Three Things You Can Do While Boycotting the Super Bowl

By John Horvat II

Super Bowl Sunday has long been revered by millions of Americans as the greatest football experience of the year. It was something not to be missed.

However, Super Bowl 2018 will be different. Some will be sitting this one out. In fact, it is possible that the super bowl will never be the same again. Many Americans feel betrayed by the NFL and have simply given up football altogether.

Free Book: Return to Order: From a Frenzied Economy to an Organic Christian Society Where Weve Been, How We Got Here, and Where We Need to Go

The reason for the boycott is, of course, the blatant disrespect of many NFL players toward the nation’s flag and anthem. Players insisting upon “taking a knee” during the anthem soured many toward the game. People find it hard to understand why multi-millionaire players have politicized this most elementary display of patriotism and pride in the country. Especially offended are countless veterans who have fought under the flag.

The NFL establishment has tried to spin the kneeling as freedom of expression, legitimate protest or an exercise of diversity. No one is fooled by such arguments. The fans have spoken. This season’s ratings are way down. Attendance at games has declined. Stadiums are no longer full, and tickets are offered with discounts.

As the first major protest season ends, many families are boycotting the event. For the first time in their lives, they have concluded that the super bowl is not super anymore.

As the sports event approaches, these new dissenters will need to find ways to replace the game. They will need to fill the void of this usually exciting weekend. To those families boycotting the Super Bowl, here are three suggestions about how to spend the afternoon.

What Does Saint Thomas Say About Immigration?

First, use the occasion to get together for a special dinner with family. Make it a teaching moment discussing with the children the reasons why the family is boycotting the game. Explain the notions of honor and love of country that should motivate Americans to serve the common good and not think of themselves. Tell stories of how members of the family have served the nation and the respect that they deserve. Invite family veterans over to tell their stories.

Secondly, use the afternoon as an occasion for the family to study the history of the nation. This might be done by visiting a war or historical museum. It might also include a reading of a text or the watching of a documentary. Study the times of great suffering when the flag has served as a symbol of inspiration. Study the good things as well as the bad.

Contrary to a stupid nationalism that deifies the nation, a real appreciation of America should recognize both faults and virtues. It should wish the best for America but also the best possible development of the qualities of other nations.

Finally, use the part of the afternoon of the game to pray as a family for the nation. When a country has reached a point in which the people no longer respect the symbols, qualities and sacrifices of the past, then it is in great need of prayers.

What does Saint Thomas Aquinas say about Marriage?

Pray for the nation. Take time to think of the institutions of family, community and Faith that are being destroyed and pray for them. Pray for family and friends. Pray for the soldiers especially those deployed faraway. Pray for a polarized nation and for a general return to God and order.

There is so much to pray for. This can be an occasion to pray together with others whether it be at home, church, an adoration chapel or a family rosary. Prayers can work wonders.

For some the decision to boycott the Super Bowl is difficult. However, for something to be “super” it must conform to high standards and respect all that is excellent and worthy of honor. Something super should not stoop to that which is denigrating, offensive or political correct.

When the Super Bowl is no longer super, it is best to stand by ones’ principles and become part of the solution.

How Judges Become Tyrants

By John Horvat II

Among the three branches of American government, there is supposed to be a system of checks and balances to curb any abuse of power. That is at least the theory. In practice, the judicial branch is now engaged in a campaign of checks without balances or precedent. Judges are becoming tyrants without restraint.

It is ironic because the role of the judiciary is restraint. Judges are called upon to interpret the law and establish its limits. They are now making the law and erasing its boundaries. Federal judges now wield seemingly unlimited power. They strike down laws, executive orders and regulations at a stroke of a pen. Even the American president is subservient to the actions of these unelected, unaccountable, public servants-now-made-masters.

Free Book: Return to Order: From a Frenzied Economy to an Organic Christian Society Where Weve Been, How We Got Here, and Where We Need to Go

Two recent cases serve to illustrate this expansion of powers. President Trump, as commander-in-chief, sought to prevent “transgendered” people from enlisting in the military. His decision was struck down by a single U.S. district judge. Then, his executive order nullifying the previous president’s executive order regarding the so-called Dreamer illegal immigration program (DACA) was likewise stopped in its tracks by the action of a single federal judge from San Francisco.

These are not just rogue judges who have exceeded their powers. Rather, their actions reflect the disintegration of the constitutional order they swore to defend. When there is no order, everything is possible, and judges can become tyrants.

The Concept of a Constitution—More than Just a Document
Many think that the Constitution only consists of the legal document crafted by the Founders, ratified, and amended over time. However, a constitution is more than a document. It is a body of doctrines, customs and practices that comprise the fundamental organizing principles of a state. It may be written like the U.S. Constitution. It may also be unwritten, like that of Britain that relies upon a collection of documents, traditional practices and customs. According to the English political philosopher Viscount Henry Bolingbroke, a constitution is “the general system, according to which the community hath agreed to be governed.”

Even the U.S. Constitution relies upon unwritten concepts. It employs many phrases and terms that are found in the British legal vocabulary. It is based on English common law that goes back some 800 years and thus reflects many institutions, laws and customs, written and unwritten developed over the centuries.

What Does Saint Thomas Say About Immigration?

The great conservative thinker, Russell Kirk highlighted the importance of these unwritten elements saying that “beneath any formal constitution—even beneath our Constitution…—lies an unwritten constitution much more difficult to define, but really more powerful”: This unwritten constitution consists of “the body of institutions, customs, manners, conventions, and voluntary associations which may not even be mentioned in the formal constitution, but which nevertheless form the fabric of social reality and sustain the formal constitution.”

That is to say, the American Constitution is only as strong as the institutions that hold it up. The whole social fabric sustains it. When those supports are broken, the constitutional order also suffers.

A Higher Law Tradition
The American Constitution is also based on divine and natural law. It was conceived in a higher law tradition. Both Sir William Blackstone and Sir Edward Coke, the ultimate authorities on the English common law adopted by America, claim that it is strongly influenced by higher law as summarized by the Ten Commandments. This higher law is defined by Blackstone as “binding over all the globe, in all countries, and at all times: no human laws are of any validity, if contrary to this.”

Indeed, William J. Federer wrote a book titled The Ten Commandments and their Influence on American Law. It is an exhaustive compilation of texts that show how each of the Commandments historically impacted the development of law in America as established by the Constitution. The Commandments are intertwined with American law even today.

What does Saint Thomas Aquinas say about Marriage?

Thus, the U.S. Constitution is a document that, like it or not, reflects ancient customs, institutions, and laws of the past. It is based on a higher law tradition that again, like it or not, is reflected in the Ten Commandments. This is simply a historical fact, not an interpretation. This is the stable foundation upon which American law once rested.

A Constitutional Crisis of Unprecedented Gravity
The crisis facing the American judiciary today is fundamentally constitutional and of unprecedented gravity. It is not just a problem of rogue judges overextending their power. Rather the problem lies in the destruction of the foundational premises and institutions of American law and society.

For decades the entire legal tradition regarding social institutions has been challenged as reflected in decisions on moral issues like abortion, pornography and homosexual “marriage.” The stable nature of law has been replaced by the concept of a “living” evolving constitution that changes with the liberal whims of those who interpret it. The higher law tradition has been abandoned so that morality is no longer objective but reflects the relativistic and permissive whims that dominate American culture.

Above all, the concept of ordered liberty, so prized by the Founders, no longer means the control of the enslaving passions that prevent the person from making choices toward a perceived good. Instead, it has come to signify the anarchical concept of the autonomy of every individual to ultimately judge and determine what is right and wrong. This denial of moral limits is found in the infamous U.S. Supreme Court decision, Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v. Casey, in which Justice Anthony Kennedy states: “At the heart of liberty is the right to define one’s own concept of existence, of meaning, of the universe, and of the mystery of human life.”

Creating the Conditions for Judges to Wield Unlimited Power
An atmosphere in which all is permitted destroys the notion of restraint inherent to law. The idea of a living, evolving constitution demolishes its certainties. The inevitable consequences can only be the disintegration and fragmentation of the constitutional order that once united the nation. It further reflects a fragmented culture that likewise respects neither restraint nor certainties.

Thus, the judicial tyranny in which judges wield unlimited power becomes possible. Where there is no consensus about what is to be limited, nothing can be forbidden. Where no higher law binds society to a universal moral code, judges become a law unto themselves. The destruction of Kirk’s “unwritten constitution” ends up overturning the written one. A fragmented America no longer has the conditions to maintain that “general system, according to which the community hath agreed to be governed.”

In such a backdrop, judges reign supreme, holding the nation hostage by their diktat as to what constitutes or not the supreme law of the land. They abuse the rule of law to enforce their distorted interpretations. They are accountable to no one.

Good judges are essential for the future but more important is good law—especially higher law that is both compass and anchor to a truly constitutional and moral order under God.

The Real Issues Underlying the Dreamer Debate

by John Horvat II

The problem with the “dreamer” debate is that it has little to do with children or their dreams.

Most of the “dreamer children” are now adults. On average, the 800,000 recipients of the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program who entered America illegally as minors—alone, or brought by parents or relatives—are about 24-years-old today. Their dreams are also nothing unique or special. They consist of a path toward U.S. citizenship, a goal shared by millions worldwide.

Put succinctly, the only difference between “dreamers” and the millions of other minors who entered America illegally over the last half-century is a bureaucratic one: At some point within the last five or so years “dreamers” filed a DACA application.

Free Book: Return to Order: From a Frenzied Economy to an Organic Christian Society Where Weve Been, How We Got Here, and Where We Need to Go

Forgotten Considerations
This lackluster distinction notwithstanding, the DACA rescission debate has been framed in the imagination of many Americans as a highly emotional narrative. It evokes images of Elian Gonzalez-likechildren being torn at gunpoint from the arms of sorrowing relatives; aspiring high school and college students removed from dorms and classrooms; enterprising youngsters removed from jobs where they are esteemed by their co-workers. Supposedly, they are now to be deported by heartless ICE agents to a home country they barely knew and where they now lack roots and the loving support of family and friends.

While dishonest, this framing of the narrative is powerfully effective. An ocean of emotions drowns out anyone trying to focus attention on the tortured issue’s important elements. The organized crime role of “coyotes” and enablers who helped “dreamers” enter America illegally goes unaddressed. Forgotten is the fact that the parents of “dreamers” are just as likely to be undocumented, so families need not be broken up but can stay together as they return to their home country. The same goes for the unfairness, nay the injustice, in rewarding the dreamer parents’ scofflaw entry into the country, their cutting in line ahead of the millions of others who respect and obey the country’s sovereignty and immigration laws. Likewise, the anarchical behavior of President Obama himself who admitted he had no authority to implement a DACA-like executive measure granting administrative amnesty, and then did it.

Anyone raising such considerations is shouted down and denounced as lacking compassion. Ironically, the compassion toward the dreamers is not extended to the citizen realists who raise legitimate concerns about the nation’s future.

Using Young People as Pawns
Thus, the debate over DACA is not about children and dreams. It has turned these poor young people into hostages of a contrived narrative, using them as mere pawns in a bigger game—the charting of America’s course as a nation and the determining of what role government will continue to have.

In this broader struggle for America’s soul, liberals see DACA as an ideal battlefield. They have occupied the higher ground by wrapping themselves in the flag of fuzzy warm compassion. They have infused the issue with emotional hype, making rational debate impossible. This passionate framing of the narrative has divided conservatives. They are torn between Christian compassion and the need to uphold the rule of law. With the media as its willing partner, liberals see this conservative division as a win-win situation to be exploited.

A Debate Clouded by Emotion and Political Positioning
When policy becomes clouded with emotion and political positioning, it endangers the nation. The longer a solution is delayed by emotional stewing, the more difficult the problem will be to resolve. That is why the implications of DACA extend beyond immigration.

What Does Saint Thomas Say About Immigration?

When nations allow themselves to be run by emotions and feelings, they place themselves on the fast track to destruction. When feelings can be evoked to create “rights” for every individual who calls himself the victim of injustice, then nothing is sacred. When emotions control the granting of entitlements, then no budget can endure.

When feelings become the leading standard of judgment, they are easily turned against those who oppose these expressions of false compassion. There is no fury equal to that of those who attack the defenders of duty, virtue, and the rule of law. There is no greater tyranny than those whose passions are unleashed against God and reason.

How the DACA debacle will be resolved is still unclear. However, one thing is certain: Only a return to sound principles coupled with a practical wisdom in their implementation can provide just, quick, and compassionate solutions.

Maneuvering to a Better Battlefield and Victory
Since the ocean of emotions is a battlefield upon which conservatives cannot win, they should pivot to where they hold the advantage. This new battlefield must be based both on the rule of law and on principled compassion. Accordingly, it should be informed by the following principles and considerations:

1. It is the natural right of the State to regulate immigration into its territories in the interest of the common good of its citizens. It also has the duty to protect the nation’s best interests in the realms of defense, economy, health, culture, and social harmony and cohesion.

What does Saint Thomas Aquinas say about Marriage?

2. While every individual has a natural right to immigrate, this is not an absolute right enforceable against an established nation. From time immemorial, an immigrant’s admission into a host country has depended and continues to depend on the approval of that nation’s government. Government consent, freely given, is what distinguishes immigration from invasion.

3. The natural moral law obliges those who immigrate to respect the laws of the country in which they settle and to obey its government.

4. Illegal immigration is subversive of a nation’s common good and order since it disobeys just laws. It anarchically upends government policies, programs, and quotas implemented to regulate and order immigration prudently.

5. While there is much truth in Bismarck’s statement that “Politics is the art of the possible, the attainable—the art of the next best,” the first natural duty of officeholders in a representative democracy is to honor their campaign promises. In so doing, they keep faith with their constituents and build much-needed social trust in their pledged word as political leaders. This is a rule of honor, but it also guarantees their political base’s continued support.

6. Just as uninterrupted adverse possession (“squatters rights”) under common law can engender property rights over time (Montana’s time limit is five years, New Jersey is thirty), so also, analogously, an illegal immigrant’s long-tolerated illegal presence—even when due to the negligence or complicity of previous administrations—can gradually engender an equitable right to his continued stay. Thus, in deportation proceedings, it is wrong to treat all illegal immigrants equally. Clearly, one who has been in the country uninterruptedly for thirty years has a different standing than one who has only been here for three.

7. An immigrant’s assimilation of the country’s heritage and culture is essential in maintaining social cohesion and harmony.

8. Saint Thomas Aquinas defends this cultural assimilation and explains that since it takes time, citizenship should not be immediate but should be delayed.

9. Federal law cannot be ignored. The enacting and changing of immigration laws are the purview of Congress. The role of the Executive and Judicial branches of government is to uphold the law. All three branches should strive to collaborate harmoniously for the nation’s common good.

The immigration crisis involves situations that need to be analyzed with great care. Solving this issue entails moral and prudential judgments that are best made quietly, without a media circus. It should not be simplified and infused with emotion. Rather, it must be addressed wisely by government.

With this practical wisdom, both the legitimate rights of illegal immigrants and the common good of the nation can and should be harmonized in keeping with the principles of justice and charity. Failure to respect this balance can lead the country to chaos.

No one will contest that immigration policy should be just, ample, and equitable. It should be charitable and compassionate. Reasonable efforts should be employed to alleviate hardships and adapt to particular circumstances. However, the system should be fair for all by rewarding compliance and punishing subversion. It should inspire social trust through its solid grounding in legal and equitable principle and good policy.

The debate over DACA is not about children and dreams. It is about a bitterly divided America. It is about grave concerns that there will soon no longer be an America about which to dream. It is the struggle between one America that wants a return to order and the rule of law, and another that dismisses sovereignty, borders, and the very concept of a nation.

The Real Issues Underlying the Dreamer Debate - Return to Order