If a president is restrained by an especially unjust law, can he act beside it?

[fakename]

If a president wanted to say, end abortion, and yet he was restrained by the constitution, then wouldn’t the constitution be an unjust law and so, not worth following?

I think he could, but I’m just double checking.

 

[JackQ]

If a president wanted to say, end abortion, and yet he was restrained by the constitution, then wouldn’t the constitution be an unjust law and so, not worth following?

I think he could, but I’m just double checking.

What would he do, federalize the entire National Guard and shut down all the clinics? He’d have to attempt a dictatorship to make it happen, and he would be impeached and removed from office forthwith. So it would seem that he would have to commit an injustice in order to make the attempt. But if I understand correctly, Catholicism doesn’t allow for wrongdoing in order to achieve a higher good, that is, ends don’t justify all means in our religion. Of course, that would be our last Catholic President for some time to come.

But you ask an interesting question. Can Catholics be consistent with their faith and serve in any government role other than legislator? For example, if a Catholic is on a lower court, he has to uphold Supreme Court precedent regarding abortion. If a Catholic soldier is ordered to fight in Iraq or Vietnam, he has to do it, regardless of whether it involves participating in an unjust war.

Yet there has been no directive from the Pope or bishops that Catholics cannot serve in these capacities. At the same time there has been little guidance on how Catholics in these positions should conduct themselves. Is there a Nuremburg defense available before the judgment seat of Christ?

Clearly, there comes a point where a Catholic has to say no to an unjust law. But I think the scenario you present would involve a President committing an injustice in order to achieve justice, which our religion does not allow. Still, your question is important because it raises the issue of exactly what level of participation in government should be permissible for Catholics.

 

[TheDoctor]

If a president wanted to say, end abortion, and yet he was restrained by the constitution, then wouldn’t the constitution be an unjust law and so, not worth following? I think he could, but I’m just double checking.

He could try, but he would be in direct violation of his oath of office and would probably be impeached:
"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."

 

[fakename]

user "Jack Q":

What would he do, federalize the entire National Guard and shut down all the clinics? He’d have to attempt a dictatorship to make it happen, and he would be impeached and removed from office forthwith. So it would seem that he would have to commit an injustice in order to make the attempt. But if I understand correctly, Catholicism doesn’t allow for wrongdoing in order to achieve a higher good, that is, ends don’t justify all means in our religion. Of course, that would be our last Catholic President for some time to come.

Well I just disagree that a dictatorship would be so bad given the case where a democracy is killing millions, nor do I think that arrogating so much power for one man would be extrinsically or intrinsically unjust in this case (unless of course by dictatorship, one meant that our dictator attempted to dissolve all subsidiarity but I’m not assuming, nor do I think that the scenario requires us to assume, that he does). If he does get impeached I think it would be for a good cause and plus, the impeachment would itself be absurd and unjust and so invalid.

But neither am I saying that america could use a dictator at this time, and actually there are some problems with a dictatorship RE: law which is that a law should reflect the moral standards of a people, but a dictatorship is established precisely to over-rule the will of the people. Perhaps, the law that a dictator follows is a higher law that states that it is customary to overthrow bad customs. But how is this not baldly illogical?

In any case I think it would take an extraordinary revolution to est. a dictator and unfortunately this evil may be worse than the evil of abortion. But then again, most revolutions are not as deadly as a bad regime -when the revolution takes power is when it usually turns south.