Dr. Francis Replies:rnI remarked in my article that Dr. Hittinger’srncontribution to the First Thingsrnsymposium was the most closely reasonedrnpart of it, and his letter is equallyrnwell argued. Indeed, I have no disagreementrnwith much of it. I raised the issuernof “compulsive” as opposed to “permissive”rnlaws in the context of passive resistancernor civil disobedience, conceptsrnthat simply cannot apply to laws that arernmerely permissive. One can passively resistrnor civilly disobey a law only if the lawrnis compulsive and commands the subjectrnto take some action. Civil disobediencernconsists simply in declining to obey therncommand. To resist a permissive law,rnone must undertake some action againstrnthe law-making power itself. A permissivernlaw still can be illegitimate and is illegitimaternif enacted in a way that violatesrnthe legitimate (constitutional)rnprocedures for making laws; but to invokernextralegal means as a remedy forrnillegitimate permissive laws opens therndoor to what historically has been anrnever-escalating staircase of antisocialrnaction and increasingly subjective andrnfantastic grounds for climbing it.rnI will pass over Dr. Hittinger’s argumentrnthat court rulings are illegitimate ifrnthey restrict “the ability of the people tornmake or change laws that are necessaryrnfor the common good.” Such rulingsrnmay be bad things, but the test of legitimacyrnin the American political order isrnthe constitutionality of the law, not itsrngoodness or badness, and restricting thernability of the people to make or changernlaws in itself is not necessarily unconstitutionalrnor illegitimate. Indeed, for allrnthe latitude left to the states and thernpeople in the Constitution, there arernsome restrictions on their powers in thernoriginal constitutional text, and therernshould be such restrictions. The issue todayrnis whether recent court rulings arernconsistent with or violate the Constitution.rnDr. Hittinger’s appeal to Jeffersonrnstrikes me as irrelevant, since, one, Jeffersonrnwas speaking for a collective entityrn(the Continental Congress, the Americanrnpeople) and not merely for his ownrnsubjective impulses on the subject; two,rnJefferson spends two paragraphs explainingrnthat the Americans have exhaustedrnall peaceful and legal means of redressrnagainst the British abuses to no avail andrnthat therefore political separation, enforcedrnwith arms, is the only recoursernthat remains to them; and three, thernabuses to which he was objecting were violationsrnof long-standing and wellknownrnpolitical norms and customs, notrnmerely of what a handful of eccentricsrnhave this week discovered to be the higherrnmoral laws of the universe.rnI do not for a moment place Dr. Hittingerrnin the latter category, but his colleagues’rnreliance on what can only berncalled “higher law” is an invitation tornthose who do belong in that category. Irnsimply cannot grasp how Dr. Hittingerrncan claim with a straight face that thernsymposium “did not advocate privaternjudgment about the ‘higher law.'” Againrnand again in the symposium the point isrnmade that recent rulings on abortion,rnhomosexuality, and euthanasia violaternnatural or divine law. That may be, butrnunless such law is clearly codified and institutionalized,rnit can be known onlyrnthrough “private judgment.” The wholernpoint of a constitution and laws madernpursuant to it is to avoid forcing recoursernto such judgments. Again, the point isrnnot what churches have taught orrnphilosophers have thought but whatrnthe Constitution permits. The rulings inrnquestion (as well as many, many others)rnare illegitimate because they violaternlong-standing and well-known constitutionalrnrules, not because they violate lawsrnhigher than the Constitution, of whichrnour Constitution knows nothing.rnIn addition to their illegitimacy, theyrnalso are bad “laws”—because they destroyrnlocal arrangements long held to bernnecessary and useful to the preservationrnof order in particular communities, becausernthey permit crime and disorder tornflourish, and for many other reasons.rnEven if they were legitimately enacted,rnthe evil they do would justify concertedrnefforts to change them.rnI hardly see how my criticism of thernsymposium “falls into the trap of regardingrnevery criticism of authority as nothingrnmore than an exercise of privaternconscience.” I stated in my columnrnthat “The courts have been abusing thernConstitution and handing down illicitrncommands to states and localities for atrnleast 50 years,” that “we have had nothingrnbut an illegitimate regime in thernUnited States for the last 50 years,” arnregime that is not only illegitimate in itsrnviolations of known constitutional restrictionsrnand law but is actually tyrannicalrnin its systematic attack on culturalrnnorms and institutions. The question isrnnot whether authority should be resistedrnor criticized but the best way to do it.rnIt might be exciting to call forrn”civil disobedience” to an “illegitimaternregime,” but that accomplishes nothing.rnMy point is that even today there remainrnmany avenues of legal, peaceful, andrndemocratic (though nevertheless radical)rnresistance and change that mostrnconservatives have not even begun tornpursue—mainly through effective mobilizationrnof increasing popular alienationrnfrom the “regime.”rnConservatives do not pursue these avenuesrnbecause they involve hard work,rnsometimes unpleasant associates, patience,rnand a willingness to do, say, andrnthink unfashionable things that mightrnlose you your job, your respectability, andrnyour access to the rewards offered by thernvery system you claim to want to overthrow.rnThe neoconservatives who attackedrnFather Neuhaus and his colleaguesrnare perfectly comfortable withinrnthat system, have no inclination tornchange it, and constitute its guardiansrnagainst those who do seek change. FatherrnNeuhaus and his colleagues havernnow arrived at the point that they see atrnleast some flaws of the system but not, Irnsuspect, at the point that they are willingrnto jeopardize the rewards the systemrnoffers them. Sooner or later the best ofrnthem will reach that point too. Whenrnthey do, they may give me a call.rnOn Hispanic ImmigrantsrnIf California Congressman Bob Dornan’srndefeat by Loretta Sanchez, the toolrnof Hispanic activists (Cultural Revolutions,rnFebruary 1997), was not enough tornconvince our congressional representativesrnthat white Americans are being sacrificedrnat the altar of “diversity,” theyrnshould read a recent editorial publishedrnin the Los Angeles Times. Under the captionrn”Power Will Have a New Face inrn1997-98 Legislative Session,” the articlerninformed readers that the balance ofrnpower in the California state assemblyrnshifted dramatically thanks to the electionrnof many Latinos and blacks, whornhave left white males in charge of barelyrna third of standing committees. The editorialrnadded: “It’s uncertain what thesernchanges will mean for the 1997-98rnsession.”rnI, for one, do not see anything uncertainrnabout the future of a country whosernJUNE 1997/5rnrnrn