Executive Orders and the Constitution

Unless you've been hibernating for the past week or so, you know that last week President Obama issued an executive order that states that work permits to be made available to nearly five million unauthorized immigrants. To say that most Republicans are furious would be an understatement. For instance, the senior Senator from Texas, John Cornyn, remarked, “I believe his unilateral action, which is unconstitutional and illegal, will deeply harm our prospects for immigration reform,” while Texas's junior Senator, Ted Cruz, stated that “the president is behaving in an unprecedented way.” Senator Tom Coburn of Oklahoma went so far as to claim that this will cause the country “to go nuts, because they’re going to see it as a move outside the authority of the president, and it’s going to be a very serious situation,” and House Speaker John Boehner referred to the President as “Emperor Obama.”

Whatever one might think about immigration reform, President Obama's executive orders are anything but unprecedented, however. As a recent FiveThirtyEight analysis of presidential executive orders shows ("Every President's Executive Orders in One Chart" -- from where the above quotes were found), every President has issued executive orders (even Presidents Washington and Lincoln), and Obama has issued them at a rate lower than any President since Grover Cleveland (the chart is reproduced below). The fact that every President has issued them certainly challenges the claim that they are, in and of themselves, unconstitutional. To be sure, the Supreme Court has overturned some executive orders, and that could happen here, but to argue that executive orders are unprecedented or unconstitutional is simply wrong.

That, of course, doesn't make Obama's action right, but I'm fairly certain that most of the folks who've gotten their knickers in a twist said little or nothing about the constitutionality of executive orders issued by George W. Bush, George H. W. Bush, and Ronald Reagan. Likewise, many of those on the left who experienced heart palpitations when "W" issued executive orders are now busy explaining away why Obama's is perfectly okay (it wasn't that long ago when critics on the left referred to "W" as an "imperial president" -- "Bush acting as Imperial President" -- how quickly we forget).

In other words, what's really driving the debate isn't concern about the constitutionality of executive orders but about their underlying ideology. Most of the people who agree with a particular order's purpose will affirm its legality, and most of those who don't will reject it. And they do this even if their reasoning completely contradicts something they said 8 years before (which, by the way, includes our current President). No doubt many of you who read this will think that you're the exception to the rule, that you're part of that small minority of Americans who isn't affected by the norms of your family, friends, and the surrounding culture. Call me a cynic if you want, but I'm fairly certain you're wrong.

Surprise: Guns and Religion Don't Go Together

It's taken for granted in many circles that, at least in the United States, guns and religion go together. People of faith, especially those living in the South, are more likely to own and support the use of firearms than others. Two recent studies call this relationship into question. They found that greater personal faith predicts lower attachment to guns and lower levels of gun ownership.

Using data from the 2014 Baylor Religion Survey sociologists F. Carson Mencken and Paul Froese found that the more gun owners rated themselves as being moderately or very religious, the less likely they were to be attached to their weapons as sources of power in such areas as respect, safety and self-confidence. They also found that while people who were moderate church attenders were more likely to feel empowered by owning guns, attachment levels dropped for people who attended services weekly or more. Similarly, the sociologist David Yamane, using data from the General Social Surveys (2006, 2008, 2010, and 2012), found that the more people attended services, prayed and were engaged in spiritual groups in congregations, the less likely they were to be gun owners. He also found there was no significant relation between theological conservatism and gun ownership.

Why? Froese suggested that people who are very religious are less likely to be as attached to (non-religious) physical objects such as firearms, and Yamane speculated that the importance of religion may be related to the higher levels of trust people form within religious communities. That is, people who are more trusting of others may feel less of a need to arm themselves.

For a brief summary of the studies, which were presented at the most meeting of the Society for the Scientific Study of Religion (SSSR), see the article by David Briggs, "Religion and guns: Studies find faith linked to lower devotion to firearms." Briggs also discusses what factors appear to contribute to increased attachment to guns.

Mormons and Politics

With the advent of the Mitt Romney campaign for President, one could argue that the Mormon faith (aka the LDS Church--The Church of Jesus Christ of the Latter Day Saints) has come of age. It is now part of the American mainstream. We can see additional evidence of this in the Broadway musical, "The Book of Mormon," which won several Tony awards and poked fun at the Mormon faith. The fact that the play's creators, Trey Parker and Matt Stone, who are also the geniuses behind "South Park," could produce such a play without fear of any significant backlash (e.g., violence) from people of the Mormon faith is a testimony to how mainstream the LDS Church has become.

In an interesting interview with two political scientists, David Campbell (from Notre Dame) and Quin Monson (from Brigham Young University), Tony Gill of Research on Religion explores the role of Mormons in public life in the United States ("David Campbell & Quin Monson on Mormons & Politics in America"). The interview explores many of the themes examined in the book, "Seeking the Promised Land: Mormons and American Politics," which Campbell and Monson, along with University of Akron political scientist, John Green, just published through Cambridge University Press. I haven't read it yet, but I plan to (it's on my night stand). Campbell is coauthor of the book, American Grace: How Religion Divides and Unites Us, with Harvard political scientist, Robert Putnam (another book that's up next on my to do list).

'Tis the Season

It's that time of year again: Although Thanksgiving's two weeks away, ABC Family is starting to play holiday movies, malls are being trimmed with Christmas decorations, friends and family are sending out invitations to holiday parties, and radio stations are starting to play Christmas music. And that is why it is also that time of year when many of us launch into our annual complaints about the "commercialization of Christmas," start clamoring that we need to put the "Christ" back in "Xmas," and remind anyone who will listen that "Jesus in the reason for the season."

I get it. I understand peoples' frustrations. In fact, I've bemoaned the commercialization of Christmas before ("Black Friday and the Spirit of Christmas"). But, I have to confess that I love the Christmas season. I love watching the movies. I love listening to the carols. I love walking through malls bedecked with tinsel and stars and lights and kids climbing onto the laps of Santas. And I'm clearly not alone. Most of us appear to crave the holiday season. We can't get enough of it.

I think the reason why is because it evokes in us a desire for something more. It taps into our longing to be better people and live in a better world (Aristotle might say that it evokes in us our longing for eudaimonia). It recalls the sense of magic that Christmas had for us when we were kids. It engenders feelings contentment when family and friends gather to celebrate life and one another other. It elicits images of a world in which the lion and the lamb lay down together and nations don't train for war anymore (Isaiah 2, 11). And isn't that world in which most of us want to live? I suspect so, and if I'm right, that might be why the Christmas season begins a little earlier every year. And while at first it may seem like a bad thing, I'm unconvinced that it is. It isn't only for the money (although that's part of it). It's also because we long for a world where it's Christmas year round. And I think that's a good thing.

Note: Complaints that the use of "Xmas" rather than "Christmas" is a secular attempt to remove the religious aspect of Christmas by taking the "Christ" out of "Christmas" are somewhat misplaced. According to the Oxford English Dictionary, the letter "X" was used as an abbreviation for "Christ" as early as 1485, long before the term "Xmas" was used. It comes from the Greek letter Chi, which is the first letter of the Greek word Χριστός, which is translated "Christ." It is also found in the labarum (see an example of it to the right), which is often referred to as the Chi-Rho, and is a Christian symbol representing Christ.

A Key to Wedded Bliss? Families and Friends without the Frills

The October issue of the Atlantic reported the results of a recent study that found that the percentage of marriages that lasted was positively associated with the number of people who attended their weddings. In particular, weddings where

• 1-10 people attended, the marriage was 35% more likely to last
• 11-50 people attended, the marriage was 56% more likely to last
• 51-100 people attended, the marriage was 69% more likely to last
• 101-200 people attended, the marriage was 84% more likely to last
• 201 or more people attended, the marriage was 92% more likely to last

At the same, however, the study found that the more a couple (or their parents) spent on a wedding, the less likely it would last. More precisely, marriages where the weddings cost

• $1,000 or less were 53% more likely to last than those that cost between $5,000 and $10,000
• Between $1,000 and $5,000 were 18% more likely to last than those that cost between $5,000 and $10,000
• $10,000 or more were 46% less likely to last than those who spent between $5,000 and $10,000

At first blush, the results suggest that couples should invite lots of family and friends to their weddings, while keeping the costs of the wedding down. A more likely explanation is that couples who are embedded in a dense network of friends and family probably don't feel the need to have extravagant weddings. The simple act of acknowledging their commitment to one another in the presence of their family and friends is more than enough, which is why their weddings are more likely to be well attended and cost relatively little. There's a lesson here I think...

Should the NCAA Pay It's Athletes?

In recent years more and more people have called on colleges to start paying their athletes. Most (not all) get scholarships, but the value of those pales in comparison to the money that college coaches, the colleges, and the NCAA make. Add to this the fact that others, such as video game manufacturers such as EA Sports (see image at right), can use the images (and stats) of college athletes without paying the athletes themselves for the right to do so. This is the topic of a recent NPR Planet Money podcast ("Is The NCAA An Illegal Cartel?"), which you can download from iTunes or listen to at the Planet Money website. It's quite good and only 18 minutes long.

Are Things Really Going to Get Bad for Obama and the Democrats?

Judging by most of the headlines following the retaking control of the Senate by the GOP is that the next two years will be difficult for both President Obama and the Democrats. But will that be the case? Possibly, but history also suggests that losing control of Congress may benefit the Democrats in the long run, in particular, in terms of the 2016 election. Consider, for instance:

1. The last time the Republicans won control of the Senate was 8 years ago when George W. Bush was President. Two years later Barack Obama was elected President and the Democrats retook control of the Senate not long after George Bush's approval rating hit an all-time low (19%).
2. Toward the end of President Bill Clinton's second year in office, when his approval rating got as low as 38% (not the lowest but close), Republicans gained control of both houses of Congress, and most people believed Clinton would be booted out of office when he came up for reelection. That, of course, is not what happened. The next two years were among Clinton's most successful, he was easily reelected, and he left office with relatively high approval ratings.

In short, because every President experiences periods of low approval ratings, what the party that holds the White House should hope for is that such periods occur during nonpresidential election years. That doesn't bode well for controlling Congress, but it does for controlling the White House. Presidential approval ratings aren't the only factor, of course, as the inability of Al Gore to get a bump for Clinton's popularity illustrates. But it does suggest that if Obama's approval ratings increase over the next two years, the nominee for the Democrats could do well.

Moreover, voter demographics continue to favor Democrats for national elections. In nonpresidential election years, minorities and young people are more likely than are older, white voters to stay home and not vote, meaning that conservative voters make up a disproportionate share of the electorate. That is unlikely to be the case two years from now when there's a strong possibility that Hillary Clinton will be the Democrat nominee ("How Hillary Clinton won the 2014 midterms"):

It’s one thing to win an election in a nonpresidential year, when minorities and young people stay home and older, whiter voters make up a disproportionate share of the electorate. It’s another thing to win when a Democratic presidential candidate is luring the party’s base back to the polls — especially when that candidate is Hillary Clinton, the most popular Democrat in America.

To be sure, a lot can and will happen between now and 2016, and I'm not quite ready to trot out my quadrennial presidential election predictions. I'll wait at least a year before I do that. Still, I don't think the Democrats have reason to panic, at least not yet, and as an editorial in Forbes magazine points out, the Republicans should not be too overconfident ("Republicans humiliated Obama, now they need to humble themselves").