How did Locke’s social contract theory influence the Constitution?

“Bills of attainder, ex-post-facto laws, and laws impairing the obligation of contracts, are contrary to the first principles of the social compact, and to every principle of sound legislation.”

– James Madison, in the Federalist Papers (Federalist No. 44)

David Hume criticized the idea that all governments began by a “social contract” …

The philosopher David Hume once criticized social contract theory for saying that all governments began by an actual social contract (see my previous blog post for the details of this quote). In his “Essays, Moral, Political, Literary,” for example, he said that this account was “not justified by history or experience, in any age or country of the world.”  (Source: Part II, Essay XII – entitled “Of the Original Contract”) Some of Hume's criticisms of the theory of social contracts may be valid (including this one), and the idea that all governments actually began in this way is indeed unsupported by the historical evidence, as Hume said. Many social contract theorists have actually agreed with this much, and have modified their theories accordingly to accommodate this criticism. They say that the “social contract theory” is still a workable model even without this claim that governments actually began in this way.

David Hume

… but the Constitution is itself a “social contract”

But regardless of the historical origins of government (which I have discussed earlier), one might note with some satisfaction that some “social contracts” really have been enacted between government and their people, and that the Constitution itself was one of these “social contracts” (even if it was after Hume’s time, which it was). People agreed to obey the laws by creating a government that had the power to make them, and which had the power to punish violations of those laws via some particular clauses in the document. The people also agreed to pay taxes, and to do a few other things which I will not elaborate upon in this post. In return, the government agreed (not always very truthfully) to refrain from doing certain things, and to consider itself in violation of these laws anytime that it did them anyway. (Even government is not above the laws, as the Founding Fathers made clear.) Our Constitution was thus an application of social contract theory, which came from the writings of people like John Locke.

John Locke

Some have questioned whether Locke was an influence on the Constitution …

Some have questioned today whether John Locke had much of an influence on the Constitution. The political scientist Donald Lutz, for example, said that “Locke is profound when it comes to the bases for establishing a government and for opposing tyranny, but has little to say about institutional design. Therefore his influence most properly lies in justifying the revolution and the right of Americans to write their own constitutions rather than in the design of any constitution, state or national. Locke's influence has been exaggerated in the latter regard, and finding him hidden in passages of the U.S. Constitution is an exercise that requires more evidence than has hitherto ever been provided.”(Source: The American Political Science Review, Vol. 78, No. 1, March 1984, p. 192-193) I have a lot of respect for Donald Lutz, I should make clear, and have actually quoted him elsewhere in this series as an authority on what influenced the Founding Fathers. But I nonetheless must disagree with him on this particular point, and hold that Locke influenced particular passages in the Constitution. In fairness to Mr. Lutz, I should acknowledge that he did not question that Locke was influential on the Founding Fathers, even in this quote – indeed, he believed that Locke was quoted by the Founding Fathers more than any other thinker, besides Montesquieu or William Blackstone. But I will endeavor to show some evidence here that Locke influenced our Constitution, and that his influence can be found in particular passages within the document.

John Locke

A review of “Ancient Rome: The Rise and Fall of an Empire” (BBC)

Not to be confused with “Rome: Rise and Fall of an Empire” (by the History Channel).

“Ancient Rome: The Rise and Fall of an Empire” is neither a documentary nor a history. It uses too many re-enactments (and too little narration) to be considered a traditional documentary, and it is too sporadic and episodic to be considered a history. It does not observe the chronology well enough to be considered a true history of Ancient Rome. One episode in particular is out of chronological order, and even the others only cover brief episodes in Roman history. The gaps between them are measured in decades (and sometimes even centuries), so nothing like a comprehensive overview is even attempted. However, we should not conclude from these things that the BBC's efforts are without merit here. On the contrary, they have much to offer for the Roman Empire buff and the student of history. They even succeed in being entertaining, and bringing these events to life – which is not a small consideration, for a program on public television.

A review of “The Roman Empire in the First Century” (PBS Empires)

“And it came to pass in those days, that there went out a decree from Cæsar Augustus, that all the world should be taxed.”

- The New Testament, “The Gospel According to St. Luke,” Chapter 2, Verse 1 (as translated by the King James Version of the Bible)

Since this documentary was first shown in 2001, there have been a few other documentaries made about Ancient Rome. These include a six-hour program by the BBC, and a ten-hour program by the History Channel. By contrast, this PBS program is only four hours long, so you might expect it not to be as “in-depth.” If so, you'd be wrong; because these other programs cover much broader time periods than just the first century. This gives them an advantage over PBS in these other periods, but it also means that they can't cover this narrower period in as much depth as PBS does. If it's the first century you're after, this is definitely the documentary to go to; and so it has a lot to offer in this regard. Nonetheless, all of these programs add something to one's knowledge of the history; so the true Roman Empire buff will probably want to consult all of them. If you prefer dramatizations with lots of re-enactments, the BBC and the History Channel are probably more up your alley than this PBS program. But if you like period images (including statues and archaeological sites), you will find much to enjoy in this documentary by PBS.

How my views on government are influenced by my faith

“That our belief with regard to earthly governments and laws in general may not be misinterpreted nor misunderstood, we have thought proper to present, at the close of this volume, our opinion concerning the same.”

- Heading to Section 134 of “The Doctrine and Covenants of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints” (written 1835)

I am a member of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, which influences how I see the world …

Since the presidential elections of 2012, Latter-Day Saint candidates have featured prominently in the United States. People who normally have no interest in hearing about The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints would sometimes make exceptions for hearing about Latter-Day Saint candidate Mitt Romney, because of his being the Republican presidential nominee. Ironically, the church has long made it clear that it “does not endorse, promote or oppose political parties, candidates or platforms,” and that it does not “attempt to direct its members as to which candidate or party they should give their votes to.” (Source: The Mormon Newsroom). However, it does speak out on some political issues at times, and its scriptures include some prominent beliefs about governments and laws. Thus, I thought I would go over these beliefs about governments and laws here, and allow people outside the church to hear them (if they so choose) from a practicing member of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints.

American flag

Behind the Iron Curtain: Occupation by the Soviet Union

"While the Wall is the most obvious and vivid demonstration of the failures of the Communist system - for all the world to see - we take no satisfaction in it; for it is, as your mayor [of West Berlin] has said, an offense not only against history but an offense against humanity, separating families, dividing husbands and wives and brothers and sisters, and dividing a people who wish to be joined together."

- American president John F. Kennedy, in his "Ich bin ein Berliner" speech (June 26, 1963)

World War II had just ended; but for parts of Eastern Europe, the nightmare was just beginning ...

During the Second World War, Eastern Europe was unfortunately caught in the crossfire between Hitler's Nazi Germany and Stalin's Soviet Russia. Conquest by either one meant certain tyranny and subjugation, but to be caught on the losing side of this struggle for the Eastern Front would mark one's country for revenge, terrible and swift. It was not known yet who would be the winner, and the two sides were so ruthless to begin with that any additional punishment from the eventual victor was a terrifying prospect for them. Perhaps partially for this, the nations of Eastern Europe decided to choose sides in this struggle, hoping to promote their interest; and some paid a heavy price for making the wrong choices in these matters. But all were doomed to suffer in one way or another, and even the ones whose alliances had actually served their interest in these years were condemned to suffer in a communist occupation later on, regardless of which side they had served at this earlier time. The eventual winner on the "Eastern Front" was, of course, Soviet Russia; and it imposed its will without any mercy on the nations that it had conquered.

Red Army raises Soviet flag in Berlin after taking the city, May 1945

Some parts of Eastern Europe were already occupied before World War II

To be clear, some of these nations were already conquered before the war started, and some had been part of the "Union of Soviet Socialist Republics" (or "USSR") since the moment of its creation in 1922. (This is the political entity that is better known today - and was known then - as the "Soviet Union.") They were thus already puppet states that had been annexed by the USSR. Others became puppet states that were made part of the Soviet Union in 1940 - after World War II had begun in Europe, but before the Soviet entry into the war in 1941. These states were annexed at this time instead. Others became puppet states much later on in the war - or even after, in some cases. Although some of these states were never actually annexed into the Soviet Union - possibly to create the illusion that the Russians were actually keeping their World War II treaty promises of non-interference - they were nonetheless controlled from Moscow as much as any of the others. These included Bulgaria, Czechoslovakia, East Germany, Hungary, Poland, and Romania - and, for a brief time, Yugoslavia and Albania. (More on the special status of these two nations later in this post.) Together with the Soviet states, these nations were all then part of what was called the "Eastern Bloc." For these nations, the ordeal of Soviet occupation began during - and in some cases, after - World War II, and the long nightmare of "no peace" would be followed by the even longer nightmare of no freedom. It is these nations that I will focus on here, since their distance from the center of Soviet power encouraged them to attempt more revolts against the communist occupation - revolts that (unfortunately), before 1989, did not succeed.

Border changes in the Eastern Bloc, from 1938 to 1948

Why dropping the bombs on Japan was the RIGHT thing to do

“We the undersigned, acting by authority of the German High Command, hereby surrender unconditionally to the Supreme Commander, Allied Expeditionary Force and simultaneously to the Supreme High Command of the Red Army all forces on land, at sea, and in the air who are at this date under German control.”

– “Act of Military Surrender Signed at Berlin,” on 8 May 1945

Nazi Germany had just surrendered, but the war in the Pacific continued in full force …

In May 1945, Nazi Germany finally surrendered to the Allies. It was a day of great rejoicing, and the Allies had cause to rejoice at that time. But the Second World War was not yet over, because there was another conflict going on in the Pacific. That conflict was with Japan; and it continued to produce American casualties as a great battle raged at Okinawa. My grandfather was fighting there at Okinawa, and he was among a number who were psychologically scarred by the experience. Others were physically scarred, and others were sent home in coffins, never to be heard from again (or seen alive again). Okinawan civilians jumped off cliffs at this time, in the “certain” knowledge that they would be mistreated by the Americans. The few survivors were glad to find out that the Americans were much nicer than the Japanese propaganda films had portrayed them to be; but many a Japanese soldier preferred suicide to surrender, and actually committed suicide at this time. If we had been forced to invade the Japanese home islands, it seems that this scenario would have been repeated time and time again, with the same grim costs in human life. Such was the wisdom of instead bombing Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

US Marines pass a dead Japanese soldier in a destroyed village - Okinawa, April 1945

A review of “Kingdom of David: The Saga of the Israelites” (PBS Empires)

“And David perceived that the LORD had confirmed him king over Israel, for his kingdom was lifted up on high, because of his people Israel.”

- The Hebrew Bible, “The First Book of the Chronicles,” Chapter 14, Verse 2 (as translated by the King James Version of the Bible)

The title of this documentary is only partially correct – it's not about the “Kingdom of David”

The title of this documentary is only partially correct. This is indeed “The Saga of the Israelites,” but it actually has very little coverage of the “Kingdom of David” itself (although it's still a great documentary despite this). It is actually a documentary on a different topic, and has a broader focus than the brief “Kingdom of David.” It instead covers a much broader period of history, including Judaism's clashes with the Greeks and Romans. If you go into this documentary expecting its title to be accurate, you may thus be somewhat disappointed. But this documentary has much to offer despite these things, and covers some history that you may not have heard about. A few Americans will have already heard these stories, I think, but I suspect that most have not; and I was definitely in this category before watching this. I think that I can recommend this documentary to everyone – both Jews and Gentiles.