RENDER UNTO THE UNITED STATES

 

The +Hobby Lobby corporation is currently involved in a lawsuit contesing the federal government's authority to require them to provide for contraceptive services in the insurance coverage they offer their employees.  Their contention is that the Constitution's guarantee of religious freedom makes it unlawwful for them to be forced to pay for services they believe their faith forbids.

Let's put aside for the moment the volumes of case law that have determined already the federal government's Constitutional authority to require a p[erson to fund practices the faith prohibits in other areas; let's ignore also the rights of the company's employees not to have someone else's religious choices negatively impact their lives.  I want to explore instead the actual scriptural basis for the government's authority to make the requirement Hobby Lobby opposes.

The 22nd chapter of the Gospel according to Matthew relates an incident where a group of individuals attempted to trick Jesus into voicing opposition to Roman authority in order that they might have him arrested.  They asked him whether it was lawful for Jews to pay taxes to Caesar.  Jesus Instructed them to show him one of the coins used to apy the tax, then asked whose picture and inscription were on it.  When they answered it was Caesar's likeness he commanded them "Render therefore unto Caesar what is Caesars, and unto God what is God's."

Now the reason this passage applies to thise current day issue is the type of tax to which the incident referred, namely a poll tax.  The amount of a poll tax is determined by conducting a census, which the Jews saw as forbidden since the time of King David when God punished the nation of Israel because of David's having conducted one.  This census was also referenced in the Second chapter of Luke as the reason why Joseph and Mary were in Bethlehem, to be registered in the census.
So, much like the current situation with Hobby Lobby, Jesus was being asked whether it was right for Jews to pay for a practice their religion forbade.  Jesus made it clear tht the government which provided the coin had the authority to determine to what use it would be applied.

Any currency currently produced by the United States has its name prominently displayed thereon, much as the Roman coin had the image and seal of Caesar.  Just as Jesus determined Jews who disagreed with the poll tax must still pay the tax, so it would appear to follow from a purely scriptural perspective that Hobby Lobby would be obliged to pay for contraceptive care including the controversial "morning after" pill.  To do otherwise would be in direct violation of Jesus' instructions on such matters.

Unconventional Conventions

Warren Buffett was recently quoted as saying he could fix the nation’s deficit problems in five minutes by enacting a law making all current members of Congress ineligible for reelection any time the deficit exceeded three percent of the nation’s gross domestic product. As attractive as that idea may be, making it law would be more than a five minutes undertaking. Even Congress would not have the authority of themselves to enact such a measure, as only the Constitution can dictate the conditions of terms of congressmen and senators. A further bar to such an idea is that in the 218 years since its ratification the only way amendments to the Constitution have been made is by Congress first submitting them to the states for their approval. In other words it has so far always been at the government’s discretion when it was time to change the rules by which the government operates. I think a lot of people could agree with Thomas Paine’s observation that "…it is repugnant to the principles of representative government that a body (Congress) should give power to itself."

It was apparently not the intent of the Founding Fathers for Congress to have the sole discretion as to what amendments will and will not be submitted to the states for ratification, as they allowed for one other avenue. The legislatures of the states can petition Congress for the calling of a Constitutional Convention for the purpose of proposing amendments, but it requires the requests of two-thirds of the states, or thirty-three of our current fifty. Thus far there have never been enough states to make such a request at the same time as to trigger such an event, which effectively leaves Congress in sole control of the means by which to make amendments, and if history is any guide there is little chance they would ever propose any changes that would substantially affect their status. So clearly another way is necessary if we, the governed, wish to take back a measure of our inherent power from the instituted government.

Thomas Jefferson felt it might be good for our nation to have a new revolution every twenty years or so, believing this would provide necessary changes in a timely manner; it would seem he was already familiar with the propensity of institutions, once established, to perpetuate themselves. But revolutions have the danger of getting rid of the bad as well as the good and often wind up replacing the old order with a similar proportion of good and bad. Perhaps, instead, we might find the will to cause the Constitution to be changed to provide for the calling of a Constitutional Convention every twenty years for amendments to be proposed. Over the years some have stated that, since such a convention would have no limit to what changes they might propose, including the entire dissolution of our current system, this is far too risky an option. To them I would respond that the convention’s authority only extends to proposing changes, they have no power to enact them; that authority is limited to the people of the states, where a majority vote in thirty-eight states would be required for the ratification of any such changes. Those kinds of odds would provide a substantial challenge to even the best of ideas, a truly bad one would surely face an even bleaker prospect.

As things stand now, however, we still face the difficulty of getting such an amendment requiring a bidecennial convention submitted to the states for ratification. It would likely require an all-out grassroots effort at all levels, with letters being sent to all members of Congress encouraging the amendment to be submitted to the states, and writing to legislators of the states asking for a petition to be submitted to Congress. One other option has never been tried on a coordinated basis. There are twenty-nine states which allow for referendums to be placed on the ballot for enactment into law. If each of these states passed measures instructing their legislatures to petition the Congress for the amendment to be submitted that would leave only four more necessary to require Congressional action; surely the popular pressure generated by the first twenty-nine states would be sufficient to spur the remainder necessary to submit such a petition. To date there has never been a successful grass-roots campaign to effect a change to the Constitution. Isn’t it about time for that to change?