining in some way the representative body of the people (the legislature) or the right to be represented in it, or, in some cases, suppressing or destroying American legislatures altogether.  Some of these grievances are allegations of the abuse of otherwise lawful powers.  Others indict the exercise of powers that were notoriously and categorically illegal.

The language used in expressing one of these grievances aptly states the theme of the rest, declaring that the people's right "of Representation in the Legislature" is "a right inestimable to them and formidable to tyrants only."

These are the grievances that I am referring to:

"He has forbidden his Governors to pass Laws of immediate and pressing importance, unless suspended in their operation till his Assent should be obtained; and when so suspended, he has utterly neglected to attend to them.

"He has refused to pass other Laws for the accommodation of large districts of people, unless those people would relinquish the right of Representation in the Legislature, a right inestimable to them and formidable to tyrants only.

"He has called together legislative bodies at places unusual, uncomfortable, and distant from the depository of their public Records, for the sole purpose of fatiguing them into compliance with his measures.

"He has dissolved Representative Houses repeatedly, for opposing with manly firmness his invasions on the rights of the people.

"He has refused for a long time, after such dissolutions, to cause others to be elected; whereby the Legislative powers, incapable of Annihilation, have returned to the People at large for their exercise; the State remaining in the mean time exposed to all the dangers of invasion from without, and convulsions within.

...

"He has kept among us, in times of peace, Standing Armies without the Consent of our legislatures.

"He has affected to render the Military independent of and superior to the Civil power.

"He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution, and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his Assent to their Acts of pretended Legislation:

"For Quartering large bodies of armed troops among us:

"For protecting them, by a mock Trial, from punishment for any Murders which they should commit on the Inhabitants of these States:

"For cutting off our Trade with all parts of the world:

"For imposing Taxes on us without our Consent:

"For depriving us in many cases, of the benefits of Trial by Jury:

"For transporting us beyond Seas to be tried for pretended offences:

"For abolishing the free System of English Laws in a neighbouring Province, establishing therein an Arbitrary government, and enlarging its Boundaries so as to render it at once an example and fit instrument for introducing the same absolute rule into these Colonies:

"For taking away our Charters, abolishing our most valuable Laws, and altering fundamentally the Forms of our Governments:

"For suspending our own Legislatures, and declaring themselves invested with power to legislate for us in all cases whatsoever."