The Progressive Psalm

Obama is my Shepherd; I shall not work.

He maketh me to lie down and watch Oprah;
He leadeth me beside the still factories.
He restoreth my bling;
He leadeth me in the paths of idleness for Barrack’s™ name sake.
Yea, though I walk through the valley of the sharing of the wealth,
I will fear no workfare: For thou art funding me;
Thy gat and thy blade, they comfort me.
Thou preparest a table before me in the presence of people who actually produce;
Thou annointest my teeth with gold; My pipe runneth over.
Surely rebates and Earned Income Credits shall follow me all the days of my life,
and I will dwell in the House of the Obama forever.

(I saw this in someone's comment on a Yahoo! news article and I just had to share it!)

Congressman Coffman on DoD's Misinterpretation of the Pay Our Military Act (H.R. 3210)

Here is what Congressman Coffman (the original sponsor of H.R. 3210) had to say about DoD's apparently intentional limiting of the Pay Our Military Act which resulted in the illegal furlough of DoD civilian employees:


My initial question is why DOJ attorneys were involved in this decision at all, as DoD has its own attorneys. DOJ attorneys are notoriously partisan (think deciding whether to enforce the law or not, enforcing the Obama contraception mandate by trying to require nuns to pay for contraceptive and abortion-inducing drugs, the list could go on and on). I smell a skunk....

Thank you, Congressman Coffman.

A Sign of Leadership Failure

Here is Senator Obama talking about raising the debt ceiling in 2006:

  The fact that we are here today to debate raising America's debt limit is a sign of leadership failure. It is a sign that the U.S. Government can't pay its own bills. It is a sign that we now depend on ongoing financial assistance from foreign countries to finance our Government's reckless fiscal policies.  

* * * 

   And the cost of our debt is one of the fastest growing expenses in the Federal budget. This rising debt is a hidden domestic enemy, robbing our cities and States of critical investments in infrastructure like bridges, ports, and levees; robbing our families and our children of critical investments in education and health care reform; robbing our seniors of the retirement and health security they have counted on.  

* * * 

   Increasing America's debt weakens us domestically and internationally. Leadership means that “the buck stops here.” Instead, Washington is shifting the burden of bad choices today onto the backs of our children and grandchildren. America has a debt problem and a failure of leadership. Americans deserve better. 

   I therefore intend to oppose the effort to increase America's debt limit.

Leadership failure, indeed.  

Read the whole thing here:  http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CREC-2006-03-16/pdf/CREC-2006-03-16-pt1-PgS2236.pdf (starting on page S2237).

Hagel Finally Trying to Follow the Law

In a new development on October 5, it appears Hagel has finally directed the DoD to start obeying the law and end the furlough for “most” DoD civilian employees. The thing to watch now is how DoD applies his definition of “most.” Here are a couple excerpts from an article in The Hill:

The Pentagon has ordered roughly 400,000 furloughed civilian employees back to work.

Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel ordered the worker recall in a department-wide memorandum issued Saturday.

After consulting with the Justice Department and Department of Defense legal counsel, Hagel noted furloughed employees could be brought back to the Pentagon, while still complying with federal guidelines governing the shutdown, according to the memo.

Civilian workers at DOD shown to play a role in the "morale, well-being [and]...readiness" of U.S. forces could be brought back, under federal rules, Hagel wrote.

My congressman had this to say (from the same article):

While supportive of the Pentagon's decision, Rep. Mike Turner (R-Ohio) said the move would have been unnecessary if Obama had not "been playing politics" with civilian furloughs.
The White Houses "should not have furloughed these hard working men and women," Turner said in a statement Saturday.

"They should have been allowed to work through this entire shutdown," the House defense panel member said, adding Obama is using federal workers as "bargaining chips" in the ongoing shutdown stand off with congressional Republicans.

"These men and women are crucial to our country's national defense and I am glad they will be allowed to go back to work this week to support our armed forces," he added.

Here are links to the official documents Hagel put out to end this illegal furlough:

http://www.defense.gov/pubs/Hagel_Cover_Memo_POMA-FINAL.pdf 

http://www.defense.gov/pubs/Memorandum-Pay_Our_Military_Act_Guidance-FINAL.pdf

Congressman Mike Turner Statement on Illegal DoD Civilian Furloughs

Here is a statement Congressman Turner made on the House floor:

Obama & Hagel Are Playing Political Games With the Lives of DoD Civilian Employees

I am a Department of Defense (DoD) civilian employee at Wright-Patterson AFB in Ohio. I have been furloughed since Tuesday, October 1 due to the government shutdown. This shutdown was precipitated by Congress’s failure to pass a DoD (or any other) appropriations bill for fiscal year 2014, which began Tuesday. This is a serious failure of Congress (which includes both the House and the Senate) to perform its solemn duties under the U.S. Constitution. This is unacceptable and the members of Congress should be held accountable.

The U.S. Constitution, Article 1, Section 8 grants Congress the power to pay the debts of the United States. Article 1, Section 9, includes the admonition that “No Money shall be drawn from the Treasury, but in Consequence of Appropriations made by law . . . .” What this means is that one of Congress’s few constitutionally required functions is to pass appropriations bills to pay the debts of the United States. Congress failed to perform this function prior to the start of this fiscal year, so many government agencies that rely on those appropriations were forced to cease functioning.

This government shutdown is not a complete shutdown of all agencies - it is more of a reduction in functions, as there are statutory exceptions that permit certain government functions to continue in the absence of appropriations, for example, those functions necessary to protect life or property. The Office of Personnel Management (OPM) issued Guidance for Shutdown Furloughs in September 2013. This guidance distinguishes between “excepted” employees who may continue to work during a lapse in appropriations and “non-excepted” employees who are subject to furlough. Excepted employees include employees who are performing emergency work involving the safety of human life or the protection of property or performing certain other types of excepted work. Agency legal counsels determine which employees are designated excepted or non-excepted.

A document entitled “Contingency Plan Guidance for Continuation of Essential Operations in the Absence of Available Appropriations” dated September 2013 contains the rules for determining which activities are excepted or non-excepted in DoD (the version I have states “Planning Purposes Only - Do Not Implement Until Direction from the Deputy Secretary of Defense,” but it was the most current guidance available on defense.gov on October 1). The guidance states:

“Civilian personnel, including military technicians, who are not necessary to carry out or support excepted activities are to be furloughed. Only the minimum number of civilian employees necessary to carry out excepted activities will be excepted from furlough. Positions that provide direct support to excepted positions may also be deemed excepted if they are critical to performing the excepted activity.”

The guidance goes on to list many excepted activities. Relevant to my job - I am a government contract law attorney - military operations and activities, including training and exercises, and activities of forces assigned or apportioned to combatant commands are generally excepted under the guise of protection of life and property and national security. Also excepted is contracting and contract administration in support of excepted activities, and legal support for excepted activities.

According to my furlough notice, my “services are not necessary for the orderly suspense of operations and [I] am not engaged in one of the other excepted functions,” so I was placed in furlough status. I do not concede that even under the September 2013 DoD guidance I should have been subject to furlough. My job is to provide legal support to excepted activities, specifically related to contracts to improve and sustain Air Force fighter aircraft for combat air forces. Under any reasonable interpretation, leadership that valued my contribution should have categorized my job as in direct support of excepted activities. But that didn’t happen. I will remember that.

On October 1, roughly 400,000 DoD civilian employees were furloughed (http://apps.federaltimes.com/mobile/article/310020012). I am not saying that all of those employees should have been categorized as excepted under the DoD guidance, though based on my experience, many of them should not have been furloughed. But the DoD guidance is not really the issue now. On September 30, Congress passed and the President signed into law H.R. 3210, the “Pay Our Military Act.”

H.R. 3210 is an appropriations act for fiscal year 2014, providing appropriations for pay and allowances for active duty military members and pay and allowances for “the civilian personnel of the Department of Defense . . . whom the Secretary concerned determines are providing support to members of the Armed Forces . . . .”  The Secretary of Defense, Chuck Hagel, is the person responsible for making this determination.

Please note at the outset that the language in the law (“providing support”) is broader than the language in the DoD shutdown guidance (“provide direct support”). In interpreting this law, one must first look at the plain language of the law to determine what constitutes “providing support” to the Armed Forces. The online Merriam-Webster Dictionary defines the relevant usage of “support” as “assist” or “help” (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/support). While this may be too broad of a statement just based on the plain language of the law, the function of all DoD civilian employees is really to support, assist, or help our active duty forces. The aircraft that the contracts I review support are all flown by active duty military personnel. There is no logical argument that I do not provide support to active duty military personnel in my job. I think you will find that is also the case with almost all other civilian personnel at Wright-Patterson AFB, within Air Force Materiel Command (see the AFMC Mission described at http://www.af.mil/AboutUs/FactSheets/Display/tabid/224/Article/104481/air-force-materiel-command.aspx), within the Air Force, and within the Department of Defense.

To the extent there is any confusion about the meaning of the plain language of H.R. 3210, one can look to the legislative intent behind the legislation. This can be found in a couple of places. The first place is the Congressional Register, which includes a transcript of the House debate of H.R. 3210. Here is what Congressman Coffman from Colorado, the author of H.R. 3210, said on the House floor:

I have introduced this legislation in order to ensure that our military is not used as a political pawn in negotiations between the United States House and the Senate.

My legislation, H.R. 3210, the Pay Our Military Act, ensures that until such time as the President signs a continuing resolution, our military and the Department of Defense civilians and contractors who support our men and women in uniform will continue to be paid, regardless of a shutdown.

(159 Cong. Rec. H6007, available at http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CREC-2013-09-28/pdf/CREC-2013-09-28-pt1-PgH6002.pdf). That sounds pretty clear. The legislative intent was that the language in this bill be interpreted very broadly to protect DoD civilian employees from the effects of a government shutdown.

Another indication of the legislative intent are the numerous statements from congressman after the passage of the bill into law. I will get to those in a moment. Let me first make one point clear: H.R. 3210 was passed by both houses of Congress and signed by the President before DoD issued any furlough notices on October 1. In other words, it was the law of the land. The U.S. Constitution, Article II, Section 3, requires the President to “take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed . . . .” After H.R. 3210 became law, the President had a responsibility under the Constitution to direct Secretary of Defense Hagel to determine which DoD civilian employees provide support to members of the Armed Forces. This should have been done before the issuance of furlough notices, even if it meant Hagel made an initial determination that all DoD civilian employees met the requirements of H.R. 3210 (which would have been consistent with both the plain language and legislative intent of the law, and would not have caused any remotely colorable Anti-Deficiency Act concerns).

I’m not going to go into the whole process of furloughing civilian personnel, but suffice it to say that an agency is required to provide advance notice to employees before a furlough begins when the reason is not due to a lapse in appropriations. With respect to any DoD civilian employees providing support to the Armed Forces, there was not a lapse in appropriations - H.R. 3210 appropriated funds to pay those employees. Therefore, with respect to any employees later determined to be supporting the Armed Forces, the issuance of furlough notices on October 1 did not comply with the law.

Let’s look at some of the statements many congressmen made after H.R. 3210 became law:

“I believe the legislation provides you broad latitude and I encourage you to use it,” wrote House Armed Services Committee Chairman Rep. Howard “Buck” McKeon, R-Calif., in an Oct. 1 letter [available at: http://armedservices.house.gov/index.cfm/files/serve?File_id=22ebe154-1762-48d5-85c4-817bbe427c34] to Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel. “The text does not limit the provision of pay to civilians who were previously categorized by the administration as ‘excepted’ or ‘essential’ for the purposes of Department of Defense operations in the event of a government shutdown.”

(Source: http://www.govexec.com/pay-benefits/2013/10/republicans-slam-pentagon-over-furloughs-defense-civilians/71164/).

House Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio, issued a statement [available at: http://www.speaker.gov/general/despite-signing-pay-our-military-act-white-house-using-dod-workers-play-political-games] linking to McKeon’s letter, criticizing the Pentagon for “narrowly” interpreting the law so far “against congressional intent.” The headline of Boehner’s statement is “Despite Signing Pay Our Military Act, White House Using DoD Workers to Play Political Games.”

(Source: http://www.govexec.com/pay-benefits/2013/10/republicans-slam-pentagon-over-furloughs-defense-civilians/71164/).

"I was surprised that Secretary Hagel had furloughed anyone" at Wright-Patt because of the language in the bill and the law, [Congressman Mike] Turner said, noting the language authorizes him to keep on anyone who is in support of the armed forces.
 "We're going to continue the fight over the next several days to get the Pentagon to recognize that people working for the armed forces, whether they be uniform or civilian, ought to be at work and ought to be paid."

(Source: http://cdn.localwireless.com/wap/news/text.jsp?sid=59&nid=3616181057&cid=2055&scid=-1&checksum=2813476701). 

Congressman Turner also sent letters to the President and Hagel, which are available from the links at this page: http://turner.house.gov/news/documentsingle.aspx?DocumentID=352108).

There are a number of other statements, a couple of which you can view at the following links:

http://t.co/EKBoOyL0Dz

http://t.co/8riPAaXtnR

So why hasn’t Hagel made the determination to get most or all DoD civilian employees back to work yet? Here are a couple of statements he’s made:

After President Obama signed the bill, Hagel said that lawyers from the Pentagon, Justice Department and Office of Management and Budget are studying the legislation "to see if there's any margin here or widening in the interpretation of the law regarding exempt versus non-exempt civilians." Although unable to say when a decision will be made, "it's a priority that we have and that we're working on right now," Hagel said.

(Source: http://apps.federaltimes.com/mobile/article/310020012).

"Our lawyers believe that maybe we can expand the exempt status," Hagel said. "We don't know if that's the case, but we are exploring that, so that we could cut back from the furloughs some of the civilians that had to leave."

(Source: http://apps.federaltimes.com/mobile/article/310010020; notice that he uses the phrase “exempt status” - that is not the law, but is the much narrower term used in the DoD guidance).

Hagel has said the department’s general counsel is reviewing the law to see what flexibilities exist with respect to keeping more civilians on the job during the shutdown.

(Source: http://www.govexec.com/pay-benefits/2013/10/republicans-slam-pentagon-over-furloughs-defense-civilians/71164/).

What is taking the “exempt” lawyers so long to figure this out? It doesn’t take a genius lawyer to figure out that most DoD civilians should be back on the job, and in fact, should never have been furloughed on October 1 in the first place. Could it have something to do with the fact that most of the people still at work and making these decisions are political appointees?

Just look at what is happening with respect to National Park Service sites:

Numerous other sites around DC have been unnecessarily closed by the NPS and other federal agencies in what critics are labeling a cynical political stunt which only serves to punish the American people.
 In some cases, efforts to shut down these sites actually require more manpower and resources than if they had been left open, highlighting the fact that this is an act of partisan theater by the Obama administration to pin the blame for the government shutdown on Republicans and opponents of Obamacare.

(Source: http://www.infowars.com/barrycades-government-tries-to-shut-down-privately-owned-mount-vernon/). Obama is even trying to close privately owned sites such as Mt. Vernon (see previous link).

Obama wants to make sure people feel the hurt of the shutdown, so he’s directing very public actions to highlight the impacts of Congress’s failure to pass appropriations bills. Do I have any support for this allegation? Yes. Here is one statement from the Wall Street Journal (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702303492504579113781436540284.html):

White House officials believe they have the upper hand, citing evidence that some Republicans are buckling under public pressure.

Is that the smoking gun? No. But the article continues:

Said a senior administration official: "We are winning...It doesn't really matter to us" how long the shutdown lasts "because what matters is the end result."

They are winning? [Update: the White House has disavowed this quote, so in fairness I will mention that - but I don't know that I'd trust Jay Carney's word - sounds more like the White House is upset that the press picked up the quote.] So as long as people are blaming House Republicans, it is just fine and dandy with the Obama administration that people feel as much pain and inconvenience as possible.

With this view, it explains why President Obama won't agree to any piecemeal legislation that would keep Veterans Affairs and NIH open during the shutdown. And it explains why President Obama would rather cancel his Asia trip than negotiate with Republicans.
 It's because the White House (or, at least this unnamed official) believe it is "winning" by shutting down the government and blaming Republicans. And when one's winning, he's not likely to change course.

(Source: http://m.weeklystandard.com/blogs/senior-admin-official-we-are-winningit-doesnt-really-matter-us-when-shutdown-ends_759185.html).

[Update 2: Apparently Obama is now trying to close the ocean, as well. Why? "Apparently, according to an anonymous Park Service ranger, “We’ve been told to make life as difficult for people as we can. It’s disgusting.”" What class.]

So how does this tie in to DoD civilian furloughs? Obama is “winning,” so he does not want to see the pain felt by the DoD civilian workforce lessened, as that would lessen the level of outrage and blame that he believes will be directed at House Republicans. I could be wrong, but the evidence in support of my allegation is pretty strong. It’s all a political game.

Now don’t get me wrong, I am very upset with both Republicans and Democrats in Congress. There is no way they should go on vacation just weeks before the end of the fiscal year when they have yet again failed to pass fiscal year 2014 appropriations bills. They have all shown a total lack of competence.

But both parties came together to pass H.R. 3210, and the President signed it into law. The President is now failing to perform his constitutional duty to faithfully execute the law and to take care that Secretary of Defense Hagel faithfully executes the law. It’s time for Obama and Hagel to stop worrying about “winning” their stupid political game and to start faithfully executing the law. The lawyers supposedly looking at H.R. 3210 need to do what DoD lawyers (both civilian and military) are asked to do every day: provide timely, accurate legal advice to their clients so that their clients can accomplish their missions. One of those missions at this difficult time is for Hagel to make the determination required by H.R. 3210 that most, if not all, DoD civilian employees provide support to the Armed Forces and to end this illegal furlough. Then Congress and the President need to get together and negotiate an end to this stupid government shutdown and get our Nation back to work.

Letter to Senators and Congressman on Syria

Here is the letter I sent to my senators and congressman on the proposed military action in Syria.  I will post any responses I receive as well:

==========

I urge you to vote against any U.S. military action against Syria in response to Syria's likely use of chemical weapons against its own people in its civil war.  I oppose such military action for three broad reasons that I will briefly elaborate upon below:  (1) the U.S. has no national interest in getting involved in Syria's civil war; (2) the U.S. is not the world's police; and (3) sending a message is not a valid reason to use military force against a country with which we are not at war.  I assume for the purposes of this message that the government of Syria did use chemical weapons against its people.  I also assume we have good intelligence to support this conclusion. ... Please consider my comments and please vote against U.S. military action in Syria.

We have no national interest in getting involved in Syria's civil war.  We don't really have valid reason to help or hurt either side.  Even assuming Syria's government used chemical weapons against the opposition, we should not even consider acting unless and until we are certain that an opposition win in this civil war would be in our best interests.  We cannot say that the U.S. would be in a better position if the terrorist aligned opposition were to prevail than if the legitimate government were to prevail.  While Syria has certainly not been a U.S. ally in the recent past, Syria has not truly threatened or harmed the U.S. either.  Syria's use of chemical weapons against its own people does not threaten the United States or our interests.

We are not the world's police.  The use of chemical weapons is bad, but Syria's internal domestic use of chemical weapons does not warrant U.S. military intervention.  In fact, while many people died in this instance (or these instances), Syria's use of chemical weapons against its own people is not really any different than if an American police department uses tear gas on protesters - it still represents a government using chemical agents against its people.  And why does the fact that Syria killed people with chemical weapons, as opposed to a bomb or machine guns, make a difference with respect to a potential response?  Either way, the people are just as dead.  It's terrible.  We should strongly condemn the use of chemical weapons and the killing of these people.  But the next logical step is not for the U.S. to launch a military attack on a sovereign nation with which we are not at war and to kill more people.

Sending a message is not a valid reason to use military force (that is, to break things and kill people) that do not threaten the U.S. or our allies.  This would set a terrible precedent for using force against a sovereign nation that is not engaged in international hostilities.  We should only put our troops in harm’s way and use our military weapons when we have a strong need to protect U.S. national interests, when we have a clear goal (i.e., a well-defined end state we hope to achieve), and a high likelihood that our proposed military action will result in that end state.  The proposed action in Syria does not meet any of these criteria.

I urge you to oppose U.S. military action against Syria.  I request a detailed, specific response from you to this message.  Do not just send me an auto reply or form letter response.

Supporting True Marriage is Not Discrimination

Cardinal Wuerl has a very good blog post explaining why supporting the truth that marriage can ONLY be between one man and one woman is not discrimination. He makes an excellent observation about one of the worst Supreme Court decisions ever written:

Perhaps one of the most egregious examples of the current trend of gratuitously defaming people based on the suspected rationale for their positions is the majority opinion in the recent Supreme Court ruling on the constitutionality of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA).  Here we find justices of the Supreme Court asserting that they are able to read the minds, hearts and souls of people, including Congress and the President of the United States, and have determined that the supporters of DOMA acted with malice, with the “purpose…to disparage and to injure” same-sex couples.  The same majority opinion goes on to claim some sort of superhuman power to read men’s and women’s hearts, allowing the court now to announce that the motivation for DOMA was “to demean,” to brand as unworthy and to humiliate.

You can read the whole post here.

I also highly recommend you read Justice Scalia's dissent in the DOMA case.  Here are a couple of excerpts:

This case is about power in several respects. It is about the power of our people to govern themselves, and the power of this Court to pronounce the law. Today’s opinion aggrandizes the latter, with the predictable consequence of diminishing the former. We have no power to decide this case. And even if we did, we have no power under the Constitution to invalidate this democratically adopted legislation. The Court’s errors on both points spring forth from the same diseased root: an exalted conception of the role of this institution in America. 

* * *

The majority concludes that the only motive for this Act was the “bare . . . desire to harm a politically unpopular group.” Ante, at 20. Bear in mind that the object of this condemnation is not the legislature of some onceConfederate Southern state (familiar objects of the Court’s scorn, see, e.g., Edwards v. Aguillard, 482 U. S. 578 (1987)), but our respected coordinate branches, the Congress and Presidency of the United States. Laying such a charge against them should require the most extraordinary evidence, and I would have thought that every attempt would be made to indulge a more anodyne explanation for the statute. The majority does the opposite—affirmatively concealing from the reader the arguments that exist in justification. It makes only a passing mention of the “arguments put forward” by the Act’s defenders, and does not even trouble to paraphrase or describe them. See ante, at 21. I imagine that this is because it is harder to maintain the illusion of the Act’s supporters as unhinged members of a wild-eyed lynch mob when one first describes their views as they see them.

* * *

To be sure (as the majority points out), the legislation is called the Defense of Marriage Act. But to defend traditional marriage is not to condemn, demean, or humiliate those who would prefer other arrangements, any more than to defend the Constitution of the United States is to condemn, demean, or humiliate other constitutions. To hurl such accusations so casually demeans this institution. In the majority’s judgment, any resistance to its holding is beyond the pale of reasoned disagreement. To question its high-handed invalidation of a presumptively valid statute is to act (the majority is sure) with the purpose to “disparage,” ”injure,” “degrade,” ”demean,” and “humiliate” our fellow human beings, our fellow citizens, who are homosexual. All that, simply for supporting an Act that did no more than codify an aspect of marriage that had been unquestioned in our society for most of its existence—indeed, had been unquestioned in virtually all societies for virtually all of human history. It is one thing for a society to elect change; it is another for a court of law to impose change by adjudging those who oppose it hostes humani generis, enemies of the human race. 

Justice Scalia's dissent will go down as one of the greatest dissenting opinions written by the Supreme Court.  The majority opinion will go down as one of the worst, not even worthy of being published in the Supreme Court Reporters.

The Persecution of Christians Continues

I saw this article today:

The New Mexico Supreme Court ruled on Thursday that, by refusing to photograph a gay wedding, a photography studio violated the New Mexico Human Rights Act (NMHRA). 

The court found that Elane Photography’s refusal to serve Vanessa Willock violated the act, which “prohibits a public accommodation from refusing to offer its services to a person based on that person’s sexual orientation,” according to the ruling.

Catholics need to respond to this decision and the future decisions that are sure to follow.  One tactic would be to make wedding photographers an official ministry within the Catholic Church.  We should also consider doing the same for bakers that make wedding cakes, dress makers, tuxedo rental companies, etc.  If we could argue that these professionals are officially sanctioned ministers within our Church, similar to EMEs and lectors, we may have a stronger argument to protect them against the homosexual fascists bent on making all of us participate in their campaign of immorality.

Make no doubt about it - even though the state is not torturing or killing Christians (yet), this is persecution.  In the words of G.K. Chesterton:

Religious persecution does not consist in thumbscrews or fires of Smithfield; the essence of religious persecution is this: that the man who happens to have material power in the State, either by wealth or by official position, should govern his fellow-citizens not according to their religion or philosophy, but according to his own.