Religion & Law

Here is an interview that the folks at NRO did with Robert George, regarding the life, work, and legacy of Fr. Neuhaus.  George's take on the controversial "End of Democracy?" affair jumped out at me:

The basic point was simple and sound: the judicial usurpation of decision-making authority left or placed by the Constitution in the hands of the people and their elected representatives is unconstitutional and, indeed, anti-constitutional. To the extent that we are being ruled by judges who refuse to respect the constitutional limits of their authority, that rule is constitutionally and morally illegitimate. The illegitimacy of judicial rule is exacerbated when it is used to deny to the people their right to employ the constitutionally prescribed mechanisms of democracy to ensure that all, including the unborn, are afforded the equal protection of the laws. That does not mean that revolution, much less violent revolution, is warranted or justified?and none of the participants called for such a thing. But it does mean that those in the political class who have acquiesced in judicial usurpation need to go back and read Lincoln?s First Inaugural Address on the question of their solemn responsibility in the face of anti-constitutional judicial acts. If ?The End of Democracy?? accomplished nothing else, it reminded readers that threats to the constitutional order can come from judges as well as legislators and executive officers, and that we should not be tricked into accepting anti-constitutional judicial acts by the claim that respect for the rule of law means acquiescing in government by the judiciary.