{"id":49490,"date":"2015-04-22T05:22:29","date_gmt":"2015-04-22T05:22:29","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/127.0.0.1\/site\/2017\/2\/1985\/aci_misrepresenting_acis_concerns_about_the_constitutionality_of_new_liturg\/"},"modified":"2015-04-22T05:22:29","modified_gmt":"2015-04-22T05:22:29","slug":"aci_misrepresenting_acis_concerns_about_the_constitutionality_of_new_liturg","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/kendallharmon.net\/?p=49490","title":{"rendered":"ACI: Misrepresenting ACI\u2019s Concerns About The Constitutionality of [New] Liturgical Material"},"content":{"rendered":"

Misrepresenting ACI\u2019s Concerns About The Constitutionality of Supplemental Liturgical Material
\nWritten by: The Reverend Canon Professor Christopher Seitz & Mark McCall, Esq.
\n
Last week we published an analysis of proposals<\/a> to have this General Convention authorize supplemental liturgies that would be neither part of the Book of Common Prayer nor a proposed revision of it. Based on the detailed text of Article X of TEC\u2019s Constitution, we concluded that General Convention does not have this authority and that whatever authority does exist to authorize supplemental rites resides in the bishop of each diocese. We noted that the Standing Commission on Liturgy and Music appears to agree with us since it has proposed amending Article X to assign this authority to General Convention and explained the need for such an amendment with an analysis of that article that is identical to our own reading.
\n….
\nTobias Haller, who served on the Marriage Task Force that has put forward various proposals to the upcoming General Convention, objects to our analysis<\/a>.
\n….
\nPerhaps Haller\u2019s title was only a rhetorical flourish; and so we should address the substance at issue. His main argument appears to be that if something has been going on for a long time it must be constitutional. For starters, he should take this point up with the SCLM and the Standing Commission on Constitution and Canons, which jointly have been attempting over the last 25 years to amend Article X of TEC\u2019s Constitution to give General Convention authority to authorize these supplemental materials. If they are constitutional anyway, why the bother? Why try again now?<\/p>\n

In any event, Haller\u2019s legal reasoning at this point is na\u00c3\u00afve, common though it may be. Constitutional questions are not something like adverse possession: as if doing an unconstitutional act openly and notoriously for ten years makes it constitutional. There is often a significant period of time when the unconstitutionality of a legislative act goes unrecognized. Indeed, whenever a court finds such an act unconstitutional it is true by definition<\/i> that a majority of the legislators themselves had previously thought the act constitutional. And there are well known cases in which the Supreme Court itself had previously upheld<\/i> the constitutionality of statutes it was later to strike down. As we know, Brown v. Board of Education overruled a similar case…
\n….
\nFinally, we end by noting the first point we made in our essay to which Haller objects. There is a New Episcopal Church, which he seems to be defending. It has cut the constraints tethering it to constitutional governance and Prayer Book worship and is soaring Icarus-like to ever greater heights. What could possibly go wrong?<\/p>\n

Without a constitutionally defined episcopal office and a Constitution respected as such, TEC will become a triennial General Convention Church with triennially defined identity.<\/p>\n

Read it all<\/a> and the earlier ACI analysis ‘The Episcopal Church and The New Episcopal Church’ is here<\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Misrepresenting ACI\u2019s Concerns About The Constitutionality of Supplemental Liturgical Material Written by: The Reverend Canon Professor Christopher Seitz & Mark McCall, Esq. Last week we published an analysis of proposals to have this General Convention authorize supplemental liturgies that would…<\/span><\/p>\n

Read more ›<\/a><\/div>\n

<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":832,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[36,66,371],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-49490","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-anglican-episcopal","category-episcopal-church-tec","category-tec-polity-canons"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/kendallharmon.net\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/49490","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/kendallharmon.net\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/kendallharmon.net\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/kendallharmon.net\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/832"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/kendallharmon.net\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=49490"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/kendallharmon.net\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/49490\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/kendallharmon.net\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=49490"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/kendallharmon.net\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=49490"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/kendallharmon.net\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=49490"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}