Blackboard Excercise of Psalm 52 (תהלים ל֞֞ב) in Hebrew and English: Why Hebrew Grammar is Necessary

[Partial Draft 0.2]

Writing Out Hebrew Verb Forms For Practice, קאל קטל וקאל יקטל (Blackboard photo)

Those of you who follow my doings on Facebook know that I regularly do language exercises on a blackboard in my kitchen, particularly Biblical Hebrew. I work through verses in the Torah, Proverbs, Psalms, etc., in a somewhat haphazard way, once in a while wandering back to an old set of verses after I learn more. I copy the verses in Hebrew, often in a parallel text, mark it up, and write notes. I intersperse with vocabulary and grammar practice. and try to work on something every week.

I do this for a number of reasons, including the simple fact that I learn language best when I can incorporate reading, writing, and speaking. I do copy work on paper often, but the blackboard has the advantage of being centrally located: I have to walk by it several times a day, every day, looking at the piece in progress, reading and thinking about it subconsciously, noticing mistakes, picking up the chalk to make small notes, sometimes stopping to read (or sing!) the verses aloud. Sometimes it becomes a focus of family discussion. The blackboard becomes a centerpiece to daily, continuous study.

My weekly posts are usually just photos of the piece and whatever snippets of thoughts I happen to have. The blackboard exercise which is at the center of this post is a bit more involved. Over a period of weeks, I have written and rewritten it, walked away, worked on aspects of grammar and come back several times. Part of the reason for that is that this time, instead of bypassing aspects of grammar and, especially, Hebrew verbs that I did not understand, simply taking the word of translations or commentaries, I finally had the tools to tackle them head on and, well, not conquer exactly, but at least end up holding the field. It has therefore become a crystallization of why I went down this road in the first place.

So, this time, by going through the blackboard exercise, I am going to use it to explain exactly why learning at least a critical mass of Hebrew grammar is necessary in the first place, why parallel translations, keyed texts, concordances, and a good dictionary are not, by themselves, enough. Nor am I-- or does everyone have to be-- a trained Hebraist. There is a point in-between where we can usefully muddle as we go without having to be all that and a plate of latkes.

(This is not targeted at a Hebrew scholar. You don't need to know anything at the start. Skim over what you don't understand and try to soak in why it might be useful to know more.)

The Text of Psalm 52 v 7-9

The exercise text is take from Psalm 52, verses 7 through 9. It is written in the blackboard with the English Revised Version (ERV) text on the right and the Biblia Hebraica Stutgartensia (BHS) Hebrew text on the right. Since English flows left-to-right and Hebrew right-to-left, this is a convenient form for verse numbers on the left and right edges and a center divider. The English text and the Hebrew text (or at least a very close one-- a subject for another day) are available at Bible Hub.

Note: If you read Hebrew numbers, you may notice that the Hebrew and English verse numbers do not actually match up. This is normal in the Psalms as the Hebrew Bibles generally count the prologue of the Psalms differently. If you do not read Hebrew numbers, what you don't know will not hurt you for now: the blue highlighted verse numbers in the Biblehub link I give match the King James versification.

Start With the Visual

Start just by looking at the verses in English and Hebrew, whether or not you can read any Hebrew words or even understand the letters. Notice that the Hebrew is quite compact, taking up considerably less room. The Hebrew characters represent consonant values with small markings called nikud or 'pointing' for the vowels and punctuation. The nikud is a relatively recent invention (Medieval period) and were not written in the original ancient text. A fluent Hebrew reader would have had to remember those details from their familiarity with the language, text, and tradition, jst as yu cn ryd ths yf yu fmlyr w/Englsh. The Hebrew is also compact because it chains small prefixes and suffixes to add preposition, subjects, object, etc., to a root word. A single word in ancient Hebrew might take most of an English sentence to express. "I will give thanks to thee" in the English here is all represented with "אודך" in the Hebrew, just four characters! We'll come back to that phrase later. A waw character (ו) is used to prefix a word with "and", which the Hebrews liked to use quite often to separate ideas, almost like punctuation. You see this in the beginning of verse 8 which starts with "ואני" or "But I". All these things give the Hebrew a unique character visually.

Next, note that these verses are part of a Psalm, a Hebrew prayer book or hymnal. Each verse is set in two parts which I break up in four lines. There is a Hebrew mark called a munach which looks like a carrot (^) under the logical midpoint of each verse. This is poetry folks, and that is often not reflected in the English at all! An English translation has to try to convey meaning, context, structure, idiom or imagery, poetic arrangement, etc., and different translations choose which of these to try to get across. That means, straight off, the question of which translation to use is always "it depends".

Using a Keyed Text Helps, But...

Some people use keyed study Bibles, usually using Strong's Numbers in small notations alongside the English words. These keyed texts are extraordinarily helpful, but, as we will see, have serious limitations as well. The next image shows these versus in my King James Hebrew-Greek Keyed Study Bible which I was given as a gift over twenty years ago. If you look at the word "man" in such a text, it has a helpful notation "1397" which is the Strong's Concordance number for the Hebrew word "גבר", often translated as "strong man" or "warrior". These words are defined in the dictionary in the back of the keyed Bible, but these days you can generally simply type "Strongs" followed by a number into your browser search bar and get a definition.

The key tells you that the Psalmist was not using the name "Adam" which is often used generically for "a human", nor the form of Enosh commonly used ("fallen man") but the word for a beefy self-reliant manly man. You may (or may not) be able to see that I use the same numbers on my blackboard, drawing connecting lines between English and Hebrew words or phrases noted with the Strong's numbers. In some cases, I write the number and definition at the bottom of the board. These standard numbers are probably the most helpful tool ever invented for basic study of the Hebrew Bible.

Looking at the keyed text, it is clear that not all of the words are noted (nor could they be without making a mess), and there is little indication of the problem of prefixes, suffixes, and whole phrases being glommed together in a handful of Hebrew characters. It is very difficult to see, that the "But I" in verse 8 is one word and that neither "am" nor any equivalent appears in the Hebrew (linking verbs-- essential in English-- are usually entirely absent). Although "will praise" is keyed here with 3034, it does not show that "thee" is included as a suffix. Finally, if you look up that key, it is very hard to have the foggiest clue how to go from the Hebrew yada (ידה) to an English future imperfect (actually, Hebrew verbs have no past-present-future tense at all as we understand it in English but something strange and subtly different).

Learning Enough Hebrew To Use a Lexicon/Dictionary

The next step deeper is to learn to read enough of the actual Hebrew characters to recognize and look up individual words. The compact dictionary at the back of the keyed text is a start, or you can try to do online searches, or sit down with a copy of a decent lexicon like the Brown-Driver-Briggs (BDB). There is no practical difference between 'lexicon' and 'dictionary', by the way: one word is Greek and the other Latin, but they both mean a list of words and their meanings. In any case, you will need to actually learn what the Hebrew letters mean, and train yourself to read them right-to-left. This takes work, clearly, but it is rewarding and can be fun.

Do not bother much with transliteration, being able to read and recognize 'bara' for 'he creates', for instance, except as very short-term training wheels to learn the actual alphabet (Aleph-Bet א-ב). Transliteration was never standardized, so the same word can be written several different ways. Searching for a transliterated word will just frustrate you. Nor will the transliteration tell you how to correctly pronounce the Hebrew without adding all kinds of phonetic symbols which end up being more work than just learning the letters correctly. Trust me: just learn the Hebrew Alphabet and learn to sing the song in your head, just like you may still do in English while alphabetizing files.

[...]

La Iglesia San Miguel Arcangelo and a Prayer of Saint Martin

When we were recently in Cozumel, we visited Iglesia San Miguel Arcangelo, the Church of Saint Michael the Archangel, on Benito Juarez. It has a beautiful and famous statue of the Archangel there which is the subject of various stories and an interesting history aside from the legends. As it happens, Michael the Archangel is my name-saint (my middle name, not my first), so I took some time exploring the church and the statue.

There were people there quietly praying, so I did not want to disturb them taking photographs inside. I did, however, sit in an alcove dedicated to San Martín de Porres (variously "St. Martin of the Fields" or "St. Martin of Tours" in English) and copy down a prayer displayed there by hand. St. Martin was a Roman knight who cut his own cloak in two to clothe a freezing beggar outside the gates of Amiens. He had a dream that night of Christ wrapped in his torn cloak, leading to Martin's baptism. He was a soldier who showed courage throughout his life but who also sacrificed to bring peace (party responsible for the Armistice being signed on his feast day, 11 November, which is now Veteran's Day). He became a patron of veterans, of volunteers, and of auxiliaries; his torn cloak is borrowed in the logo of our local Sheriff's Auxiliary as an emblem of personal sacrifice in the service of others.

In any case, having copied down the prayer, I promptly misplaced the paper. It reappeared yesterday in a vest pocket. It appears to be different from the typical Catholic devotionals for San Martín:

Oracion del San Martin de Porres
¡Oh! San Martin, atiéndeme.
En mis penas y tribulaciones, consuélame.
En mis dolencias y enfermedades, socorreme.
Dame la salud si me conviene y librame de calquiar mal del alma y cuerpo.
—Amen

[English Translation:]
Prayer of Saint Martin de Tours
Oh! Saint Martin, attend me.
In my sufferings and tribulations, console me.
In my pains and my infirmities, assist me.
Give to me health if it is suited to me, and free me from the faint impressions of the soul and body.

I try to translate "calquiar mal" as "faint impressions" here, given that "calquiar" (an unusual verb) means to copy a drawing by tracing on top of it. I may have also made a copy error here, myself, but there are no alternative verbs which seem a likely candidate for a simple handwriting mistake (comments welcome). There may also be idiom or imagery I am simply missing. It may refer to us being made in the image and likeness of God, but a faulty and imperfect likeness which leads to frailty and sin.

Given my Catholic upbringing (I became a Lutheran some years ago), the devotion to the saints which is still very much alive in the Hispanic churches interests me. I do not necessarily agree with a veneration of the saints to the extent it elevates them to a semi-divine status, but I do believe that trying to live by the example of the saints and using them as meditations for the understanding of our own troubles has a practical value in trying to live a good life. As Dietrich Bonhoeffer (WWII Lutheran theologian and martyr, executed by the Nazis), this may be something the Protestant churches have wrongly discarded.

Thinking of the saints as potential mediators between us and God (as in this prayer) may be a useful tool when we feel so low that we cannot approach the divine directly. We know that they were mortal, that they failed, that they fell down and got back up. But in many ways, that is also the meaning of Christ's ministry to us: Jesus is fully God and fully human. He knows what it is to experience the trials of the flesh, to suffer, and even to pray for relief. In Him, we can always find a bridge back to where we belong. But in any case, the reverence for the saints, their constant remembrance in the Hispanic Catholic devotions, impresses me. It gives me hope that an imperfect man, with a healthy dollup of God's grace and assistance, might remain imperfect, but nevertheless do "OK" in the end.

Πεποιθως αυτο τουτο οτι ο εναρξαμενος εν υμιν εργον αγαθον επιτελεσει αχρις ημερας Ιησοθ Χριστου; [Phillippians 1:6 ABP]

Being confident of this very thing, that he which began a good work in you will perfect it until the day of Jesus Christ; [Phillipians 1:6 ASV]

Actually, Terrorists Are Terrible at High-Tech

When I went to pick up the key for a library meeting room recently, it had a stack of sale books. I tend to monitor mainstream writing on terrorism, so, for a few peanuts, I picked up a book by Berry Davies BEM called "Terrorism- Inside a World Phenomenon". So far, I have gotten to page 3 and have a list of things that are misleading, misinformed, or just plain nonsense. Unfortunately, some of the claims are fairly common. Here is one:

Terrorists now use aircraft as smart bombs to destroy buildings and human suicide bombers to kill and mutilate the innocent. Moreover, terrorists have acquired an intimate knowledge of sophisticated modern weaponry, making the threat of a nuclear, chemical, or biological attack on a major population center inevitable.

There is no source for the 'intimate knowledge' statement. I can, in fact, find such claims in official government sources... going back to the 1950s. There have been people who have been quivering in fear of some two-bit terrorist with 'intimate knowledge' unleashing Armageddon from a rucksack for not-quite seventy years (usually connected to funding requests). Obviously, it hasn't happened, and although we do have a few rare examples of plots by sub-state actors involving Nuclear, Biological, or Chemical (NBC), such as the Tokyo Sarin gas attack, the few attempts are notable mostly for stunning failure. The Tokyo plot involved five attacks on three lines of a major subway, causing a total of twelve fatalities. There will likely be as many routine murders in Chicago between the time I write this and the time that you read it.

Now read the two quoted sentences together. The reason that the perpetrators of 9/11 used aircraft (piloted aircraft are, by definition not 'smart bombs') was because they lacked 'intimate knowledge' of 'sophisticated modern weaponry', let alone easy access to such weapons. They did not even have access to heavy aircraft without hijacking them or sufficient flight skills to fly them without sending people to the US for training (which caught the attention of an observant Minnesota FBI agent who was, nevertheless, ignored).

This is the same reason we know terrorists often turn to suicide bombing in the first place. Ahlamm Tamimi, the planner of the Sbarro Massacre in Jerusalem (2001) makes it clear that she used a suicide bomber because her previous attack failed due to a faulty timer and detonator. This is quite common. Even beyond timers and detonators, terrorists routinely screw up the explosives themselves. A common but highly-unstable terrorist explosive, TATP, has the distinction of killing at least as many bomb-makers as it does people they target.

This long string of failures is why they often plan from the start to fall back on firearms, knives, arson, trucks, etc., when the technical approach does not work. In the Paris Attacks, even though the explosives were made by ISIS' expert bomb-maker (Saleh Abdeslam, now dead), at least one vest did not explode. In the Orlando "Shooting", the explosives set by the attackers failed. In Nicé, the attacker didn't bother and just used a truck. Time and time again, terrorists demonstrate that they are not capable of using even fairly basic military technology.

This, of course, does not mean that terrorists are not a threat and that we should not try to stop them.

Certainly, someone willing to die in the attempt can do significant damage even with crude technology. Maybe some day a terrorist with more advanced technology will break the losing streak and will use NBC to some effect. The fear-mongers will crow at that point that they were right, but what it really would prove is that they have been wrong every day for well-over half-a-century. Terrorists are a threat, but not the kind of threat they are made out to be. By constantly trying to make them into something they are not, we are doing their job for them. After all, they are the terrorists: it is their job to make us afraid. So why do we keep churning out publications which do their PR-work?

Pro-Open Carry Court Decision in the 9th Circuit?

The 9th Circuit (Federal court including CA, Hawaii, see map) issued a 2-1 decision upholding the right of an individual to openly carry a firearm in public for self-defense under the 2nd Amendment, finding in favor of a petitioner who was summarily denied a carry permit in Hawaii. The Washington Post has a decent article. This post is for inquiring minds who want to read more about the background and implications of the decision without having to do the searching I did to find the bits and pieces. I include direct links to court opinions at the bottom.

A word of pessimism should be immediately noted: the last time the 9th Circuit issued a pro-Right-To-Keep-and-Bear-Arms (RTKBA) decision (Peruta v San Diego), it was reheard en banc (by the full panel of judges instead of just the original three) and reversed, even though the county declined to continue defending its position. When it was further appealed to the Supreme Court, SCOTUS refused to hear the case. Justice Thomas wrote an excellent and scathing dissent over the denial, joined by newly-arrived Justice Gorsuch.

This new opinion was actually written by the same justice who wrote the 2-1 Peruta opinion, Justice O'Scannlain. That original opinion was extremely well-written, well-researched, and well-supported in law. It leaned on research by Stephen Halbrook, an attorney who was involved in Heller and McDonald, into the judicial history of the RTKBA (author: "That Every Man Be Armed" and "The Founder's Second Amendment"). I would anticipate that this recent one will be as well (once I finish reading it.) None of that made any difference to the 9th Circuit majority. Justice Callahan, the judge who had joined with O'Scannlain in the 2-1 opinion, wrote one of the dissents to the en banc opinion reversing it, arguing (correctly) that the majority opinion misstated and directly violated the Supreme Court holding in Heller. That did not matter enough to the Supreme Court majority for them to bother hearing the appeal.

I would fully expect, therefore, that this more recent case, Young v Hawaii, will get similar treatment: it will be reheard en banc, very likely reversed, and appealed to the Supreme Court. What happens at the Supreme Court this time is anyone's guess. They cannot avoid the issue forever, and ongoing changes in the court might affect the outcome by the time it gets there. The downside is that the process will almost certainly take several years before the case is actually disposed of (for better or worse).

Links To Additional Sources

• Young v Hawaii, 9th Circuit opinion (PDF)
• Peruta v San Diego, 9th Circuit opinion, 13 February 2014 (PDF)
• Peruta v San Diego, 2016 9th Circuit en banc opinion (including Callahan's dissent, PDF) - 824 F.3d 919 (9th Cir. 2016) (en banc)
• Peruta v California, Supreme Court, denial of certiorari, order and dissents (PDF)
• Stephen P. Halbrook, "That Every Man Be Armed: The Evolution of a Constitutional Right" [on Amazon.com].
• A Harvard Law Review analysis (in 130 Harv. L. Rev. 1024) explains how the disagreement between the 9th Circuit majority and dissents hinged on a narrow framing of the controversy (concealed carry) versus broad framing (right to keep and bear arms). It also describes the defects in the majority opinion by not adequately defending their reasoning for restricting the issue to concealed carry alone. This analysis is highly relevant to Young v Hawaii because this recent case deals with open carry rather than concealed. This difference may make it more difficult for the courts (9th Circuit or SCOTUS) to avoid the broader issues.

Peculiar Patriots Unite!

Celebrate the Old in the New

When our great nation was founded, it was not just about revolution, not just about what was new in the New World, it was about reverence for older values and timeless truths. When the traditional rights of the American Colonists could not be protected any other way, these united states declared their independence from Britain. They fought a costly and bloody war to secure that independence.

After the war was over, the former revolutionaries attempted to establish 'a more perfect union', by way of constitutions (state and federal), including methods to protect our liberties short of another savage war or even the smaller conflicts that plagued post-Revolutionary New England. Those methods included a democratic 'reliance on the people' through voting, but also Madison's 'auxiliary precautions', the checks and balances of a constitutional federated republic. In times since, we have fought so frequently over which of these is the most important that we have often neglected both: the democratic methods and the republican principles which once fertilized our soil.

Forget Not Our Primary Duties

But what the Framers achieved was not magic: the system they created requires continual care and parts of it were left unfinished in their time, for future generations to complete according to the general pattern of the whole. As John Adams and others pointed out, it also required a generally moral people, a people responsible enough to govern themselves. We have often failed in living up to our responsibilities under the two great charters: the Declaration of Independence that we commemorate today, and the United States Constitution. The state constitutions are weedy and neglected.

If we do not avail ourselves of the means the Framers gave us for protection and responsible use of our liberties, then we, like them, will eventually be forced to resort to savagery. I know that some people express a longing for such a solution, for rebirth in conflict, but I am not one of them. I know that such revolutions are more often failures than successes, even if military victory is achieved. We need look no further than the waves of violence following the 'successful' French Revolution for affirmation.

In The Winter of Our Discontent

And yet, our system is profoundly unhealthy--- many people are justly concerned that the window of opportunity to return it to health is rapidly closing. If we are, therefore, to preserve the precious gift we celebrate today, then we had best be about it. It is the time and past time for the early-risers, the radish-radicals, to step forth, wage the we-still-hope-metaphorical battle, and restore us to our roots. We cannot turn back the clock--- no one can--- but we can grow a new plant from hallowed stock.

We have yet another election approaching, another opportunity to take action. The general election in November, however, seldom determines anything beyond which of the barely adequate and hardly distinguishable candidates will 'represent' us. The real opportunity for change (as far as elections in any case) is not in the election itself but in the August primaries ahead of them and not just in national elections but in all of the offices, local, state, and national which provide the checks and balances of our government as a whole. Frequently, however, few people participate in primaries (let alone the internal process of the parties) and many of the candidates are effectively thrust upon us by a relative handful of party elites. Then we are told that if we do not vote for this bought-and-paid-for spineless nincompoop, we will get that one, a member of the other, more evil party instead. If we do not make good choices in the primaries, then there can be none on the final election ballot.

This fight, the primary process, is one which does not end. It takes both audacity and commitment, energy and organization. A victory won today must be fought again the next election cycle. A temporary loss pursued with vigor becomes an opportunity to learn and improve; while such opportunities are still afforded to us, a winter of discontent can lead to spring growth. It is not a campaign for the timid, faint-hearted, or inconstant. The radish, our mascot, is after all a reliable yet... poignant... crop.

Cry "Radish"! 

And yet, even if you are one of those 'summer soldiers' or 'sunshine patriots' of whom Thomas Pain despaired, it is, after all, July, in the Ozarks no less. What better time is there to start?

Cry "Radish!" and make slips the roots of yore.

(The Drawing)

For anyone who is a Revolutionary War buff and particularly observant, the 'Continental' officer the buck-skinned musketeer is hiding behind (with the yellow lapels and gorget) has a uniform actually more similar to a German naval officer of the period. In fact, a similar uniform is illustrated in Copeland's "Uniforms of the American Revolution". I chose that uniform for aesthetic reasons, the blue and yellow showing up nicely against the smoky background. I left the German insignia off of the gorget. I figured a) most people would not notice, and b) if a giant war-like walking vegetable strode onto a field of battle, people might cower in strange company.

The illustration was done in ink and oil-pencils, with a small amount of pastel to give the smoke a powdery texture.

OK, what exactly is a 'conservative'?

Republican candidates continually bill themselves as the most 'conservative'. Republican voters respond to these appeals, voting for 'strong conservatives', 'conservative outsiders', 'Christian conservatives', 'Constitutional conservatives', etc., though their behavior when they actually get into office is all over the map. This has lead to the term 'conservative' seeming almost meaningless, but it was not always so. Part of the reason is that people have forgotten what being conservative actually means. Conservatism in general and our special tradition of American conservatism has deep roots and that is so because conservatism is precisely about being connected to our roots (one of the reasons I use a radish— a root— in the logo for this blog.

So, what in the world is a 'conservative'? Where are our roots? Let's dig.

[Draft 0.3]

In which we start with the plain meaning and break the surface...

conservative (adjective)

1 Averse to change or innovation and holding traditional values.

2(in a political context) favouring free enterprise, private ownership, and socially conservative ideas.

In politics, progressives often stop with 'averse to change' and assume that to be conservative is simply to afraid of 'progress'. But we also have 'traditional values' and in definition #2, a hint of what those values might include. Conservatives are not merely averse to change, they are trying to protect something of value. This should not be surprising, because of the relationship to the verb, to conserve:

1: to keep in a safe or sound state - He conserved his inheritance.; especially : to avoid wasteful or destructive use of conserve natural resources conserve our wildlife

There is gold here: "He conserved his inheritance." This is exactly what we are looking for. What, as conservatives, is our lost inheritance?

... to uncover a lost inheritance.

Lord Coke, in the 16th century, talks about the treasure of the common law, its accumulation representing:

...the wisdom of the most excellent men, in many successions of ages, by long and continual experience (the trial of light and truth) in his head the wisdom of all the men in the world...

[As quoted in: David A.J. Richards. Foundations of American Constitutionalism. Oxford University Press. New York. 1989. pp 69-71 or see The Reports of Sir Edward Coke, Knt. [1572-1617]: In Thirteen Parts, Volume 4]

Coke, almost two hundred years before our Revolution, points to the fact that none of us is born into this world alone, but that we inherit the written wisdom of those that came before us, something which none of us, even the wisest (wo)man alive can alone match. In law, this wisdom is accumulated in centuries of common law histories, cases, controversies, and court decisions passed down to us which our constitutional framers in turn used as the foundation for our system of government.

The idea of a kind of trust was created, something we inherit from those long dead, maintain, improve incrementally, and hand on to children not yet born. We conserve then something which we recognize does not belong to us. The Parable of the Three Servants [Mathew 25:14-30], teaches us we cannot merely bury this trust in the ground and ignore it, we must nurture and invest that with which we were entrusted, but nor do we mindlessly tinker. As Edmund Burke, a British Whig often seen as the father of modern conservatism, reflected on the French Revolution:

An ignorant man, who is not fool enough to meddle with his clock, is however sufficiently confident to think he can safely take to pieces, and put together at his pleasure, a moral machine of another guise, importance and complexity, composed of far other wheels, and springs, and balances, and counteracting and co-operating powers. Men little think how immorally they act in rashly meddling with what they do not understand. Their delusive good intention is no sort of excuse for their presumption. They who truly mean well must be fearful of acting ill.

[Edmund Burke, Reflections on the Revolution in France, emphasis mine]

This is no less true given that our Framers fought a violent revolution and established a new system of government. Our founders were not the victors of one revolution but of two. They were raised on the history and literature of the English Civil War and the British Bill of Rights. As Winston Churchill wrote of that conflict in his four-volume history of Britain:

Here is the salient fact which distinguishes the English Revolution from all others: that those who wielded irresistible physical force were throughout convinced that it could give them no security. Nothing is more characteristic of the English people than their instinctive reverence even in rebellion for law and tradition. Deep in the nature of the men who had broken the King’s power was the conviction that law in his name was the sole foundation on which they could build.

The early Americans followed the same pattern. The Declaration of Independence was a revolutionary document, but also a profoundly conservative one. The American Revolution was not an assertion of radical of ideology over law but a protest against the usurpation of traditional rights by the British Crown and Parliament, rights won by the sacrifices of generations of Englishmen. The Declaration painstakingly sets out a checklist of the reasons for this break and establishes it in the traditional principles and duties of a moral people. The principles of the Declaration established a strong root of conservatism to flourish in American soil, established a new —but not radical— inheritance, cut from still older stock.

Progressivism in the United States attempts to follow the same disastrous path as the French Revolution, cutting us off from our inherited traditions in favor of a modern and 'scientific' approach, but one, which, strangely, ignores the evidence of millennia of human experience, tinkering with the clock while skipping the cardinal rule of the competent tinkerer: save the parts. What results, as Calvin Coolidge stated in his Independence Day speech in 1926, is no improvement:

...About the Declaration there is a finality that is exceedingly restful. It is often asserted that the world has made a great deal of progress since 1776, that we have had new thoughts and new experiences which have given us a great advance over the people of that day, and that we may therefore very well discard their conclusions for something more modern. But that reasoning can not be applied to this great charter. If all men are created equal, that is final. If they are endowed with inalienable rights, that is final. If governments derive their just powers from the consent of the governed, that is final. No advance, no progress can be made beyond these propositions.

Jefferson's declaration of the primacy of liberty, however did not stand alone. It was based on an assertion of a higher law, that of "Nature and Nature's God" and it came with a deep skepticism of unrestrained democracy and of human nature. After all, it was as much the British Parliament and native Englanders as the British Crown which failed the American Colonists. John Adams asserted that liberty could not exist outside the checks and balances of law, but it is perhaps most famously and compactly stated by Madison in the Federalist Papers (#51):

It may be a reflection on human nature, that such devices should be necessary to control the abuses of government. But what is government itself, but the greatest of all reflections on human nature? If men were angels, no government would be necessary. If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary. In framing a government which is to be administered by men over men, the great difficulty lies in this: you must first enable the government to control the governed; and in the next place oblige it to control itself. A dependence on the people is, no doubt, the primary control on the government; but experience has taught mankind the necessity of auxiliary precautions.

So again, we fall back on experience to guide us. Certainly the Constitution was built on a such a foundation, perhaps the most literate of such exercises ever attempted, relying on detailed research of many governments over several thousand years (much of it compiled by Madison himself).

This then is our inheritence...

It is a complex and rich inheritance, one which we could spend a lifetime exploring and still have more to discover. Various people along the way have summarized its core principles, however. One such is Russel Kirk with his "Six Canons of Conservative Thought", itself a condensed summary of Burke which I excerpt further (follow link for full text):

1. "Belief in a transcendent order, or body of natural law, which rules society as well as conscience. Political problems, at bottom, are religious and moral problems...
2. "Affection for the proliferating variety and mystery of human existence, as opposed to the narrowing uniformity, egalitarianism, and utilitarian aims of most radical systems;...
3. "Conviction that civilized society requires orders and classes, as against the notion of a 'classless society.' With reason, conservatives have been called 'the party of order.' If natural distinctions are effaced among men, oligarchs fill the vacuum. Ultimate equality in the judgment of God, and equality before courts of law, are recognized by conservatives; but equality of condition, they think, means equality in servitude and boredom.
4. "Persuasion that freedom and property are closely linked... Economic levelling, they maintain, is not economic progress.
5. "Faith in prescription and distrust of 'sophisters, calculators, and economists' who would reconstruct society upon abstract designs. Custom, convention, and old prescription are checks both upon man's anarchic impulse and upon the innovator's lust for power.
6. Recognition that change may not be salutary reform: hasty innovation may be a devouring conflagration, rather than a torch of progress. Society must alter, for prudent change is the means of social preservation; but a statesman must take Providence into his calculations...

[Russell Kirk, "The Conservative Mind, From Burke to Elliot" 7th Ed., revised. Gateway Editions. Washington, DC. 2016. https://www.scribd.com/book/337552026 pp 45-46]

Someone who does not demonstrate this faith in both a natural order, something greater than ourselves, and of natural law, a non-negotiable higher law, defining rights and duties above mere human law, is not a conservative. As a Christian, I profess to know what this 'something greater' is, though we may not always precisely agree. What we should agree on, as conservatives, is that our faith drives us to both trust that the natural order exists for a purpose (one which we may not understand) and that we are to struggle against it to find justice, not burn it down, but struggle.

...which it is our duty to conserve.

Our duty, then is to strive for justice within a reverence for natural law, inherited wisdom, and social structures which we believe to have a value in and of themselves. The Constitution is not an outdated document, nor is it an immutable shrine, but it is a treasure, something of surpassing beauty with which we have been entrusted. A conservative neither hides from change nor rushes to embrace it. This is the sense of duty which would lead an inveterate conservative like John Adams to fight a war for freedom against his King and yet act as defense counsel for the soldiers responsible for the Boston Massacre, courting personal danger both times. As conservatives, we have a tremendous legacy to attempt to live up to, but our roots are strong, and deep, watered in generations of sacrifice.

Trump, Florida, and Gun-Control: Dues and Don'ts

On the issue of gun control, due process, Florida, and Trump: even if Trump's statements regarding due process are taken very generously they are still wrong, dangerously so, and inapplicable to the Florida shooting in any case. There was no need in Florida to short-circuit due process and violate rights. There was plenty of warning and plenty of time for the law to act well within its authority and regarding the limits of the Constitution. They simply didn't.

Pre-deprivation vs. Post-Deprivation Process

Due process is ALWAYS required. That is simply what the word 'due' means: it is what is required to satisfy rights. The process which is 'due' is usually pre-deprivation process. In pre-deprivation process, an adversarial proceeding such as a hearing occurs in front of a neutral-arbiter (judge) before rights are offended by the government. An adversarial process means both sides are represented and the person(s) being deprived get to make their case, examine the evidence, etc. A criminal trial is one way to satisfy due process but not the only one and never has been. It is not even the only way to satisfy pre-deprivation process.

Post-deprivation process is usually invoked when there is an immediate danger to life or property. An eviction of a tenant, for instance, often requires a hearing first and the eviction happens only if the court finds in favor of the landlord. If the landlord's property is in danger of being damaged by the tenant before that can happen, the order can be reversed: the tenant is immediately removed, then the court argues about it. Post-deprivation process means that the adversarial part happens after the defendant has already been deprived of something.

Another example is an 72-hour psychiatric hold on an individual who is (arguably) an immediate danger to themselves or others. An emergency hearing is then held to decide whether to release the individual or if involuntary commitment or some other action actually is necessary. Not surprisingly, there are rules for how this has to happen and— if these rules are satisfied— due process is satisfied as well. Process is not short-circuited, merely follows a different path.

Attorneys among my readers may be cringing that this explanation simplifies things a bit. Although this is quite true, I am not writing for attorneys but for people (like Trump?) who have no understanding of the law. This is also why I am uncharacteristically not peppering this piece with citations: just understand that there are already provisions for emergency circumstances and there have been for centuries. Lack of such options is not really the problem (here).

Not Relevant Anyway

In the case of the Florida shooter, Cruz, this really does not matter anyway. There were opportunities and plenty of time for authorities to do things the long and slow way. It is not disputed that the would-be shooter, Cruz, interacted with law enforcement many times (the exact number, either 23 or 36, apparently depends on how you count) over a period of several years. This was not a last-minute development, not in any sense, any more than it was in the case of Virginia Tech. What is more, at least three incidents rose to potential felonies. Arguably a number of them did, but that hardly matters: Cruz, at the least, was the subject of a 9-1-1 call where he is alleged to have threatened his adoptive brother with a firearm, a potential felony. Further, he was alleged to have texted threats to his ex-girlfriend and her new boyfriend. Making specific threats of violence or death to specific individuals in a specific context and putting his name on it is a potential felony. It is indisputably reasonable cause for a criminal investigation which is in turn likely to furnish probable cause for arrest. It can be argued that imminent danger and probable cause for arrest was already present with no need for an investigation before-hand (post-deprivation process), but the slow way would likely have worked as well.

If Nikolas Cruz had been convicted of or plead guilty to, say, felony assault, particularly as an adult, this would have started a criminal record. Given a criminal record, it would have been much more likely his other activities would have been put together. The FBI, for instance, might have immediately seen that the subject of the called-in tip already had a history of potential violence. Certainly, it would have made it harder for Cruz to pass a background check to purchase firearms!

[Note, I am not excusing the FBI here for dropping the ball by not referring the tip, merely saying that local authorities might have made the FBI's error less likely.]

Who Should Bear the Blame

Random law-abiding citizens should not be punished for this incident by having their constitutional rights to due process nor their natural, common law, and constitutional rights to keep and bear arms violated. Period. Giving more power to the very authorities who dropped the ball has two results:

1. the power will be abused in the wrong situations
2. there will still be nothing to guarantee it will be used to prevent tragedy

The same authority which failed to act in this case can still refuse to act in the future, but they will have even more tools to abuse authority when they feel so inclined. There may be ways in which the existing process can be tweaked (I am cautiously in favor of GVROs myself, I have written elsewhere about potential loopholes in juvenile criminal records and background checks), but none of that really matters here. The background check did not succeed because a juvenile record was prematurely expunged, but because no record was ever created in the first place because the local authorities failed to do their jobs.

The people who should be punished (under whatever process is due) for this horrific act of violence are, in order:

1. the shooter himself
2. the local sheriff's office, including potentially the sheriff and individual deputies
3. whoever at the FBI failed to pass the phoned-in tip to the regional office as procedure required

It is possible that other legitimate targets for ire may come to light. The first one, the shooter, is ongoing. It is actually unusual for the perpetrator to be available for justice. I had to endure the long process of a trial for the shooter at my school, but many of the perpetrators suicide or are killed by police. There is a potential for closure available here in that process and that is not a small thing. The second one is best conducted by Floridians and particularly those in the affected county through whatever process is available under their state constitution. At the very least, the locals can and should respond at the ballot box, but that is not something any of us can do for them; they have to want to take action. Finally, we are told that an investigation of the missteps within the FBI is ongoing. Perhaps this will yield results and perhaps it will not. We, as citizens, need to keep on top of this process, but it is too early to expect results.

None of these things particularly involve making new laws, short-circuiting due process, or even gun-control at any level. The criminal justice system failed in what it is already authorized and charged with doing. The failure cost lives. The details of the precise magnitude of the failure and why are still forthcoming, but the fact that it occurred is not really in question.