設為首頁  加入最愛網
會員中心 贊助提供 徵求志工 線上電台 優惠精品 合作夥伴 關於我們 連絡我們
 
         
  首頁 > 影音網>大法官托馬斯在德州大學演講Justice Tomas lecture at UT
大法官托馬斯在德州大學演講Justice Tomas lecture at UT

[轉載自:Youtue]

[謝鎮寬]於2026-05-01 17:05:05上傳[]

 




CH 1





大法官托馬斯在德州大學演講
Justice Tomas lecture at UT

托馬斯大法官在德克薩斯大學演講的簡要概述:

公民教育:他讚揚了德州大學新成立的公民領導學院,該學院恢復了對西方文明和美國憲政傳統的研究。

《獨立宣言》:他將這份文件描述為一種“生活方式”,是歷史上最偉大的反奴隸製文獻之一,也是美國的道德基石。

神聖平等:他以自己在種族隔離的南方度過的童年經歷為例,論證了人權和尊嚴來自上帝,而非政府,因此是「不可剝奪的」。

自由與責任:他強調自由與責任密不可分;如果公民不履行彼此之間的義務,自由社會就無法生存。

堅守原則的勇氣:他分享了自己經歷的種種磨難,以此說明堅守原則比追求名利或安逸更為重要。

憲法目的:他解釋說,憲法規定了政府的手段,而宣言則規定了目的(保護上帝賦予的權利)。

Here is a short summary of Justice Clarence Thomas’s lecture at the University of Texas:

Civic Education: He praised UT’s new School of Civic Leadership for restoring the study of Western civilization and American constitutional traditions.

The Declaration of Independence: He described the document as a "way of life" and one of history’s greatest anti-slavery texts, serving as the moral foundation for the nation.

Divine Equality: Drawing from his childhood in the segregated South, he argued that human rights and dignity come from God, not the government, making them "unalienable."

Liberty and Duty: He emphasized that freedom is inseparable from responsibility; a free society cannot survive if its citizens do not fulfill their obligations to one another.

Principled Courage: He shared personal stories of hardship to illustrate that staying true to one's principles is more important than popularity or comfort.

Constitutional Purpose: He explained that while the Constitution provides the means of government, the Declaration defines the ends (protecting God-given rights).

~~~~~~~~~~

午安.很高興看到這麼多德州長角牛隊的校友朋友們齊聚一堂,共襄盛舉。我很榮幸能參與今天的活動,並向大家介紹我們的演講嘉賓。坦白說,無論是學生、律師,或是普通公民,都能從克拉倫斯·托馬斯大法官身上學到很多。他擔任美國最高法院大法官的時間比任何現任大法官都長,他對我們理解法律的方式產生了深遠的影響,並將世代相傳。但在介紹他之前,我想邀請大家思考一些更深層的問題,因為我們今天來到這裡,不僅是為了聆聽一位偉大法學家的演講,更是為了向一位畢生致力於一項偉大實驗的人學習。這項實驗始於250年前,誕生於我們國家的獨立之時,但它從未自我延續。它之所以能夠延續至今,是因為每一代都在不斷湧現新的成員。這些人努力理解它,認真對待它,並願意實踐它。托馬斯大法官無疑是這個共和國的偉大公民。他的公民生涯教會了我們許多重要的道理,其中許多也讓我們反思自身。首先,托馬斯大法官始終堅持走自己的路。他曾寫道,讀了拉爾夫·埃里森的《看不見的人》後,他意識到書中的主人公多年來總是隨波逐流,唯獨不按常理出牌,於是下定決心不再重蹈覆轍。他曾簡單地說:「我努力做到最好。」堅持正確不僅僅意味著隨波逐流,更需要超越那些容易或符合預期的做法,而往往是成就長久事業的唯一途徑。德州人民正是秉持著類似的信念創立了這所大學。我們的州憲法要求我們成為一流大學。德州長角牛隊的成員深知自主選擇道路的意義。
他的生命教導我們的第二件事是:自由與責任密不可分。這一點值得一再強調:自由與責任密不可分。托馬斯大法官一生都在強調我們應得的和我們應盡的義務之間的區別。自由的人民若不承擔與之相伴的義務,便無法維繫自由。這是公民身分的基石,也是我們存在的意義。無論你學習的是法律、醫學、物理或人文科學,你接受教育的目的不僅在於發展自己的智力,更在於運用你的智慧服務他人。
德州共和國總統、市長博·拉馬爾(Bo Lamar)曾為這所大學的未來保駕護航,並劃撥公共土地用於公共教育。他有一句名言,你或許早已耳熟能詳。他告訴我們,修養高尚的頭腦是民主的守護者。他繼續說:「在美德的引導和約束下,正如托馬斯大法官實踐美德,並以身作則,激勵我們效仿。」 現在,我想以托馬斯大法官的生平事蹟作結。他並未就讀於德州大學奧斯汀分校。但當我審視他的人生、他選擇的道路以及他所秉持的信念時,我看到了他身上那股德州長角牛般的精神。事實上,祂體現了我們的信仰,更重要的是,體現了我們希望成為怎樣的人。現在,我非常榮幸地向大家介紹美國最高法院大法官克拉倫斯·托馬斯閣下。
謝謝。
謝謝。
謝謝。謝謝。嗯,我想我還是見好就收。非常感謝大家。戴維斯校長、教務長和鮑登先生、戴爾院長、各位教職員工、同學們以及各位尊敬的來賓。感謝各位的到來,也感謝學校和各位領導邀請我參觀德州大學奧斯汀分校。我和我的妻子維吉尼亞很高興來到這裡,共同慶祝《獨立宣言》發表250週年。如果我沒記錯的話,這只是我第二次訪問德州大學,而且是第一次應邀而來。不過,我曾聘用並與許多與這所大學相關的傑出青年共事。我合作過的第一位是現任美國軍事上訴法院首席法官格雷格·馬格斯,在我成為法院法官時,他還是法學院的一位新教員。在我第一任期的後半段,他請了假來擔任我的法律助理。我第一位擔任我法律助理的德州大學畢業生是格雷格‧科爾曼,那是三十年前的事了。格雷格後來成為了德州的第一位州檢察官。他非常傑出,他的兒子里德也同樣出色,里德也是德州大學法學院的畢業生,同樣非常優秀。格雷格的遺孀,也是我們非常親愛的朋友史蒂芬妮今天也來到了現場。史蒂芬妮,謝謝你,也謝謝你一直以來都是這麼好的朋友。
格雷格和他的兒子里德都曾擔任我親愛的朋友伊迪絲瓊斯法官的法律助理,瓊斯法官也是德州大學法學院的畢業生。我非常敬佩瓊斯法官。她是我的英雄之一,我很敬佩她的人格和法律才能,我很高興她今天能來到這裡。我的一些前法律助理也來到了現場。我不能透露他們的名字。嗯,所以請他們起立,接受大家的致敬。
所以,在我的辦公室裡,德州大學和德州大學法學院的校友都非常優秀。我希望我今天的表現還不錯,只是有點不適應講台。抱歉。嗯,我希望我今天的演講能以某種方式為另一項偉大的舉措——德克薩斯州在其旗艦大學恢復公民教育和西方文明教育核心地位的計劃——的啟動做出貢獻。我非常榮幸能受邀參加這場演講,感謝新成立的公民領導學院院長賈斯汀·戴爾先生的邀約。我也非常感謝我的前法律助理約翰·U教授的協助,他過去三十年一直在伯克利法學院工作,現在加入了賈斯汀先生及其在德克薩斯大學的團隊。學院的宗旨是幫助學生了解西方文明和美國憲政傳統的獨特遺產,以此作為追求自由和智慧(關於如何生活和如何領導)這一更宏大目標的一部分。在我們慶祝《獨立宣言》發表250週年之際,您的計劃對我們國家而言可謂恰逢其時,因為宣言中所宣揚的價值觀卻已逐漸被人遺忘。我衷心希望您為重振西方文明和美國憲政傳統的教學與研究所做的工作,能夠引領我國高校的改革。我也希望您的榜樣能幫助我們的同胞重燃對《獨立宣言》原則的信念。我似乎總是很享受到這個神奇的州旅行。我和我的妻子維吉尼亞在這裡有很多很棒的朋友和熟人。今天,我們親愛的朋友哈·哈倫和凱西·克羅能和我們一起到場,真是太榮幸了。德州最突出的特點之一,就是德州人談論它的方式。他們對自己家鄉的深厚感情,始終如一,令人動容。這種對德州的敬畏和依戀值得我們尊重、欽佩,並盡可能地效仿。這種情緒與我對家鄉喬治亞州乃至我們國家的深厚感情相似,儘管種族隔離及其伴隨的種種罪惡留下了難以磨滅的印記。我自豪地說,我生為美國人,蒙上帝恩典成為喬治亞人。在聖本篤小學,人們公開宣揚對上帝和國家的忠誠並不罕見。每天上學開始,我們都會兩兩一組、按班級在操場上列隊,觀看升旗儀式,並宣讀效忠誓詞,然後默默地走向各自的教室。即便我們許多上帝賦予和憲法規定的權利都被剝奪,我們依然虔誠地宣讀效忠誓詞,背誦憲法序言,並渴望憲法所承諾的理想得以實現。令人遺憾的是,如今我們的同胞中已不再普遍持有這種情感,而且這種情感似乎也失去了當年那般強大的力量。事實上,這種情緒往往傾向於對我們的國家及其理念抱持憤世嫉俗、排斥、敵意和反感。鑑於以上所述,
鑑於上述所述,我想先談談我與《獨立宣言》原則的初次接觸。這或許並非您首先想到的。宣言第二段宣稱:「我們認為這些真理是不言而喻的:人人生而平等,造物主賦予他們若干不可剝奪的權利。」在我整個青年時期,這些真理都是不容偏見和歧視的信條。 《美國傳統英語字典》對「不言而喻」的定義是:顯而易見的真理,無需證明、論證或解釋。無論這些真理的來源是神聖的還是世俗的,都從未受到質疑。它們是聖杯、北極星、磐石,不可動搖,不容置疑。儘管充斥著各種法律和習俗的偏見,但在我所居住的那些幾乎沒有接受過正規教育的黑人中,普遍存在著這樣的信念:在上帝的眼中,在我們的憲法之下,我們是平等的。我的修女也是如此,她們大多是愛爾蘭移民。在家、在學校、在教堂,我們都被教導說,人人生而平等,平等源自於上帝,人是無法被剝奪的。我們是按照上帝的形象和樣式創造的。這個道理不容置疑,也非人所能改變。那些擁有權力和惡意的人或許會區別對待我們,但他們沒有神聖的力量來使我們如此。儘管沒有接受過正規教育,但長輩們卻明白,這些上帝賦予的或與生俱來的權利先於政府的權力和權威,並且凌駕於其上。當你生活在一個種族隔離、歧視顯而易見的世界,而你身邊的政府強制執行著助長不平等待遇的法律和習俗時,你就會明白,你的權利和尊嚴並非來自這些政府,而是來自上帝。我的祖父雖然不識字,但他經常談到我們的權利和義務來自上帝,而不是那些製造種族隔離和歧視的人。人並非天使。他們受制於既有權利的約束。而我們卻不受那些人的約束,即便我們不得不屈從於他們的任性。我們深知生命、自由和財產神聖不可侵犯。這些真理對我們生活中的成年人來說是不言而喻的,他們也將其作為不可磨滅、不容置疑的真理教導我們。我們周圍的人能夠或願意有尊嚴地忍受種族隔離的侮辱,因為他們知道在上帝眼中,人人平等。然而,在討論《獨立宣言》時,人們常常不幸地傾向於將這些不言而喻的真理和政府的基本原則晦澀難懂。知識分子想讓你相信,我們的建國原則是深奧的哲學問題或複雜的辯論。即使是那些支持這些原則的人,也常常把它們當作學術玩具來談論。他們過度複雜化,剝奪了這些原則的精神,並以一種令人昏昏欲睡的方式進行討論。但就我所理解的,《獨立宣言》的原則是一種生活方式。它們並非只能在大學或法學院學習的抽象理論,而是我們憲法和政府的基本前提,你可以從你身邊的人身上學習。當法國人亞歷克西斯·德托克維爾(Alexis Detokville)訪問早期美國時,他驚訝地發現,在文明世界中,沒有哪個國家像美國那樣對哲學如此漠不關心。但同樣,也沒有哪個國家像美國一樣,將《獨立宣言》的原則深深根植於人們的心中,並如此堅定地捍衛它。這就是我童年時期對《獨立宣言》原則的理解。也只有這樣,這些原則才能維繫我們的國家。今天,我將以這種理解與你們探討這些原則。我仍然相信──現在讓我換個說法。我仍然相信,正如我當時所相信的那樣,1776年的《獨立宣言》為我們共和國的公民提供了指導原則。即使在當今質疑和批評我們建國之初的時代,我們也不應忘記,正是這份宣言確立的原則,儘管我們自身存在種種缺陷、失誤和悲劇性的錯誤,卻依然成就了我們。它賦予了我們世界歷史上最自由、最富裕、最強大的國家。它提供了道德準則,弗雷德里克·道格拉斯、亞伯拉罕·林肯和馬丁·路德·金正是以此批判奴隸制和種族隔離制度。事實上,這份宣言與福音書一樣,是西方文明史上最偉大的反奴隸製文獻之一。它並未確立具體的政府形式,那是後來憲法的職責。但它闡明了政府的宗旨。宣言清晰而明確地指出了政府的宗旨。
這份宣言清楚明確地闡明了政府的宗旨是保護上帝賦予我們不可剝奪的權利,這些權利人人平等。正如亞伯拉罕·林肯在1858年與史蒂芬·道格拉斯的辯論中所說:「放棄任何微不足道的想法,不要為任何人的成功而沾沾自喜。這毫無意義。我微不足道。道格拉斯法官微不足道。但不要摧毀那不朽的人類象徵——《美國獨立宣言》。」宣言中的思想如此強大,以至於我們的國家無法與奴隸制這一罪惡所造成的矛盾。這些原則如此強大,以至於成千上萬的美國人在內戰中浴血奮戰,為爭取自由而犧牲。這些思想如此強大,以至於它們最終促使我們的國家結束了種族隔離。時至今日,它們依然如此強大,激勵著世界各地的人們掙脫壓迫者的枷鎖。這一切都始於1776年,我們的建國先賢在《獨立宣言》中宣告:我們認為這些真理是不言而喻的,人人生而平等,造物主賦予他們若干不可剝奪的權利,其中包括生命權、自由權和追求幸福的權利。我們也不應忘記緊接而來的重要語句:為了保障這些權利,人們才在他們之間建立政府,而政府的正當權力,則來自政府的同意。為了保障這些權利,人們才建立政府。同意原則源自於平等原則。我們人民絕不能合法地同意侵犯上帝賦予我們的平等權利。然而,當我今天再次閱讀《獨立宣言》時,最令我震撼的往往是最後一句話。 250年後的今天,我們很容易忘記當年簽署這份宣言的56位偉人需要何等的勇氣。可以說,他們犯下了叛國罪,冒著被一個遠比新生的美國強大的帝國處死的風險。因此,他們以那句令人難忘的最後一句作結,我引用如下:「為了支持這項宣言,我們堅定地信賴神聖天意的庇佑,彼此以生命、財產和神聖的榮譽互相擔保。」我再說一遍:我們彼此以生命、財產和神聖的榮譽互相擔保。最近,我偶然讀到一篇關於勇氣的定義,據說是富蘭克林·德拉諾·羅斯福總統所作。勇氣並非沒有恐懼,而是認為有比恐懼更重要的事。本質上,宣言的簽署者們是在說,他們願意為他們所堅持的原則而死,這是至高無上的勇氣。這些原則比他們的恐懼更重要。我現在意識到,如果沒有最後那句話,《獨立宣言》中的一切都毫無意義。沒有這句話,宣言的其餘部分只不過是羊皮紙上的文字。優美的文字,但終究只是文字。改變世界的並非宣言的言辭,而是那些甘願勞動、犧牲乃至獻出生命的人們的奉獻精神——正如林肯在葛底斯堡所說的,這是對宣言原則的最後徹底的忠誠。正是這種忠誠,正是這種忠誠,賦予了我們如今的豐厚遺產。正是這種忠誠支撐著開國元勳和大陸軍,使他們在獨立戰爭中浴血奮戰並最終獲勝,在福吉谷與勝利者決一死戰,渡過特拉華河,擊敗人數和火力遠勝於己的敵軍,最終贏得自由。也正是這種忠誠,在內森·海爾被英軍處決前,他曾說過:“我唯一的遺憾是,我只有一條命可以獻給這個國家。”正是這種奉獻精神,促使帕特里克·亨利站在弗吉尼亞州議會面前,質問道:“難道生命如此珍貴,和平如此美好,以至於要用鎖鍊和奴役來換取自由的上帝問道:“難道我不知道,和平如此美好,以至於要用鎖鍊和奴役來換取自由的上帝問道,絕不是我不知道。此後250年間,正是這種奉獻精神激勵美國人取得偉大的成就,展現英雄氣概。想想那些開拓西部的拓荒者,想想那些在草原上建立小鎮的家庭,想想那些教導孩子熱愛上帝和祖國,並將他們送上戰場的婦女,想想那些在內戰戰場上高唱“他為使人聖潔而死,讓我們為使人自由而死”的士兵,想想那些創新者、勞動者和工程師,他們都洋溢著愛國情懷
想想這份奉獻精神是如何激勵我們從獨立廳走向弗蘭德斯戰場,最終抵達諾曼第海灘。想想電影《兄弟連》中那令人難忘的一幕:美國士兵抵達集中營,看到那些飽受折磨、骨瘦如柴、絕望無助的囚犯,他們打開大門,給他們食物、毯子和溫暖的擁抱。士兵們環顧四周,心中明白,這就是我們戰鬥的意義。想想911事件中在賓州斯坎克斯維爾墜毀的93號航班上的乘客。想想那些即便在我們今天坐在這裡,仍然被我們派往危險境地的年輕男女。想想我的祖父母,他們在1955年8月,默默地、不聲不響地將我和我的兄弟叫到廚房的桌子旁,把他們餘生都託付給我們,只為了讓我們有機會。他們告訴我們:「我們沒有受過教育。
我們沒有受過教育,也沒有機會。但你們這些孩子將有機會。我們將把餘生都奉獻給你們。 」真正重要的是他們的奉獻、他們的愛、他們致力於把我們培養成才的決心。意願,在美國歷史上一直至關重要。 ,當時我告訴自己,在國會山的這份工作只是我回佐治亞州薩凡納老家途中的一個短暫停留。我來到華盛頓的那天起,就從來不乏高談闊論、言辭得體的人。背誦宣言的字句,鸚鵡學舌般地重複其中的原則。會看清他們的真面目。讓他們想辦法逃避做正確的事。票,躲藏起來。 1896年的弗格森案判決認可了政府強制執行的種族隔離,並使我成長的吉姆·克勞時代的南方合法化。 ,就像很多時候一樣。
我們沒有受過教育,也沒有機會。但你們這些孩子將會擁有機會。而我們將把餘生奉獻給你們。正是他們的奉獻、他們的愛、他們致力於把我們培養成才的決心,才真正改變了這一切。並非言辭,儘管言辭盡其所能地表達了他們的意願。真正重要的是他們的奉獻。同樣地,同樣地,宣言最後一句所表達的奉獻精神,那種為了我們的原則不惜一切的決心,在美國歷史上始終至關重要。正是這種奉獻精神,我們今天所缺失,也必須在我們心中重新找到,這個國家才能延續下去。我47年前來到華盛頓特區。難以置信。 1979年,我作為密蘇裡州參議員傑克·丹福斯的幕僚來到這裡,當時我告訴自己,在國會山的這份工作只是我回佐治亞州薩凡納老家途中的一個短暫停留。後來,我在雷根政府時期加入了行政部門。我曾在兩個聯邦機構任職近十年,擔任聯邦上訴法院法官,並在過去的34年中一直在最高法院任職。自從我來到華盛頓,就從來不乏高談闊論、言辭得體的人。我身邊到處都是滿口承諾的人,他們聲稱自己致力於某種正義的事業、傳統的道德準則、國防、自由企業、宗教虔誠,或是憲法的原意。這些人或許和簽署《獨立宣言》的人一樣胸懷大志。他們能背誦宣言的字句,鸚鵡學舌般地重複其中的原則。他們能像最優秀的人一樣撰寫文章,在會議上就宣言發表高談闊論。然而,很多時候,這不過是空談,被華麗的辭藻和雄辯的辭藻所掩蓋。他們似乎缺乏的是真正的奉獻。人們一旦身居要職,你就會看清他們的真面目。套用我最近讀到的一句話,戰爭會剝去我們偽裝的外衣,讓我們回歸本真。一旦身處聚光燈下,在這場戰爭中,許多人便會淪為那些旨在讓他們背離自身原則的權貴的獵物。他們懼怕批評,害怕負面關注,以至於想辦法逃避做正確的事。或者,他們被奉承的誘惑所迷惑,被讚揚所蠱惑,拼命地迎合他人。他們被以前遙不可及的事物所誘惑。他們沉浸在讚譽和認可的狂喜中,拋棄了自己的信念。他們淡化自己的訊息,與自己作對,違背自己的原則投票,躲藏起來。他們把自己重新包裝成製度主義者、實用主義者或深思熟慮的溫和派,這一切都是為了向自己、自己的良心和國家掩蓋自己的失敗。在華盛頓待了沒多久,我就不再疑惑最高法院為何花了六十年才推翻「派訴弗格森案」——1896年的這項判決認可了政府強制執行的種族隔離,並鞏固了我成長的那個「吉姆·克勞」式的南方。我簡直無法理解,我的法院怎麼可能花了六十年才意識到派案是駭人聽聞的錯誤,種族歧視與我們「不分膚色」的憲法格格不入。大法官們肯定早就知道這一點。正如哈倫大法官在他那次唯一的判決中所闡述的那樣,正確的做法顯而易見,就像很多時候一樣。或許阻礙他們的是怯懦。大法官可能害怕社會後果,可能害怕遭受政治攻擊,可能害怕失去社會地位,可能害怕負面輿論。他們或許擔心,一旦開始執行「不分膚色」的憲法,接下來就得處理跨種族婚姻的問題了。但無論如何,在長達60年令人蒙羞的歲月裡,他們讓像我這樣的美國孩子在種族歧視的環境中長大。
他們讓像我這樣的美國孩子在種族階級制度下長大,因為無所作為比做正確的事容易得多。當美國人審視華盛頓,疑惑為何它總是令人失望時,並非因為知道什麼是正確的人太少,也並非因為我們缺乏智慧、能力或才幹。而是因為願意為了做正確的事而付出一切的人太少,他們甘願犧牲名望、奉承、舒適和安全——而這些正是為原則付出的代價。是因為我們當中很少有人反思並實踐宣言最後那句話所蘊含的勇氣和決心。許多人似乎已經忘記了,為了讓這個國家得以存在和延續,其他人做出了多麼巨大的犧牲。我還要更深刻地指出:我們當中是否有人擁有當年那些年輕士兵在諾曼第海灘登陸、在瓜達拉哈拉運河作戰、後來在高森羅斯福水庫作戰時所擁有的勇氣和決心?如果我們沒有像那些在戰場上英勇捍衛建國原則的年輕戰士那樣的勇氣,我們又該如何維護這些原則和這個共和國呢?除非我們擁有與那些創造這個國家的先輩們的勇氣相匹配的奉獻精神,否則我嚴重懷疑,無論我們對憲法進行多少研究或深入理解,都無濟於事。學術上的成功與捍衛憲法——正如我們所宣誓的——之間的差距是天壤之別。我自己也曾經歷過這種掙扎。大約43年前,1983年初春,我正處於人生的低谷。我剛剛埋葬了我的祖父母,他們養育了我,也是我認識的兩個最偉大的人。我身無分文,住在蟑螂橫行的公寓裡,幾乎被房東趕了出來。我無法按時償還信用卡帳單,很快就要賣掉我的車來支付兒子的學費了。我當時不斷受到媒體和國會的攻擊,因為身為平等就業機會委員會主席,我沒有屈服於當時盛行的種族正統觀念。那時,我問自己一個簡單的問題:這些原則的價值是什麼?你的原則對你來說價值幾何?我當時的答案與今天一樣:它們的價值甚至高於生命本身。這些原則是什麼?它們與宣言中的原則相同。它們由我的祖父母傳給我,並由我的修女和我的信仰不斷強化。在上帝眼中,我們人人平等。我們都是按照上帝的形象和樣式平等創造的。我們都被賦予了生命、自由和幸福的自然權利。我們的權利和尊嚴是與生俱來的。它們並非來自他人,也並非來自政府。而政府的合法性和權威則來自我們的同意。我們的權利並非來自政府。我們的權利相對於政府至關重要,它能使《獨立宣言》的不朽篇章與我們的憲法和歷史相協調。我們的任何權利都不來自政府。政府的所有權力都來自我們的同意。政府的結構和有限的功能正是為了確保它不會超越我們同意的權力範圍,也不會侵犯我們的自然權利。憲法是政府的手段,是宣告政府目標的宣言。憲法透過保護我們的自然權利和自由免受權力集中和過度民主的侵害來實現這一目標。我們的憲法在現代歷史上首次真正建立了權力分立和聯邦制,以防止政府權力過大,從而威脅到我們的自然權利。 《聯邦黨人文集》第十篇提出,對我們權利最大的威脅來自多數派。然而,令人遺憾的是,人類歷史告訴我們,非多數派常常試圖控制政府,並利用國家機器侵犯少數派的權利。因為人是墮落的,而對權力的渴望正如詹姆斯·麥迪遜所描述的那樣,根植於人性之中。政府的權力必須受到限制。正如麥迪遜所說:「如果人是天使,就不需要政府。如果由天使來統治人,那麼對政府的外部和內部控制都不需要。」 但可惜的是,人並非天使。奴隸主利用政府的權力剝奪了奴隸的基本權利和自然權利。種族隔離主義者利用國家機器壓迫獲得自由的男女,包括我的祖先。時至今日,這些原則是否能延續下去,尚不明朗。 20世紀初,一套新的政府基本原則被引進美國主流社會。這套新原則的倡導者中,最傑出的當屬美國第28任總統伍德羅·威爾遜
他稱之為進步主義。自威爾遜總統執政以來,進步主義已對我們的政府體制和生活方式產生了許多影響。它與《獨立宣言》的原則一直處於緊張共存狀態。由於它與這些原則相悖,二者不可能永遠共存。
進步主義並非美國本土產物。威爾遜和進步主義者坦率地承認,他們借鑒了俾斯麥領導下的德國,並對德國以國家為中心的社會模式推崇備至。像威爾遜這樣的進步主義者認為,美國需要拋棄建國之初的原則,趕上更先進、更完善的、相對不受阻礙的國家權力體系——或者說,近乎完美。他承認,這套體係是一門外來學科,幾乎不涉及英語或美國原則,它所提供的理念與我們格格不入。因此,他將仍固守原有政府體制的美國描述為「遲遲未能認識到歐洲體系的優越性」。進步主義是美國主流政治運動中第一個公開反對《獨立宣言》原則的,或許只有內戰前夕支持奴隸制的反動派可以與之相提並論。進步主義者試圖推翻《獨立宣言》中關於平等和自然法/自然權利的承諾,他們否認這兩者是不言而喻的。在威爾森看來,個人不可剝奪的權利「純屬無稽之談」。威爾遜重新定義了自由,不再將其視為政府固有的自然權利,而是將其定義為「被統治者有權根據自身需求和利益調整政府」。換言之,自由不再是上帝所賜的、先於政府的禮物,而是取決於政府的恩賜。威爾遜重新構想的政府將是「仁慈的」和「不可或缺的」。約翰·德韋等進步主義者抨擊憲法制定者,認為他們的理念是永恆不變的真理,適用於所有時代和所有地方,而實際上,在德韋看來,這些理念受歷史制約,只在特定時代才具有意義。如今,德韋和進步主義者主張這些理念應該被取代。進步主義試圖取代《獨立宣言》的基本前提,進而取代我們現行的政府體制。它認為,我們的權利和尊嚴並非來自上帝,而是來自政府。它要求人民屈從於政府,軟弱無力,這與建立在權利超越性起源基礎上的憲法格格不入。你或許不會驚訝地發現,進步主義者對我們美國人民充滿了蔑視。威爾遜在步入政壇之前,曾形容美國人民「自私、無知、膽怯、固執、愚蠢」。他感嘆我們過度依賴投票,專家治理卻遠遠不夠。他提議由那些把人民當作工具的管理者來統治。他再次渴望效法德國,在那裡,他讚歎人民溫順順從。進步主義的世紀並沒有帶來好結果。威爾遜和進步主義者指責美國人沒有效法他稱為近乎完美的歐洲體系,而正是這個體系催生了那些造成了世界歷史上最可怕世紀的政府。史達林、希特勒、墨索里尼和毛澤東都與進步主義的興起有著千絲萬縷的聯繫,他們都反對我們《獨立宣言》所依據的自然權利。許多進步主義者在他們各自的政府屠殺數千萬人之前不久,也對他們表達了欽佩之情。採納進步主義對《獨立宣言》中關於普遍不可剝奪的自然權利的否定,是個可怕的錯誤。威爾遜聲稱自然權利必須讓位給歷史進步,這或許可以為我們歷史上最大的錯誤辯護。在「皮訴弗格森案」中,我的法院支持路易斯安那州的種族隔離制度,理由是「隔離但平等」。法院認為,鑑於當地人民既定的習俗、習慣和傳統,並且為了增進人民的舒適和維護公共和平與秩序,這種做法是合理的。進步主義者擁抱優生學也就不足為奇了。進步主義者認為,達爾文的科學——即生物學本身所蘊含的不斷進步的理念——已經證明了種族的固有優劣。對威爾遜來說,重新隔離聯邦政府的勞動力隊伍只是順理成章的事。政府推行針對當時專家認定不適合生育者的絕育計劃,不過是另一步而已。我的法庭在「巴克訴貝爾案」中支持了這個做法,而撰寫該案意見的正是奧利佛·溫德爾·霍姆斯大法官。我們可以爭論你是否相信不可更改的絕對自然權利,還是威爾遜關於歷史不斷進步的觀點。事實上,你們的公民領導學院正是為了容納這類論點而設立的。
但請容許我請各位思考後果。歐洲思想家長期以來一直批評美國深陷於一個封閉的世界,其軟弱無力的分散式政府和強大的個人權利束縛著我們。他們認為,我們18世紀的宣言阻礙了我們邁向更高層次的政府形式。但我們很幸運,沒有為了黑格爾、馬克思及其追隨者所謂的啟蒙世界而放棄我們封閉的體制。法西斯主義,歸根結底是國家社會主義,在歐洲和亞洲引發了戰爭,造成數千萬人喪生。蘇聯和中華人民共和國的社會主義隨後又導致數千萬人喪生。這就是當自然權利讓位於所謂的「更高利益」(或根本沒有更高利益的「更高利益」),讓位於歷史、進步,或者如托馬斯·索爾所寫,讓位於「天選之人的願景」時所發生的情況。當然,所有這些都不是宣言原則的改進。托克維爾在美國的民主觀很大程度上闡述了美國之所以能夠超越歐洲,很大程度上是因為它有意識地徹底拋棄了中央計畫和行政統治。換句話說,進步主義是倒退的。正如卡爾文·庫拉格在《獨立宣言》發表150週年之際所說(我引用他的話):「如果人人生而平等,那就是最終的結論。如果人人生而擁有不可剝奪的權利,那就是最終的結論。如果政府的正當權力來自人民的同意,那就是最終的結論。任何進步、任何發展都無法超越這。一些原則。但林肯的演講敦促他們不要沾沾自喜。相反,林肯說,他們應該把過去視為激勵,帶領他們走向未來更高峰的動力。我引用他的話:「我們更應該在這裡致力於我們面前的偉大任務,從這些光榮的逝者身上汲取力量,更加堅定地投身於他們為之獻出一切的事業。」奉獻。我們在此莊嚴宣誓,這些逝者不應白白犧牲。這個國家必將獲得自由的新生,這個民有、民治、民享的政府必將永存。值此我們歡聚一堂,慶祝《獨立宣言》發表250週年之際,我們或許會忍不住像個旁觀者。我們或許會沉浸在茶點之中,將《獨立宣言》當作一件閃亮的物品或紀念品,只顧自己低聲細語。我們或許會就誰對建國的理解更勝一籌、我們比四位建國先賢做得更好、以及我們會做出哪些不同的選擇展開辯論。我們或許會小心翼翼,避免任何可能招致批評、失去朋友或損害職業前景的舉動。但在我看來,我們必須在自身找到與宣言簽署者們同樣的勇氣,這樣我們才能像他們為自己的未來所做的那樣,為我們的未來做出貢獻。你們每個人每天都有機會展現勇氣。無論你們的職業是日工、全職媽媽、小企業主、教育工作者、辦公室職員、法官,或是從事其他任何工作。這可能意味著明天在課堂上,當你身邊有人期望你活在謊言中時,你要勇敢地站出來。這可能意味著直面當今流行的偏見,例如反猶太主義。這可能意味著當教授嘲諷和詆毀你的宗教時,你必須挺身捍衛它。這可能意味著即使會因此失去朋友或被孤立,你也要堅守原則。這可能意味著當你看到學校正在教唆你的孩子仇恨你的價值觀和我們的國家時,你要競選學校董事會成員。這可能意味著拒絕一份需要你在道德或倫理上做出妥協的工作。
我確信一件事,就是每天醒來都要下定決心,承受不公平的批評和攻擊。這些選擇,也是你們將要面對的,你們必須決定是像《獨立宣言》的簽署者一樣,以怯懦還是勇敢來回應。這當然不容易,從來都不容易。但如果你和我一樣,需要比自身更強大的力量,那麼你們就需要依靠信仰來指引和支撐你們度過難關。你們會讓那些你們以為是朋友的人失望,會遭受人身攻擊,也會看到你們所愛之人遭受攻擊。但如果你挺身而出,你會發現,勇氣和怯懦一樣,會讓人養成習慣,它會成為你生命的一部分,成為你的一部分。我甚至可以說,它會讓你獲得解脫。你也將成為他人效法的榜樣。所以,無論如何,都要慶祝《獨立宣言》的出版。它是美國歷史上最重要的事件,也是我們憲法的基石,正如林肯所說,它是我們共和國的錨。但我懇請你們以捍衛它、挺身而出、重申你們對實踐其理想的承諾來慶祝它。要學習那些敢於直面國王簽署憲法的先烈,或是那些寧願帶領國家打內戰也不願讓奴隸制這一巨大矛盾分裂我們家園的總統的勇氣。要更忠誠地投身於他們為之獻出一切的事業。讓我們堅定地信賴神聖天意的庇佑,彼此承諾,將我們的生命、財產和神聖的榮譽託付給彼此。謝謝,願上帝繼續保佑我們的國家。
我們無比感激。我們無比感激。
抱歉說了這麼多。不,我們無比感激您蒞臨我校發表如此精彩的演講。這意義非凡,影響深遠。我們榮幸地迎來您的到來,因此我們特意為您準備了一份禮物,以紀念長角牛大家庭。這是您的球衣,也是我們誠摯邀請您每天回到我們校園的邀約。先生,非常感謝您。謝謝。是的。謝謝。稍等。看看這個。他們的名字在背面。他們總有一天會穿上它。
與責任密不可分。托馬斯大法官一直專注於他的人生,這是一個非常特殊的場合。坦白說,我很感激,即使身為公民,我也可以學習如何盡我所能做到公正,並塑造了我們對法律的思考方式。
嗯,戴維斯總統,聯合主持人,以及美國軍事上訴法院的博登·馬格斯,很高興她今天能來到這裡。

Well, good afternoon. It's great to see so many Longhorns and friends here for a very special occasion. I am grateful to be part of today and honored to introduce our speaker. There is so much that a student or a lawyer, frankly, even a citizen can learn from Justice Clarence Thomas. He has served on our nation's highest court longer than any current justice and has shaped how we think about the law in ways that will endure for generations. But before I introduce him, I want to invite us to consider something deeper because we're not only here to listen to a great jurist. We're here also to learn from someone who has devoted a life to a great experiment. That experiment began 250 years ago, born at our nation's independence, but it's never been self- sustaining. It endures because each generation produces people. People who seek to understand it, who take it seriously, and who are willing to live it out. Justice Thomas is in the fullest sense a great citizen of this republic. His civic life has many important things to teach us and many of them remind us of ourselves. The first is this. Justice Thomas has always chosen to go his own way. He once wrote about reading Ralph Ellison's book, Invisible Man, and recognizing it a man who spent years going in everyone else's way except his own and resolved that he would not be that way. He has said simply, "I set out to do my best to be right." Being right demands more than going along with what's easy or expected, but is often the only way to do things that last. The people of Texas founded this university on a similar conviction. Our state constitution calls us to be a university of the first class. Longhorns understand what it means to lead our own path.

The second thing in his life teaches us is that freedom freedom is inseparable from responsibility. That bears repeating. Freedom is inseparable from responsibility. Justice Thomas has spoken throughout his life about the difference between what we are owed and what we owe others. about the fact that a free people cannot sustain their freedom without accepting the obligations that come with it. This is the foundation of citizenship. It is why we are here. Whether you're studying law or medicine or physics or humanities, the purpose of your education is not only to develop your own mind. It is also to put your mind in service to others.
The president of the republic of Texas, Mayor Bo Lamar, who secured the future of this university, set aside public land for public education, has a famous quote you may have heard before. He tells us that the cultivated mind is the guardian genius of democracy. He continues, "Guided and controlled by virtue, the noblest attribute of man, just as Thomas lives out that virtue, and he invites us by his example to do the same." Now, I'd like to close with a biographical note about Justice Thomas. He did not attend the University of Texas at Austin. But when I look at his life, the path he chose, the convictions he holds, I see the spirit of a Longhorn. In truth, he reflects what we believe and importantly who we hope to become. It is now my great honor to introduce Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States, the Honorable Clarence Thomas.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you. Thank you. Well, I think I'll quit while I'm ahead. Thank you all very much. Um, President Davis, Provos and Bowden, Dean Dyer, faculty, students, and honored guests. I thank each of you for the for being here and I thank the school and the officials here for the invitation to visit the University of Texas at Austin. My wife Virginia and I are pleased to be here and to celebrate the 250th anniversary of the Declaration of Independence. If my memory serves me, this is only my second visit to the University of Texas, and this is the first visit at the invitation of the university, but I have hired and worked with a number of outstanding young people associated with this university. My first was now Chief Judge Greg Mags of the US Court of Appeals for the Armed Services who was a fairly new faculty member uh at the law school when I became a member of the court. He took a leave of absence to help me as a law clerk during the second half of my first term. My first UT graduate to serve as a law clerk was Greg Coleman. three decades ago. Greg went on to become the first solicitor of the state of Texas. He was simply outstanding, as was his son, Reed, who also was a graduate of the law school here and who was al equally outstanding. Greg's widow and our very dear friend Stephanie is with us today. Stephanie, thank you and thanks for being such a good friend.
And both Greg and his son Reed clerked for my dear friend, Judge Edith Jones, also a graduate of UT Law School. I greatly admire Judge Jones. She is one of my heroes and I admire her as a person and as a jurist and I'm grateful that she can be here today. A number of my former clerks are also here. I can't tell you which ones. Uh so let me ask them to stand to be recognized.
So, so in my chambers, UT and UT law school are very well represented. I hope I'm having a little trouble with this. Getting used to the podium. Sorry about that. Um, I hope that my talk today will help in some small way to inaugurate another great initiative, the state of Texas's plan to restore the teaching of civics and western civilization to a central place in our in its flagship university. and I am grateful and honored to have been invited by Justin Dyer, the dean of the new school of civic leadership. I'm also grateful for the assistance of my former law clerk, Professor John U, who has spent the last three decades at Berkeley Law School, but is now joining Justin and his team here at the University of Texas. The school's stated mission is to help students encounter the distinct inheritance of western civilization and the American constitutional tradition as part of a larger quest for free jut for wisdom about how to live and how to lead. Your plans not could not come at a more important moment for our nation when as we celebrate the 250th anniversary of the Declaration of Independence, the very values announced in it have fallen over have fallen out of favor. It is my sincere hope that your work to revitalize the teaching and research of Western civilization and the American constitutional tradition will lead the way in the reform of our nation's colleges and universities. And I hope that your example will help to rejuvenate our fellow ci citizens commitment to the principles of the Declaration of Independence. I seem to always enjoy my travels to this amazing state. My wife Virginia and I have many wonderful friends and acquaintances here. And it is so special to have our dear friends Ha Haron and Kathy Crowe join us today. One of the features of this state that stands out in a way that Texans is the way that Texans talk about it. What comes through is the sustained and sustaining affection that they have for their home state. That reverential feeling for and attachment to Texas is to be respected and admired and if possible emulated. This affection is similar to the attachment that I grew to have for my home state of Georgia and certainly for our country despite the indelible mark of segregation and its companion evils. I was proud to say that I was American by birth and Georgian by the grace of God. It was not uncommon to hear others openly proclaim their allegiance to God and country. At our grammar school, St. Benedicts. We started each school day by lining up two by two and class by class in the schoolyard to watch the raising of our flag and to say the pledge of allegiance before silently marching to our respective classrooms. Even as so much of our God-given and constitutional rights were denied us, we still faithfully said the pledge of allegiance, memorized the preamble to the Constitution, and yearned for the fulfillment of its promised ideals. Sadly, these sentiments are not as widely shared among our fellow citizens today, and they certainly do not seem to have that sustaining strength that they had back then. In fact, all too often the sentiments tend toward cynicism, rejection, hostility, and animus toward our country and its ideals. With the foregoing in mind, I would like to begin by addressing my first encounter with the principles of the Declaration of Independence. It is perhaps not what you would immediately think. The second paragraph of the declaration proclaims, "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights." Throughout my youth, these truths were articles of faith that were impervious to bigotry and discrimination. The American Heritage Dictionary of English Language defines self-evident as obviously true and requiring no proof, argument, or explanation. Whether they had a divine source or a worldly one, they were never questioned. They were the holy grail, the north star, the rock, immovable and unquestioned. Despite the multiplicity of laws and customs that wreaked the bigotry, it was universally believed among those blacks with whom I lived and who had very little or no formal education that in God's eyes and under our constitution, we were equal. This was also the case with my nuns, most of whom were Irish immigrants. At home, at school, and at church, we were taught that we are inherently equal, that equality comes came from God, and that it could not be diminished by man. We were made in the image and likeness of God. That proposition was not debatable and was beyond the power of man to alter. Others with power and animus could treat us as unequal, but they lacked the the divine power to make us so. Somehow without formal education, the older people knew that these god-given or natural rights preceded and transcended governmental author power or authority. When you lived in a segregated world with palpable discrimination and the governments nearest to you enforced laws and customs that promoted unequal treatment, it was obvious that your rights or your dignity did not come from those governments, but rather from God. Though not a literate man, my grandfather often spoke of our rights and obligations coming from God, not from architects of segregation and discrimination. Men were not angels. They were subject to the constraints of antecedent rights. And we were not subject to their the those men even as we were subjected to their whims. We knew that life, liberty, and property were sacrosan. Those truths were self-evident to the adults in our lives and were taught to us as indelible, undeniable truths. those around us would endure or could endure the insults of segregation uh with dignity because they knew that in God's eyes they were equal. All too often there is an unfortunate tendency when discussing the declaration to make those these self-evident truths and first principles of government obscure. Intellectuals want you to believe that our founding principles are matters of esoteric philosophy or sophisticated debate. Even those who support them too often talk about them as if they were academic play things. They over complicate them, take the spirit out of them, and discuss them in a way that puts us to sleep. But the principles of the Declaration of Independence, as I encountered them, are a way of life. They are not an abstract theory that only that you only learn in college or law school, but the basic premises of our constitution and government that you can learn from the people all around you. When Alexis Detokville visited early America from France, he was struck that there was no country in the civilized world where where they were less occupied with philosophy than the United States. But there was likewise no country where the principle of the declaration principles of the declaration were more deeply ingrained or more fiercely defended than those same United States. That is the sense in which I knew the principles of the declaration in my childhood. That is the only sense in which those principles can sustain our country. And that is the sense in which I will speak to you about those principles today. I still I believe now let me change these. I believe now as I did then that the declaration of 1776 provides us with the principles to guide us as citizens of our republic. Even in this time of questioning and criticism of our founding, we should not forget that the declaration established the principles that produced despite all of its our imperfections, our miscues, and our tragic mistakes. It gave us the freest, wealthiest, and most powerful nation in the history of the world. It provided the moral principles by which Frederick Douglas, Abraham Lincoln, and Martin Luther King would criticize the institutions of slavery and segregation. The declaration in fact along with the gospels is the declaration is in fact along with the gospels one of the greatest anti-slavery documents in the history of western civilization. It did not establish a form of government. That was the work of the constitution that followed. But it stated the purpose of government. The declaration made it clear and clear pros that the purpose of government is to protect our God-given unalienable rights. Rights that all individuals equally possess. As Abraham Lincoln declared in 1858 in the midst of his great debates with Stephven Douglas, quote, "Drop every poultry insignificant thought for any man's success. It is nothing. I am nothing. Judge Douglas is nothing. But do not destroy that immortal emblem of humanity, the Declaration of American Independence." The ideas of the declaration are so powerful that our nation could not exist coexist with the contradiction created by the great evil of slavery. Those principles were so powerful that hundreds of thousands of Americans fought and died in the Civil War to make men free. Those ideas have been so powerful that they convinced our nation to finally end segregation. They continue to be so powerful today that they have inspired people throughout the world to throw off the shackles of their own oppressors. And it is, it all began with our founders declaring in 1776 in the Declaration of Independence that we hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, and that they are endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. We should also not forget the important sentence that follows that to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the government. That to secure these rights, governments are instituted. The principle of consent follows from the principle of equality. We the people can never legitimately consent to the violation of our God-given equality. However, when I encounter the Declaration of Independence, a new today, I am most struck by the final sentence. It can be easy to forget 250 years later the courage it took for those 56 men to sign the declaration. Arguably those men committed treason against the king, risking death at the hands of an empire far mightier than the newborn United States. They thus concluded with the memorable final sentence and I quote, "And for the support of this declaration with a firm reliance on the protection of divine providence, we mutually pledge to each other our lives, our fortunes, and our sacred honor." I will say it again. We mutually pledge to each other our lives, our fortunes, and our sacred honor. Recently, I came across the definition, a definition of courage that is attributed to President Franklin Delanor Roosevelt. And courage is not the absence of fear, but rather the assessment that something else is more important than fear. In essence, the signers of the declaration were saying that they were willing to die for the principles they were asserting, the supreme act of courage. Those principles were more important than their fear. Nothing in the Declaration of Independence, I now realize, matters without that final sentence. Without that sentence, the rest of the Declaration is but mere words on parchment paper. Nice words, but nonetheless just words. What changed the world was not the words but the commitment and spirit of the people who were willing to labor, sacrifice and even give their lives uh what Lincoln in Gettysburg called the last full measure of devotion for the declaration's principles. It is that devotion. It is to is it is that devotion to which we owe our rich inheritance. It was that devotion that sustained the founding fathers and the Continental Army as they fought and won the Revolutionary War, braved the winner at Valley Forge, crossed the Delaware, and defeated an army many times their number and firepower to win their freedom. It was that devotion that Nathan Hail expressed when before being executed by the British, he reportedly said, "I only regret that I have but one life to give for this country." It was that devotion that Patrick Henry invoked when he stood before the Virginia Convention and asked, "Is life so dear or peace so sweet as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God, I know not what course others may take, but for me, give me liberty or give me death." That devotion has driven the great achievements and heroism of Americans in the 250 years since. Think of the frontiersmen who settled the West. Think of the families who built their little towns on the prairies. Think of the women who raised their children to love God and country and sent them off to fight wars. Think of the soldiers on the battlefields of the Civil War who sang, "As he died to make men holy, let us die to make men free." Think of the innovators and laborers and engineers whoville observed were so infused with the patriotism that they felt every triumph for their country as a triumph in their personal lives. Think of how the devotion carried us from Independence Hall to Flanders Field into the beaches of Normandy. Think of the memorable scene in the band of brothers when the American soldiers arrived at a concentration camp saw the suffering, emaciated, desperate prisoners unlocked the gates and gave them food and blankets and warm embraces. The soldiers looked around and knew in their hearts that this is why we fight. Think of the passengers of Flight 93 that crashed in Skanksville, Pennsylvania on 911. Or the young men and women whom we send in harm's way even as we sit here today. Think of my grand my grandparents who heroically, quietly, without fanfare, sat my brother and me down at the kitchen table in August of 1955 and committed the rest of their lives to us so that we could have a chance. They told us, "We don't have no no education.
We don't have no education and no chance. But you boys are going to have a chance. But we going to do to devote the rest of our lives to you boys. It was their devotion, their love, their dedication to raising us right that has made the difference. Not the words, though the words expressed as best they could what they intended to do. Their devotion is what mattered. Similarly, similarly, it is the devotion expressed in the final sentence of the declaration, the willingness to do anything for our principles that has throughout American history been most indispensable. It is that devotion that we are missing today and that we must find in our hearts if this nation is to endure. I arrived in Washington DC 47 years ago. It's hard to believe. I arrived as a staffer for Senator Jack Danforth of Missouri in 1979, telling myself that the job on Capitol Hill would be a short stop on my way home to Savannah, Georgia. I then joined the executive branch during the Reagan administration. served in two federal agencies for nearly a decade served as a judge on the federal court of appeals and have for the past 34 years served on the Supreme Court. Since the day I arrived in Washington, there was never a shortage of people espousing noble purposes, saying all the right things. All around me there have been people full of promises claiming a commitment to some righteous cause, to traditional morality, to national defense, to free enterprise, to religious piety, or to the original meaning of the Constitution. These people can be just as high-minded as the men who signed the Declaration. They can mouth the words of the declaration and parrot its principles. They can write essays and talk of at conferences about the declaration with the best of them. All too often, however, this was but lip service, camouflaged by grand theories in the tall grass of big words and eloquent phrases. What seemed to be lacking, however, was that devotion. People gain positions of authority, and you learn who they really are. To paraphrase something I recently read, combat strips us down to our essentials. Once in the spotlight, in that combat, many people fall prey to the lords that are set up to turn them away from their previously untested principles. They become petrified by criticisms, so fearful of negative attention that they find ways to avoid the right thing, doing the right thing. or they fall prey to the enchanting siren songs of flattery and become so bewitched by praise that they will desperately seek to conform accordingly. They are enticed by access to things that were previously unavailable to them. They get so swept up in the euphoria of acclamation and acceptance that they put aside their convictions. They water down their message, negotiate against themselves, vote against their principles, and hide in the tall grass. They recast themselves as institutionalists, pragmatists, or thoughtful moderates, all as a way of justifying their failures to themselves, their consciences, and their country. It did not take me long in Washington to stop wondering why the Supreme Court took 60 years to overrule Pie versus Ferguson, the 1896 decision that endorsed government enforced racial segregation and validated the Jim Crow South uh that I grew up in. I could it could not possibly it could not possibly have taken my court 60 years to know that pie was a hideous wrong and that racial discrimination was grossly incompatible with our colorblind constitution. The justices must have known known it all along. The right thing to do, as Justice Harlon spelled out in his lone descent, was obvious, as it so often is. Perhaps what stood in the way was cowardice. The justices may have been afraid of the societal consequences. They may have been afraid of coming under political fire. They may have been afraid of losing their social standing. They may have been afraid of bad press. They could have been concerned that if they began to enforce a color-blind constitution, they would have to address interracial marriage next. But in any case, for 60 disgraceful years, they made American children like me grow up in a racial cast system because it was easier to do nothing than to do the right thing. When American looks When Americans look to Washington and wonder why it is so often disappoints, it is not because there are too few people who know what is right. It is not because we lack the intellect or the capacity or the talent. It is instead because there are too few people who are willing to do what it takes to do the right thing to sacrifice the popularity, flattery, comfort, and security that are the purchase price for principle. It is because too few of us reflect on and reflect the courage and commitment of that final sentence of the declaration. And so many seem to have forgotten how much others have sacrificed so that this nation could exist and endure. I will state this more poignantly. Do any of us have what it took for our young soldiers to storm Normandy Beach to fight at Guad Canal to later fight at at Kosen Roosevel reservoir Chosen Reservoir. If we can't say that we have the courage required of these young soldiers in battle to defend our founding principles, then how do we preserve these principles and this republic? Until we have a devotion that matches the courage of those who made this country possible, I doubt I seriously doubt any amount of study or development of insights about our constitution will make much difference. There's a world of difference between what it takes to score academic points and what it takes to protect and defend the Constitution. as we are sworn to do. I have faced this struggle myself. About 43 years ago, in the early spring of 1983, I was the I was the lowest point in my life. I had just buried both of my grandparents to the man and woman who raised me and the two greatest people that I have ever known. I was broke. I was living in and nearly evicted from a cockroachinfested apartment. I could not pay my credit card bills on time. I would soon sell my car to pay my son's tuition. I was being constantly attacked by the media and Congress because as chairman of of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, I did not bow to the then prevailing orthodoxy on race. At that point I asked myself a simple question. What are the principles worth? What are your principles worth to you? My answer then was the same I would give today. It is worth they are worth life itself. What are those principles? They are the same principles in the declaration. They were bequeathed to me by my grandparents and reinforced by my nuns and my faith. In God's eyes, we are equal. We are all equally created in the image and likeness of God. We are all endowed with the natural rights to life, liberty, and happiness. Our rights and our dignity are inherent. They do not come from others and they do not come from the government. And our government derives its legitimacy and its authority from our consent. We do not derive our rights from our government. The primacy of our rights in relation to our government is crucial in reconciling the immortal words of the declaration with our constitution and our history. None of our rights come from the government. All of the government's authority comes from our consent. And the structure and limited role of government is to asssure that it does not exceed the authority to which we have consented or intrude on our natural rights. The constitution is the means of government. It is the declaration that announces the ends of government. The Constitution achieves this purpose by protecting our natural rights and our liberties from concentrated power and excessive democracy. Our constitution creates a separation of powers and federalism truly for the first time in modern history to prevent the government from becoming so strong that it threatens our natural rights. Federalist number 10 proposed the idea that the great threat to our rights come from the majority faction. Human history teaches us, alas, that nu numerical majorities frequently seek to control government and use the state to violate rights of the minority. Because man has is is fallen and the desire for power was as James Madison described it sown in the nature of man. Government had to be limited. For as Madison also said, "If men were angels, no government would be necessary. If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary. But alas, men are not angels. The slaveholders used the power of government to deny the fundamental rights, natural rights of the slaves. The segregationists used the state to oppress the freed men and women, including my ancestors. As we meet today, it is unclear whether these principles will endure. At the beginning of the 20th century, a new set of first principles of government was introduced into the American mainstream. The proponents of this new set of first principles, most prominently, most prominent among them, the 28th president of the United of our country, Woodro Wilson, called it progressivism. Since Wilson's presidency, progressivism has made many inroads into our system of government and our way of life. It has coexisted uneasily with the principles of the declaration. Because it is opposed to those principles, it is not possible for the two to coexist forever.
Progressivism was not native to America. Wilson and the progressives candidly admitted that they took it from Autobon Bismar's Germany whose state centric society they admired. Progressives like Wilson argued that America needed to leave behind the principles of the founding and catch up with the more advanced and sophisticated system of relatively unimpeded state power uh nearly perfect uh perfected. He acknowledged that it was a foreign science speaking very little of the language of English or American principle which offers none but what are to our minds alien ideas. He thus described America still stuck with its original system of government as quote slow to see the superiority of the European system. Progressivism was the first mainstream American political movement with the possible exception of the pro-slavery reactionaries on the eve of the civil war to openly oppose the principles of the declaration. Progressives strove to undo the Declaration's commitment to equality and natural law natural rights, both of which they denied were self-evident. To Wilson, the unalienable rights of the individual were quote a lot of nonsense. Wilson redefined liberty not as a natural right attendant and acedent to the government but as quote the right of those who are governed to adjust government to their own needs and interests. In other words, liberty no longer preceded the government as a gift from God but was to be enjoyed at the grace of the government. The government, as Wilson reconceived it, would be quote beneficent and indispensable. Progressives such as John Dwey attacked the framers for believing that their ideas were immutable truth, good for all times and places, when instead they were, according to him, historically conditioned and relevant only in their own time. Now Dwey and the progressives argued those ideas are to be displaced. Progressivism seeks to replace the basic premises of the Declaration of Independence and hence our form of government. It holds that our rights and our dignities come not from God but from government. It requires of the people a subservience and weakness incompatible with a constitution premised on the transcendent origin of our rights. You will not be surprised to learn that the progressives had a great deal of contempt for us, the American people. Before he entered politics, Wilson would describe the American people as quote selfish, ignorant, timid, stubborn, and foolish. He lamented that we do too much by vote and too little by expert rule. He proposed that the people be ruled by administrators who use them as tools. He once again aspired to be like Germany where the people he said admiringly were docel and acquiescent. The century of progressivism did not go well. The European system that Wilson and the progressives scolded Americans for not adopting which he called nearly perfect led to the governments that caused the most awful century that the world has ever seen. Stalin, Hitler, Mussolini and Mao all were intertwined with the rise of progressivism and all were opposed to the natural rights on which our declaration are based. Many progressives expressed admiration for each of them shortly before their governments killed tens of millions of people. It was a terrible mistake to adopt progressivism's rejection of the declaration's vision of universal unalienable natural rights. Wilson's claim that natural rights must give way to historical progress could justify the greatest mistake in our history. In Py versus Ferguson, my court upheld Louisiana's system of racial segregation because quote separate but equal. It obs it observed was reasonable in light of the established usages, customs and traditions of the people and with a view to the promotion of their comfort and the preservation of the public peace and good order. It comes as no surprise that the progressives embraced eugenics. Progressives believe that Darwinian science, the idea of ever advancing progress written into biology itself, had proven the inherent superiority and inferiority of the races. It was only a small step for Wilson to reegregate the federal workforce. It was only another step for the government to launch sterilization programs on those deemed by the experts of the day to be unfit to reproduce, upheld by my court in Buck v. Bell in an opinion written by no less a figure than Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes. We can argue over whether you We can argue over whether you believe in immutable absolute natural rights or the Wilsonian idea of ever progressing history. Indeed, your school of civic leadership was created to host just such arguments. But let me ask you to consider the consequences. European thinkers have long criticized America for remaining trapped in a lock in world with its weak decentralized government and strong individual rights. They say our 18th century declaration has prevented us from progressing to higher forms of government. But we were fortunate not to trade our lockin bonds for the supposedly enlightened world of Hegel Marx and their followers. Fascism, which after all was national socialism, triggered wars in Europe and Asia that killed tens of millions. The socialism of the Soviet Union and the People's Republic of China proceeded to kill more tens of millions of their own people. This is what happens when natural rights give way to the higher good of no higher good of notions of history, progress or as Thomas Soul has written the visions of the anointed. None of this, of course, was an improvement on the principles of the declaration. Toqueville's democracy in America is largely about how America owed its superiority over Europe to its conscious decision to reject central planning and administrative rule, root and branch. Progressivism, in other words, is retrogressive. As Calvin Kulage said on the 150th anniversary of the declaration, and I quote, "If all men are created equal, that is final. If they are endowed with unal inalienable rights, that is final. If governments derive their just powers from the consent of the government, that is final. No advance, no progress can be made beyond these propositions. If anyone wishes to deny their truth or their soundness, the only direction in which they can proceed historically is not forward but backward toward the time when there was no equality, no rights of the individuals, no rule of the people. When Abraham Lincoln addressed the assembled crowd at Gettysburg, they had gathered to memorialize the past. But Lincoln's address urged them to not do so with complacency. Instead, Lincoln said they should look to the past as inspiration to take them to greater heights in the future. and I quote, "It is rather for us to be here dedicated to the great task remaining before us, that from these honored dead, we take increased devotion to that cause for which they gave the last full measure of devotion. That we were highly here highly resolve that these dead shall not have died in vain. that this nation shall have a new birth of freedom and that this government of the people, by the people, and for the people shall not perish from the earth. As we are gathered to celebrate the 250th anniversary of the declaration, it may be tempting to do so uh if we it may be tempted to do so as if we are passive spectators. It may be tempting to enjoy our tea and crumpets, treat the declaration like a shiny object or a keepsake, and listen to the sound of our own voices. We could get into debates over whose conception of the founding is better, over how we are so much better than our f our founders were, over what we would do differently. We could be careful to not do anything that exposes us to criticism, costs us friends, or hurts our career prospects. But in my view, we must find in ourselves that same level of courage that the signers of the declaration had so that we can do for our future what they did for theirs. Each of you will have opportunities to be courageous every day. Whether your calling in life is as a day laborer, a stay-at-home mom, a small business owner, an educator, an office worker, a judge, or some other endeavor. It may mean speaking up in class tomorrow when someone around you expects you to live by lies. It may mean confronting today's fashionable bigotries such as anti-semitism. It may mean standing up for your religion when it is mocked and disparaged by a professor. It may mean not budging on your principles when it will entail losing friends or being ostracized. It may mean running for your school board when you see that they are teaching your children to hate your values and our country. It may mean turning down a job offer that requires you to make moral or ethical compromises. One thing I do know to be true, it will mean waking up every day with the resolve to withstand unfair criticism and attacks. These are the choices that we will confront that will confront you and you must decide whether to respond with timidity or with courage as the signers of the declaration did. It will of course not be easy. never is. But if like me, you need a greater source of strength than yourselves, you will need to rely on your faith to guide and to sustain you through it all. You will disappoint people you thought were friends and endure personal attacks as well as attacks on those you care about. But if you stand, you will find that courage, like cowardice, can be habit forming, and it will become a part of your life and a part of who you are. And I may dare say it is liberating. You will also be a living example for others to emulate. So by all means, celebrate the Declaration of Independence. It is the most important act of American history. the foundation of our constitution and as Lincoln said, the sheet anchor of our republic. But I implore you to celebrate it by standing up for it, by defending it, and by recommitting yourselves to living up to its ideals. channel the courage of the men who faced down a king and signed it or a president who led the nation in a civil war rather than permit this house to be divided by the great contradiction of slavery. Take increased devotion to that cause for which they gave the last full measure. And with a firm reliance on the protection of divine providence, let us mutually pledge to each other our lives, our fortunes, and our sacred honor. Thank you, and may God continue to bless our country.
We are so grateful. We're so grateful.
Sorry to go on so long. No, we are so grateful that you came to our university to deliver this fantastic address. It's meaningful and important. We are honored by your presence and so we brought you a present to remember the Longhorn family as well. This is your jersey and your invitation to come back to our campus every day. Thank you, sir, very much. Thank you. Yes. Thank you. Hold on. Watch this. Their names on the back. They got to wear it sometime.
seeparable from responsibility. Justice Thomas has focused about his life very special occasion. I am grateful frankly even as citizens can learn to do my best to be right justice and has shaped how we think about the law
um President Davis co-host and Boden Mags of the US Court of Appeals for the armed services that she can be here today.

Advertisements