Was Prohibition a unjust law?

[mikekle]

Because it would be a vote loser, as the opposition would turn round and claim that they were being “soft on drugs”. They’d much rather lock people up, even if it is counter-productive, because a lot of voters like to see people being locked up for breaking the law. It makes it look like the authorities are being “tough on crime”. The fact that the ‘war on drugs’ isn’t working is neither here nor there.

Well, then the american people have forgotten what it is to be an american…if these people had lived during the time of the nations founding, they would not last too long! Nobody wanted anything to do with anyone that sided with authority.

 

[Brendan_64]

Well, then the american people have forgotten what it is to be an american…if these people had lived during the time of the nations founding, they would not last too long! Nobody wanted anything to do with anyone that sided with authority.

And yet all authority comes from God. That is what our Church teaches.

 

[The_Serpent]

I’m thinking about the historical context of prohibition, and while it was undeniably a bad idea, I’m thinking that disregarding it would still have been a sin. After all, consuming illegal alcohol would have supported the criminal organizations that provided it. One would, in effect, be financially supporting thieves and murderers as well as smugglers, and I can’t see how that’s justifiable.

I am wondering what exactly it is that makes a law “just”, though. Is there a section in the catechism that explains it? And if not, can anybody give a more complete explanation?

So do you favor Legalization of drugs as a lesser evil? Thus preventing an underground evil power influencing society. Consider the recent Mexican cartel arrest, he made a Billion dollars.

 

[The_Serpent]

Your constitution does not make any reference to these rights as coming from God. None at all.

The Church does teach that we follow all civil laws unless they are “contrary to the demands of the moral order, to the fundamental rights of persons or the teachings of the Gospel” (this does not include the Constitution of the USA).

No it does not. Your constitution makes no reference to God at aall. All the rights in your constitution are legal rights that have been granted to men living under your political system. Maintaining that the constitution recognises god-given rights holds the constitution up to be something that it does not. Your constitution is simply a piece of man-made legislation, nothing more.

The Constitution doesn’t make reference to God, or rights coming from him. But the Declaration of Independence does. The Constitution and the Declaration together are the Supreme Law of the Land; it is recognized in law that way.

 

[Kamaduck]

So do you favor Legalization of drugs as a lesser evil? Thus preventing an underground evil power influencing society. Consider the recent Mexican cartel arrest, he made a Billion dollars.

I haven’t thought about it much, but I do think that the prison system is a wreck. Legalizing drug use and working to make treatment for addicts more widely available sounds like a good way to clean it out.

But of course, that doesn’t mean I think it’s OK to use recreational drugs. It just means I think our current political fight against drug use may be doing more harm than good for everyone involved.

 

[The_Serpent]

OK. Since drinking alcohol isn’t a fundamental right, I guess it would be a just law. Right?

But we do have a right to “the Pursuit of Happiness”; that prohibition law interfered with that pursuit of happiness.

“Wine was created from the beginning to make men joyful, and not to make them drunk. Wine drunken in moderation is the joy of the soul and the heart. Sober drinking is health to soul and body.” Ecclesiasticus 31: 35 - 37

 

[Kamaduck]

But we do have a right to “the Pursuit of Happiness”; that prohibition law interfered with that pursuit of happiness.

“Wine was created from the beginning to make men joyful, and not to make them drunk. Wine drunken in moderation is the joy of the soul and the heart. Sober drinking is health to soul and body.” Ecclesiasticus 31: 35 - 37

I don’t think that’s a valid argument. People can get happiness from drag racing, but there are laws against doing it on the highways because you could kill someone. The same logic was applied to alcohol- it caused unacceptable levels of social ills, and therefore we were better off without it. I don’t agree with that call, but I do think that the state had the right to make it.

 

[VeritasLuxMea]

The Constitution doesn’t make reference to God, or rights coming from him. But the Declaration of Independence does. The Constitution and the Declaration together are the Supreme Law of the Land; it is recognized in law that way.

The Declaration of Independence is a document of cultural importance, but it is not a legal document.
Brendan64:

What has moral authority got to do with the Constitution of the USA? The Constitution is not a moral authority. It is simply a piece of legislation, nothing more.

Are “authorities” obliged to follow the law as well or only “non-authorities”? If the former, then what exactly is the disagreement here? You cannot rightfully exercise authority that you do not possess. Consequently, neither the United States government nor any government within the United States can ever enforce unconstitutional laws with the only exception being if they have undertaken the process required to alter or amend the U.S. Constitution. In other words, a law that contradicts a higher law is null and void.

 

[Kamaduck]

The Declaration of Independence is a document of cultural importance, but it is not a legal document.

Are “authorities” obliged to follow the law as well or only “non-authorities”? If the former, then what exactly is the disagreement here? You cannot rightfully exercise authority that you do not possess. Consequently, neither the United States government nor any government within the United States can ever enforce unconstitutional laws with the only exception being if they have undertaken the process required to alter or amend the U.S. Constitution. In other words, a law that contradicts a higher law is null and void.

They did amend the constitution for prohibition, though, so it was pretty clearly constitutional.

I guess it’s an important question for the concept of just laws in general, though. I would think that a constitutional government would have to follow its constitution, so does that mean that laws which contradict it are unjust, and we don’t morally have to follow them? Or does it just mean that the government representatives are sinning by passing them? Or something else?

This whole concept is still kind of confusing me. :hypno:

 

[Brendan_64]

I guess it’s an important question for the concept of just laws in general, though. I would think that a constitutional government would have to follow its constitution, so does that mean that laws which contradict it are unjust

Not necessarily. The justness of a law does not depend on the constitution of a particular nation. A constitution is simply another man-made piece of legislation, some (or all) of which may in itself be unjust.

and we don’t morally have to follow them? :

That depends on whether or not it is against current laws to break them. You are obliged to follow the laws passed in your country, whether they are constitutional or not. If a law is felt to be invalid then a challenge to that law ought to be made through the appropriate channels.

Or does it just mean that the government representatives are sinning by passing them?

There is nothing sinful about a government passing an unconstitutional law. The constitution is not a ‘moral compass’, it is simply a piece of man-made legislation in itself, nothing more.

This whole concept is still kind of confusing me. :hypno:

I think a lot of the confusion is related to giving a piece of man-made legislation a status that places it above man-made legislation. The constitution is simply a set of laws, nothing more. It is not some sort of moral compass, and what it frames cannot be inalienable, as only God can grant things that are inalienable, and the constitution was not written by God, in fact God isn’t even mentioned in the Constitution.

 

[freeRadical]

We are still bound by laws that we do not personally agree with.

I respectfully disagree. We are not bound by immoral laws. If tomorrow, the majority of this country thought that raping a woman should be legal, and Congress passed a law making it legal, would you say that was a just or unjust law? Would you still think you are bound to that law even though you do not personally agree to it?

Remember slavery was once the law of the land. Was it a just or unjust law? If slavery was legal today, would you feel bound to it even though you don’t personally agree with it.

 

[Beryllos]

Prohibition was a good idea whose time had not come, and still has not come. While alcohol is “natural” and traditional, it is fundamentally a mild chemical poison. It interferes with the normal function of the mind and body. If alcohol could magically disappear today, the world would immediately recover and be much better off.

Now, let it be known that I enjoy an occasional drink or three. When I have a few beers in me, all the jokes seem funnier, Are they really funnier? No. It’s an illusion. Under the influence of alcohol, I can no longer distinguish between good jokes and stupid jokes. Alcohol impairs the function of the funniness lobe of my brain. After I have had a few beers, music sounds better. It sounds just amazing. Is the music really better. No. It’s an alcohol-facilitated illusion.

So let me ask you, what good does alcohol bring about. You talk about law and liberty, yeah, I got that, but what is the positive reason to add alcohol to your body and impair its function? For example, does it improve relations between friends? Does it make us happy? Does it really?

 

[Kamaduck]

Not necessarily. The justness of a law does not depend on the constitution of a particular nation. A constitution is simply another man-made piece of legislation, some (or all) of which may in itself be unjust.

But I think what VeritasLuxMea is saying is that that’s where the government gets their authority. If the existing governmental structure doesn’t matter, then how are we defining a “law” at all? What is a law? What is a government?

That depends on whether or not it is against current laws to break them. You are obliged to follow the laws passed in your country, whether they are constitutional or not. If a law is felt to be invalid then a challenge to that law ought to be made through the appropriate channels.

So if following a law required breaking existing higher laws, THEN we wouldn’t have to follow it. But otherwise we would. Yes?

There is nothing sinful about a government passing an unconstitutional law. The constitution is not a ‘moral compass’, it is simply a piece of man-made legislation in itself, nothing more.

But they themselves would be breaking the rules that have been set out for them. Like, if they tried to pass a law that violated the first amendment, I would think they would be sinning, because the first amendment has legal authority. They can’t just break it without going through the proper channels to amend it. Can they?

Otherwise, the government can morally pass any law it wants to, even if it goes against existing higher laws. What’s the point of having a constitution in the first place if governments, by their nature, are unlimited and can do whatever they want?

I think a lot of the confusion is related to giving a piece of man-made legislation a status that places it above man-made legislation. The constitution is simply a set of laws, nothing more. It is not some sort of moral compass, and what it frames cannot be inalienable, as only God can grant things that are inalienable, and the constitution was not written by God, in fact God isn’t even mentioned in the Constitution.

Yeah, but something that goes against it shouldn’t have any legal authority, and I thought these things only had moral authority because of legal authority? It’s be like a state legislature making a law that takes away rights granted by a federal law- the state legislature doesn’t have that authority.

Basically, I’m confused because I don’t understand what constitutes legal authority. I would think that a law would need to be backed by some kind of legal authority in order to count as a law at all, otherwise anyone could make a law whenever they wanted.

EDIT: I mean, I know you said governments get authority from God. But God didn’t come down and personally ordain the government a legitimate government- it’s only considered a government because other people, both inside and outside the country, recognize it as such. So I still feel like I’m missing something.

 

[Brendan_64]

I respectfully disagree. We are not bound by immoral laws. If tomorrow, the majority of this country thought that raping a woman should be legal, and Congress passed a law making it legal, would you say that was a just or unjust law? Would you still think you are bound to that law even though you do not personally agree to it?

Remember slavery was once the law of the land. Was it a just or unjust law? If slavery was legal today, would you feel bound to it even though you don’t personally agree with it.

I should have clarified. We are expected to follow all laws unless those laws are “contrary to the demands of the moral order, to the fundamental rights of persons or the teachings of the Gospel” CCC2242.

And it has nothing to do with whether or not you “personally agree with it”. It isn’t about what we, as individuals, personally agree with or not. It is about what, according to the teachings of the Church, is “contrary to the demands of the moral order, to the fundamental rights of persons or the teachings of the Gospel”. Whether or not an individual agrees with a law, or not, is irrelevant, it is about whether or not Church teaching agrees with a law.

 

[Brendan_64]

But I think what VeritasLuxMea is saying is that that’s where the government gets their authority.

No it’s not. All authority comes from God, and the Constitution is not the word of God. according to the teachings of the Church, legitimate civil authorities receive their authority to rule from God, not from a piece of paper written by men who died centuries ago.

So if following a law required breaking existing higher laws, THEN we wouldn’t have to follow it.

Yes you would, until such time as the law you were required to follow was deemed unlawful through proper legally agreed procedures. People themselves have no authority to decide that a particular law is unlawful.

But they themselves would be breaking the rules that have been set out for them. Like, if they tried to pass a law that violated the first amendment, I would think they would be sinning, because the first amendment has legal authority.

No the first amendment does not have authority. The first amendment is a law passed by people who once were in authority, but are now deceased. Authority now lies with the current civil authorities.

They can’t just break it without going through the proper channels to amend it. Can they?

Until it has been shown, through legitimate due process, that individuals have broken the law, and as such the new law has been legally declared invalid, then the new law stands.

Otherwise, the government can morally pass any law it wants to, even if it goes against existing higher laws.

Governments can pass any laws, and if it is thought it goes against higher laws, then that needs to be legally challenged through due process.

What’s the point of having a constitution in the first place if

A good point. Most western governments seem to operate well without any written constitution.

I mean, I know you said governments get authority from God. But God didn’t come down and personally ordain the government a legitimate government- it’s only considered a government because other people, both inside and outside the country, recognize it as such. So I still feel like I’m missing something.

That governments have authority from God is evident from the fact that they rule over us. It’s not about whether or not a government is legitimate or not, all who rule over us have received this authority to rule, from God. God does not subscribe to political ideologies (including Western democracy) so whether or not a government is considered ‘legitimate’ according to democratic principles is irrelevant. Authority to rule does not come from the people, we (in the West) may elect a government, but it rules by God’s authority, not by ours.

 

[VeritasLuxMea]

No it’s not. All authority comes from God, and the Constitution is not the word of God. according to the teachings of the Church, legitimate civil authorities receive their authority to rule from God, not from a piece of paper written by men who died centuries ago.

I’m trying very hard to wrap my head around what you’re saying and it’s just not working. You keep suggesting that all legitimate authority is derived from God and I haven’t disagreed with that, so why do you keep pressing that point?

What is the vehicle by which to exercise governmental authority if not the law? What is the U.S. Constitution if not the law? Then on the one hand you keep saying that we (speaking of Americans in this case) are bound to follow the law, but not the U.S. Constitution because… why? Because it’s not the law? It is the law.

No the first amendment does not have authority. The first amendment is a law passed by people who once were in authority, but are now deceased. Authority now lies with the current civil authorities.

Are you suggesting that laws expire when their originators die? Is that what you’re saying?

Until it has been shown, through legitimate due process, that individuals have broken the law, and as such the new law has been legally declared invalid, then the new law stands.

Governments can pass any laws, and if it is thought it goes against higher laws, then that needs to be legally challenged through due process.

Sure, that’s the process that we all seem to accept by default. Of course, accepting that the authorities will always rule in favor of the people and not in favor of expanding their own power is mighty foolish.

A good point. Most western governments seem to operate well without any written constitution.

The U.S. doesn’t operate without a Constitution though, and you’re obviously not going to redesign history to jive with your personal opinions by posting on CAF. This is reality. The U.S. has a written constitution.

Regardless, in every western government, there exists the ability to change any and all laws. This is possible within the U.S. as well. A legislator complaining about his/her inability to alter the U.S. Constitution is not much different than a legislator complaining about his/her inability to get a majority vote for a piece of legislation. You don’t like it? Change it. You can’t get enough votes to change it? Tough luck.

 

[Kamaduck]

No it’s not. All authority comes from God, and the Constitution is not the word of God. according to the teachings of the Church, legitimate civil authorities receive their authority to rule from God, not from a piece of paper written by men who died centuries ago.

I don’t think I understand how this works on a practical level. I don’t understand what makes a group of people a government, and not just a bunch of people who told somebody to do something.

Yes you would, until such time as the law you were required to follow was deemed unlawful through proper legally agreed procedures. People themselves have no authority to decide that a particular law is unlawful.

So people don’t have authority, laws do.

No the first amendment does not have authority. The first amendment is a law passed by people who once were in authority, but are now deceased. Authority now lies with the current civil authorities.

So you’re saying that laws don’t have authority? Only the people who make them do, and only as long as they’re alive? Can they morally order anything they want (so long as the order is not immoral), even if it disregards existing laws?

Until it has been shown, through legitimate due process, that individuals have broken the law, and as such the new law has been legally declared invalid, then the new law stands.

Governments can pass any laws, and if it is thought it goes against higher laws, then that needs to be legally challenged through due process.

OK. That makes sense. I think. If the new law required people to break an existing law, then would we go with the more recent law, not the higher law?

I’m also assuming you’re only referring to just laws. Would it be a sin to pass an unjust law?

That governments have authority from God is evident from the fact that they rule over us. It’s not about whether or not a government is legitimate or not, all who rule over us have received this authority to rule, from God. God does not subscribe to political ideologies (including Western democracy) so whether or not a government is considered ‘legitimate’ according to democratic principles is irrelevant. Authority to rule does not come from the people, we (in the West) may elect a government, but it rules by God’s authority, not by ours.

OK. That’s a definition I can work with. So anybody who rules over me is, for moral purposes, part of the government? Including my legal guardians, I presume. What about teachers? If I disobey a classroom rule, is it morally equivalent to breaking a civil law? Or if I disobey my battalion commander, another student in my grade who has been given a measure of authority over me, is that also equivalent? All of those people have been given authority directly from God, and that’s why I have to follow them?

I’m trying really hard to understand this.

 

[Brendan_64]

I’m trying very hard to wrap my head around what you’re saying and it’s just not working. You keep suggesting that all legitimate authority is derived from God and I haven’t disagreed with that, so why do you keep pressing that point?

Because it is being implied and stated that a government somehow receives its authority from the Constitution. Authority does not come either frolm an existing law, or from the people, it comes from God.

IWhat is the vehicle by which to exercise governmental authority if not the law? What is the U.S. Constitution if not the law? Then on the one hand you keep saying that we (speaking of Americans in this case) are bound to follow the law, but not the U.S. Constitution because… why? Because it’s not the law? It is the law.

Again, because it has been stated that the authority by which a government rules comes from the constitution. You are bound to follow any laws passed, and as an individual you do not have the authority to decide whether or not that law is valid (based on your understanding of a pre-existing law). Whether or not a law is valid or not is something for civil authorities and due process to decide, not the individual citizen. The civil authorities are in a position of authority on such matters, the individual is not.

IAre you suggesting that laws expire when their originators die? Is that what you’re saying?

No. What I am saying is that an already existing law is not a source of authority (as has been stated on here).

Sure, that’s the process that we all seem to accept by default. Of course, accepting that the authorities will always rule in favor of the people and not in favor of expanding their own power is mighty foolish.

That may be true, but, nevertheless, we are still bound to follow all laws passed by those civil authorities, unless those laws are contrary to Church teaching and scripture. There are certain, very limited, circumstances where we may overthrow a government (CCC 2243) but other than this we are bound to follow all the law. So even if we have a bad government made up of self-serving people, who disregard previous laws when setting legislation, we are still obliged to follow the laws that are set for us by that government (as they are in a position of God-given authority over us) unless those laws “are contrary to the demands of the moral order, to the fundamental rights of persons or the teachings of the Gospel”.

The U.S. doesn’t operate without a Constitution though, and you’re obviously not going to redesign history to jive with your personal opinions by posting on CAF. This is reality. The U.S. has a written constitution.

Yes it does, but the fact that it has a constitution does not mean that, as a Catholic, you are not obliged to follow laws made that appear to be contrary to the constitution (until such time as those laws have been legally overturned through due process).

Regardless, in every western government, there exists the ability to change any and all laws. This is possible within the U.S. as well. A legislator complaining about his/her inability to alter the U.S. Constitution is not much different than a legislator complaining about his/her inability to get a majority vote for a piece of legislation. You don’t like it? Change it. You can’t get enough votes to change it? Tough luck.

And if a law is passed that appears to be unconstitutional, then you are still obliged to comply with that law, even if it appears to conflict with your constitution. The civil authorities have the god-given authority to rule, and this authority does not derive either from a constitution, or from the citizens of that country.

 

[Kamaduck]

Because it is being implied and stated that a government somehow receives its authority from the Constitution. Authority does not come either frolm an existing law, or from the people, it comes from God.

Again, because it has been stated that the authority by which a government rules comes from the constitution. You are bound to follow any laws passed, and as an individual you do not have the authority to decide whether or not that law is valid (based on your understanding of a pre-existing law). Whether or not a law is valid or not is something for civil authorities and due process to decide, not the individual citizen. The civil authorities are in a position of authority on such matters, the individual is not.

No. What I am saying is that an already existing law is not a source of authority (as has been stated on here).

That may be true, but, nevertheless, we are still bound to follow all laws passed by those civil authorities, unless those laws are contrary to Church teaching and scripture. There are certain, very limited, circumstances where we may overthrow a government (CCC 2243) but other than this we are bound to follow all the law. So even if we have a bad government made up of self-serving people, who disregard previous laws when setting legislation, we are still obliged to follow the laws that are set for us by that government (as they are in a position of God-given authority over us) unless those laws “are contrary to the demands of the moral order, to the fundamental rights of persons or the teachings of the Gospel”.

Yes it does, but the fact that it has a constitution does not mean that, as a Catholic, you are not obliged to follow laws made that appear to be contrary to the constitution (until such time as those laws have been legally overturned through due process).

And if a law is passed that appears to be unconstitutional, then you are still obliged to comply with that law, even if it appears to conflict with your constitution. The civil authorities have the god-given authority to rule, and this authority does not derive either from a constitution, or from the citizens of that country.

OK… I think I understand this. I’m still a little hazy on how we know who and what has authority, but it’s not really applicable to the US, where the government is stable. (I really don’t know what I’m talking about with regards to authority, and I know that. I was just trying to understand it. Sorry if it came across like I was arguing.)

For all practical purposes, we basically have to follow all laws, provided that they are just. And if one of those laws goes against an existing law, we have to follow the new law instead of the existing law until and unless the government gets rid of it. That’s true even if it means breaking higher laws. Is that correct?

 

[Brendan_64]

So people don’t have authority, laws do.

No. Civil authorities have authority, the people don’t.

So you’re saying that laws don’t have authority?

Correct. Laws are created by authorities. Laws do not have authority in themselves, the civil authorities who govern possess authority.

Only the people who make them do, and only as long as they’re alive?

A law is not a person, so it cannot possess anything.

Can they morally order anything they want (so long as the order is not immoral), even if it disregards existing laws?

If an order is not immoral, how can it be immoral to order it?

I’m also assuming you’re only referring to just laws. Would it be a sin to pass an unjust law?

It may well be a sin, but because the person passing the law has sinned, that does not make it OK for us to disobey that law, unless of course the law was “contrary to the demands of the moral order, to the fundamental rights of persons or the teachings of the Gospel.”

What about teachers? If I disobey a classroom rule, is it morally equivalent to breaking a civil law? Or if I disobey my battalion commander, another student in my grade who has been given a measure of authority over me, is that also equivalent? All of those people have been given authority directly from God, and that’s why I have to follow them?

That’s correct. If someone has been given authority over you, then you are obliged to follow what they order you to do, so long as what they are ordering is within the limits of their jurisdiction.

For all practical purposes, we basically have to follow all laws, provided that they are just. And if one of those laws goes against an existing law, we have to follow the new law instead of the existing law until and unless the government gets rid of it. That’s true even if it means breaking higher laws. Is that correct?

That is my understanding of it. An existing law could be overturned in the courts, if that is how the legal system in that country operates.