Jun
6
Not fooling anyone
June 6, 2008 | 22 Comments
Doug Kmiec, bless his heart, makes yet another effort to tell us that yellowish stuff is just rain.
Deacon Keith Fournier has written that he cannot endorse either Senator Obama or Senator McCain at this point. I have endorsed Senator Obama. The distinguished Catholic politics scholar, Robert George of Princeton, has endorsed Senator McCain.
As a matter of Catholic teaching, who’s right? None of us. Who’s wrong? Also, none of us. Catholic teaching simply does not supply a single, definitive answer.
That’s the quote at the beginning of the article. Because, as well know, the Catholic Church is big on saying there isn’t one correct answer. Quid est veritas, after all.
Technically, he’s right. The Catholic Church doesn’t tell us who to vote for. But it makes a lot of strong suggestions, shall we say, on who not to vote for.
The Catholic Church does not presume to tell citizens how to vote, or endorse particular candidates, but it does outline important moral considerations, including the admonition that no Catholic can choose a candidate for the purpose of advancing a moral evil such as abortion or racism. A Catholic without that intent is free to support either Senator Obama or McCain or anyone.
Doug Kmiec may be a fine civil lawyer, but canon lawyer . . . maybe not so much. While again being somewhat true, that isn’t exactly the whole story. Rich Leonardi has tackled this topic recently, quoting then Cardinal Ratzinger’s 2004 memo on this issue.
A Catholic would be guilty of formal cooperation in evil, and so unworthy to present himself for Holy Communion, if he were to deliberately vote for a candidate precisely because of the candidate’s permissive stand on abortion and/or euthanasia. When a Catholic does not share a candidate’s stand in favour of abortion and/or euthanasia, but votes for that candidate for other reasons, it is considered remote material cooperation, which can be permitted in the presence of proportionate reasons.
I have highlighted proportionate. It’s not good enough simply to disagree with the politician’s pro-abortion stance – there must be proportionate reasons for doing so. So Doug, you better get to work on those proportionate reasons.
So let’s examine the nettlesome tragedy of abortion and the insufficient approaches of both candidates to date. Senator Obama’s position accepts the existing legal regime which leaves the abortion decision with the mother as a “constitutional right.” Senator McCain’s position would leave the decision with the individual states. Neither position is fully pro-life, both are pro-choice, with the former focused on the individual and the latter focused on the right of the states. Senator McCain’s position is sometimes described as pro-life, but in truth, it is merely pro-federalism (states being free under the McCain position to decide to permit or disallow abortion as they see fit).
Again, I have bolded the pertinent part. Yes, and Oceania has always been at war with East Asia, and never EurAsia.
John McCain’s position is one that is shared by most Catholics. He is firmly against abortion, and he recognizes that the Constitution is silent on the matter, neither absolutely prohibiting it nor absolutely mandating it. To insinuate that this is some sort of “pro-choice” position is complete verbal gymnastics. In order to justify this, Kmiec has to engage in a bit of constitutional interpretation that is simply baffling.
Independent of my Catholic faith, as a constitutional law teacher, I respectfully disagree with both Senator Obama and Senator McCain since the Constitution was intended as a means to enforce and guarantee the unalienable right to life recited in the Declaration of Independence, where of course it is explicitly traced to our Creator. Since neither candidate presents a position fully compatible with Catholic teaching recognizing abortion for the intrinsic evil that it is, Catholic teaching asks us to work for the reduction of the incidence of abortion through the most prudent way possible.
It frightens me that a constitutional law professor makes this argument about the constitution’s purpose. The Constitution and the Declaration of Independence are not the same thing, and the former in no way was meant to be implement or enforce the latter’s meaning. The DoI was a propaganda tool – an elegant one, to be sure, that does contain significant meaning. But this idea of the Constitution held by Kmiec is simply wrong.
I am beginning to believe that Kmiec is trotting out this nonsense solely with the purpose of making McCain look bad. The only way he can possibly show McCain to be no better than Obama on the issue of abortion is to make some ludicrous argument connecting the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence. Sorry, but no sale.
There is no single answer on the most effective manner to reduce abortion either. My experience, and that of others whom I greatly respect for their tireless efforts in parish work and with Project Rachel and Catholic pregnancy centers, suggest that Senator Obama’s emphasis on personal responsibility (conveying especially to young people the need to understand the maturity and commitment needed for sexual intimacy) is the course most likely to make a difference.
I respect the views of my fellow Catholics who would place greater emphasis upon new legal prohibition or restriction, but my experience is that the more effective way to actually protect life is to work directly face to face with someone facing the awful thought of taking an innocent life. This is imperfect I know, but this path calls upon us – personally – to meet as best one is able the social and economic and religious reassurance needed by the individual children of God (mother and unborn child) that touch our lives.
Kudos to Regular Guy Paul. I have thought him perhaps a bit too harsh at times with Professor Kmiec. But this passage confirms everything that Paul has said about Kmiec. This sounds like every rationalization ever offered by a “personally opposed but . . .” Catholic pol. Barring abortion isn’t the answer – oh no! We have to convince people of the wrongness of abortion. Forget about that whole making it illegal business.
And what’s even more amazing is that, whereas before McCain’s position was too soft, it is now being portrayed as too hard. Talk about shifting goalposts.
Archbishop Charles Chaput of Denver rightly reminds Catholics that whether we favor personal or legal efforts to reduce abortion or some combination, our efforts must be more than just talk and that Catholics must “keep lobbying their party and their representatives to change their pro-abortion views and protect the unborn”? Again, sound advice. All Catholics regardless of party or preferred candidate are instructed by Evangelium Vitae to work for greater recognition and respect for the culture of life.
Since neither of the major political parties have acceptable positions, lobbying — and a good deal of prayer — is required to be directed for them both.
Wait a second. Neither party has acceptable positions? The Republican Party has continuously had an anti-abortion plank in their party’s platform, and has called for the prohibition of abortion. That sounds pretty Catholic to me. Unless Kmiec is saying that the party merely want to reverse Roe, leaving the decision up the states. Because leaving the decision up to the states is bad because the Constitution absolutely forbids abortion, which is also insufficient, because prohibiting abortion won’t really have an impact without changing hearts and minds.
My head hurts.
Again, it is my own conclusion that Senator Obama would be more open to these considerations since he is more dedicated toward reducing the partisanship of the past,
Wow. Self-deluded much?
has very responsibly and very consistently called upon our better natures, and has articulated — long before he sought the presidency — a genuine appreciation for the importance of faith in the public square.
Jumping Jupiters, is this guy serious? Is he now actually arguing that Barack Obama’s position on abortion is superior to John McCain’s because Obama’s made some vaguely nice things about faith (other than when he’s castigating religious people for clinging to religion?), and because he uses a lot of flowery but empty rhetoric in his speeches?
How did Doug Kmiec make it through law school, again?
Others will find greater potential in Senator McCain’s personal life experience as an adoptive father. Obama or McCain, Catholics must always give each other the benefit of the doubt that in reaching our conclusion, we stand upon the common ground of deepening the protection of human life.
Yes, and some of us do that by voting for the guy who actually doesn’t favor abortion. You seem content on voting for the guy who not only favors abortion, but will do everything in his power to make access even easier. Which one of is right? Who knows.
Which ever candidate ultimately merits our approval, we should break out of the complacency of the past that seems to be inspired by thinking that we are merely one vote away from protecting life if only the right candidate “controls” the composition of the Supreme Court.
First, I think it’s wrong to understand court appointments in this fashion as it indulges the pernicious notion of the rule of men rather than the rule of law. But, putting that law teacher’s objection to one side, in truth, there is not a single member of the present Court willing to affirm the unalienable right to life from the moment of conception, as opposed to merely reversing a single court decision such as Roe, which, as best as I can tell, would directly save no unborn life.
Thus, we are actually nine votes away from the Catholic position, and that in itself is enough to convince me that change on the Supreme Court, after 20-some long years of working for and praying for such change, cannot be the only way in which respect for life is expressed.
We are now evidently nine votes away from the Catholic position, a position which I think Doug Kmiec just invented. What’s more, he thinks it’s just wrong for people to concentrate on SCOTUS appointments based on a desire to get Roe reversed – rule of law and all that – and yet he puts forward an idea that is so radical that it is held by NO ONE. Yeah, rule of law indeed.
Kmiec must have been worn out by this bit of mental gymnastics. Everyone is either too radical – they want Roe reversed – or not radical enough – they don’t support the notion that the Constitution forbids abortion (which doesn’t matter anyway because making it illegal won’t stop it).
But first it’s time for Kmiec to break out the violins.
My unfortunate experience of being denied communion by a well-meaning, but theologically mistaken, college chaplain is the exception, not the rule.
Well it’s nice enough for him to say that, but pardon me for being a little bit uncharitable for saying this – is there anyone else . . . Should I say it . . . I really can’t back it up . . . Okay, does anyone else think that Kmiec actually made this story up just so he could trot it out to make himself look like a martyr? Nah, that can’t be it.
The present thoughtful discussion has been inspired most directly by the American Catholic bishops and their very helpful discussion in a “Call for Faithful Citizenship,” which is recommended reading for all Catholics in the United States before they exercise the franchise.
This document building upon the teaching of Cardinal Ratzinger, now Pope Benedict XVI, reminds us that our obligation as Catholics extends well beyond any single issue, even as there are some, like abortion and racism that we can never accept.
Calling Cardinal Ratzinger (Pope Benedict XVI):
Not all moral issues have the same moral weight as abortion and euthanasia. For example, if a Catholic were to be at odds with the Holy Father on the application of capital punishment or on the decision to wage war, he would not for that reason be considered unworthy to present himself to receive Holy Communion. While the Church exhorts civil authorities to seek peace, not war, and to exercise discretion and mercy in imposing punishment on criminals, it may still be permissible to take up arms to repel an aggressor or to have recourse to capital punishment. There may be a legitimate diversity of opinion even among Catholics about waging war and applying the death penalty, but not however with regard to abortion and euthanasia.
More Kmiec:
The on-going intelligent and civil discussion also allows us to grasp how no candidate who merely checks a pro-life box in a superficial way should be permitted to blind us from the balance of Catholic social teaching, including the strengthening of the family with a family wage and tax structure that is responsive to the needs of the average family; the ending of an unjust and disproportionate war; the care and stewardship of the human environment; and the structuring of society to look after the most vulnerable among us, including especially the elderly, the poor, and of course those whose voice can only be heard through ours.
Hey, did you not hear what the Pope said? Let me repeat:
Not all moral issues have the same moral weight as abortion and euthanasia. For example, if a Catholic were to be at odds with the Holy Father on the application of capital punishment or on the decision to wage war, he would not for that reason be considered unworthy to present himself to receive Holy Communion. While the Church exhorts civil authorities to seek peace, not war, and to exercise discretion and mercy in imposing punishment on criminals, it may still be permissible to take up arms to repel an aggressor or to have recourse to capital punishment. There may be a legitimate diversity of opinion even among Catholics about waging war and applying the death penalty, but not however with regard to abortion and euthanasia.
You can blather on all you want about “balance,” but there are some issues that are a LOT more important that other issues. Now, if Doug Kmiec really wants to claim that he has sufficiently demonstrated proportionate reasons to vote for Barack Obama over John McCain, he can feel free to do so. After all, who is really right? No one can really say that one person has it completely right. As Catholics, surely we don’t believe that there might be some, say, Higher Power and Authority that might know the correct answer.
In the end, Doug Kmiec is left with only the ability to argue that John McCain’s position on abortion is really no different than Barack Obama’s because McCain doesn’t live up to a standard held by pretty much no person other than Doug Kmiec.
Convenient, isn’t it?
H/t: Feddie.
Instant Update: And Donald McClary in the comments at SA notes that Kmiec’s constitutional might be less than consistent.
Here is a quote from Kmiec in 2006 on the federal partial birth abortion ban:
“I wish it weren’t a federal issue, but I do believe that Congress is acting under the Roe v. Wade specter we are living under,” he added. Douglas Kmiec, a conservative constitutional law professor at Pepperdine University, concurred that Congress became involved with the issue only after the courts “removed the states from the playing field” by way of both Roe v. Wade, as well as Planned Parenthood v. Casey, which upheld Roe in 2000. “Congress did what it could [under the circumstances],” said Kmiec.
While he agrees with Sekulow’s position “as a matter of policy,” Kmiec said the Court’s 2005, Gonzales v. Raich ruling, which allowed federal anti-drug laws to override state laws that allow the use of medical marijuana, had set a new precedent concerning Congressional power. Kmiec, who submitted a brief in the Raich case, said in an ideal world, Congress would have no bearing on either medical marijuana or abortion.
“The genius of the constitutional system is allowing individual states decide these questions, thereby accommodating a greater range of political and religious Americans who could have multiple answers as to when life begins,” said Kmiec, who added that deciding to impose a national policy “is a prescription for a lot of angry unhappy people.” “People feel strongly about this issue, and there is no consensus, and to pretend there is one at the national level is just that—to pretend,” he said.”
http://docket.medill.northwestern.edu/archives/003817.php
I would love a debate between the pre-Obama Kmiec and the post-Obama Kmiec.
Gee, you’d almost think that Kmiec changed his position merely to make it more convenient to vote for Obama. Couldn’t be, right?
Comments
22 Comments so far
[...] Cranky Con weighs in here. PermaLink | | Trackback/Pingback [...]
Thanks for the shout-out, in the midst of a great fisking!
I respect the views of my fellow Catholics who would place greater emphasis upon new legal prohibition or restriction, but my experience is that the more effective way to actually protect life is to work directly face to face…
So he starts here with a lie — he doesn’t respect my views — and proceeds to an absurdity. Put any other crime there, sexual assualt, robbery, car-jacking, tax evasion, and see if it makes any sense:
“I respect the views of my fellow Catholics who would place greater emphasis upon new legal prohibition or restriction, but my experience is that the more effective way to actually raise revenues is to work directly face to face with someone facing the awful thought of evading federal income taxes.”
Insincere nonsense like this is what being pro-abortion looks like.
The problem with the “let’s just read an absolute right to life into the constitution or assume that the unborn are covered by existing amendments” theory (one which, to my knowledge, is held only by untrained opinion-holders, not constitutional scholars) is that it works both ways. If “our” justices read the rights of the unborn into the constitution, then someone else’s can read them out.
That is, after all, the reason why after all this time Roe is very far from settled law — because everyone knows it’s based on something that isn’t there.
Now he could claim that reversing Roe is the wrong way to go and we should only support people who want an anti-abortion ammendment — but oh shoot, that wouldn’t give him a justification to support Obama.
The reasoning behind this is just pathetically bad. We’re watching the slow motion implosion of a mind.
it works both ways. If “our” justices read the rights of the unborn into the constitution, then someone else’s can read them out.
Exactly. Activism (there’s that word) from the right is no better than activism from the left. The Constitution becomes a plaything in the hands of whoever has a majority on the bench.
Pathetic comes to mind when reading the latest comments from Kmiec. One of the essential truths of life is that if you crawl out on a limb and you begin to hear it crack, you do not rapidly saw it off and trust that you will be able to sit in mid-air.
The title of your brilliant observations says it all. I truly doubt if Kmiec is really even fooling himself.
Could a Catholic lawyer be so distraught with the notion that he was ignored or passed over in the political selection of judicial appointments that he simply had to support the candidate of the opposing political party, even if that meant condoning partial-birth abortion and infanticide?
Yep. Apparently some could.
One of the interesting things about the Roe line of cases is that it fails to embrace medical advances, despite giving nods to science.
What I mean is this: when Roe was decided, premature babies almost always died. This is no longer the case.
I understand the idea that “activism” is bad, no matter whether it is Conservative or Liberal. However, science should be embraced by the law as a form of Truth.
We have become fairly good at determining death with medical certainty and astoundingly good at saving children who are as much as ten weeks premature. In other words, we can nail down the point of death and know that life begins AT LEAST during the sixth month.
Embracing science, SCOTUS can reasonably find that the Constitution applies to children from the sixth month on. Arguably, the Court could find that the presence of a hear beat and brain waves, the absence of which indicates clinical death, means that life exists.
This isn’t activism. It is merely the application of science to determining legal questions.
While the Truth that life begins at the moment of conception probably cannot be “proven,” we CAN confidently assert that Constitutional protections apply to children before actual birth.
I don’t think this is an ignorant position. One doesn’t need to be a Constitutional scholar to apply the Constitution to life and law. To hold otherwise is to nullify the stated purpose and arguments of the Framers.
G-Veg:
That’s a fair argument, and if a case is ever going to be made that the Constitution absolutely forbids abortion, that would seem to be the way to go. But that’s not quite what Kmiec is arguing. He wants to connect that Constitution and Declaration in a way that just doesn’t make sense from the historical record.
I’m with you. I was responding to Darwin’s statement that “one which, to my knowledge, is held only by untrained opinion-holders, not constitutional scholars.”
Having completed law school, I have begun to reflect on the experience and incorporate the lessons into the broader fabric of my life. One of the recurring themes of law school is that much of the law is simply too complicated for the untrained to grasp. This is particularly true in Rights and Constitutional Law classes.
However, the record of the Convention and the Federalist Papers, not to mention the mounds of Anti-Federalist and Federalist writings that are not considered credible sources for constitutional interpretation, suggest that the elitism of the Framers did not extend so far as to think that the Constitution was disembodied from the People or the ratifying States. Even Hamilton held that the final holder of national authority was the People through the States.
It is, therefore, a mistake to assert that Constitutional scholars are, as a whole, wise and knowing, and that the man in the street is ignorant- that his opinions, unschooled thought they be, should not be considered. If Lincoln’s vision of a nation that “shall not perish from the Earth” is to be realized, the Constitution must be both the master of individual ambition and the servant of the body politic.
Yes, we need legal scholars who guarantee that we don’t stray too far from a consistent approach to law, but the moment those scholars conclude that the People should be ignored because they are too ignorant or stupid to grasp the complexities of law, we have lost our nation.
Excellent fisk! I had made some preliminary observations on Kmiec’s latest nonsense, and was going to come back to it and give it the full fisk treatment on Monday.
You’ve saved me the trouble. Great job!
Thanks, Jay! But I think you still have to go through with your own fisk. Something this incredibly stupid deserves all the heat it gets.
I don’t intend to hijack the thread, but there was an interesting post on insidecatholic.com by a Father Angelo. He commented on Doug Kmiec being denied Holy Communion. He explained,
“For the precise analysis of the issues involved in a case like this I recommend reading Archbishop Raymond Burke’s paper: “The Discipline Regarding the Denial of Holy Communion to Those Obstinately Persevering in Manifest Grave Sin.” For those who do not know, Archbishop Burke is a member of the Roman Rota, the highest appellate tribunal in the Church. His article is online.
As I understand the Archbishop “obstinate persistence in manifest grave sin” is a matter which may and must be determined by the minister of communion. It is not a judicial determination or one reserved to the local ordinary. In this case denial of communion is not a canonical penalty but the correct sacramental discipline because the one who approaches the altar is manifestly unworthy to receive the Eucharist. Neither is the denial a declaration of the persons personal moral state. For example, if one obstinately persists in supporting abortion, even though he claims to be following his conscience, he is unworthy to receive the Eucharist. The denial has nothing to do with claiming to know whether or not the person is in the state of grace.
Bishop Burke states that such a person should be admonished first before he is denied. Without the admonition, which should be done privately, the “manifest grave sin” would not be known to be persisted in obstinately. Hence until then there is no canonical ground for denying communion.
In regard to Cardinal Ratzinger’s memo, while material cooperation may sometimes be permitted, that is only the case in the presence of proportionate reasons. Most commentators I have read (Fr. Pavone, e.g.) argue that other issues are not proportionate to abortion, abortion is proportionate to abortion, as would be the case when there is no pro-life candidate to vote for. N.B. the memo and how Cardinal Ratzinger makes clear that the issues of war are the death penalty are not comparable abortion and euthanasia.
Barak Obama has the worse possible record on life issues and his election will result in the consolidation of the criminal abomination baby killing. In the absence of proportionate reasons cooperation with pro-abortion candidate, even if one is opposed to his support of abortion, is not remote material cooperation but immediate material cooperation, and according the Catholic moral tradition, that is always morally illicit.”
Kmiec may not have been wrongly denied the sacrament, but strange how he keeps repeating the episode, which he claims was so upsetting.
It is a tricky issue, and it’s not at all a thread jacking to bring it up. First of all, it is now my understanding that the Archdiocese of LA confirmed the story, so he was indeed denied Communion. I still believe that this was wrong. But, as I’ve said in prior posts, it is really, really close the line. I don’t think that Kmiec has truly defined “proportionate” reasons adequately. I’m also with you – it’s strange that he keeps repeating this episode.
Kmiec is not just a Catholic voting for a pro-abortion politician. He is a Catholic educator, who is using his prior public right to life status to convince Catholics that voting for a pro-abortion politician is an acceptable under Catholic doctrine. If this isn’t aiding and abetting the cause, what is it?
Could Kmiec take a stab at “proportionate reasons” or is Father Angelo correct that only abortion is proportionate to abortion. What could be possibly proportionate to the taking of 50 million innocent human lives?
What could be possibly proportionate to the taking of 50 million innocent human lives?
Someone used an example – I forget who – of a hypothetical pro-life candidate who threatened or even promised to nuke the Middle East. Perhaps that evil (nuking another land) was a graver evil than that of abortion.
Of course that’s a pretty extreme hypothetical that only goes to show that there really is no graver evil in our modern polity than abortion.
The only other out, so to speak, is to state that a candidate has only a minimal amount of control over the issue. As it relates to abortion, that is perhaps true. This is the route Kmiec is trying to take. Since McCain can do little to really prohibit or even limit abortion, Obama is more acceptable (so Kmiec and his ilk argue) because his positions on issues over which he has more direct control are more firmly in accord with Church teaching. I don’t for a second buy this argument, but that’s about the only justification that seems remotely plausible.
“The only other out, so to speak, is to state that a candidate has only a minimal amount of control over the issue.”
I don’t know how Kmiec can argue this point. He doesn’t know how many appointments the next President might make. We cannot predict when folks are going to keel over. We also cannot predict a change of heart of Supreme Court justices. The only thing we can rely on is what the candidates actually say.
McCain is going to choose appointees who he believes will overturn Roe. Obama is going to choose appointees who support abortion-on-demand.
Arguably, if McCain is elected and makes appointment(s), Roe could be returned to the states and the states could restrict/ban abortion.
If Obama is elected, he has promised to sign the Freedom of Choice Act into federal law, which would make abortion the supreme law of the land.
Am I missing something, here? How can Kmiec make this argument.
Cranky,
What this thread really needs is some sarcasm. You asked: “How did Doug Kmiec make it through law school, again?” I think the better question may be how did he make it through CCD?
It seems nearly every election cycle there are endorsements that defy understanding. Sometimes the explanation of the endorsement clarifies things other times, as in this case, muddies the waters. However, often we are left to wonder what the other motivating factors might be. Sometimes there are past grievances with the other candidate. Sometimes a debt of some sort is owed to candidate that is endorsed. Who knows what the reason is in Kmiec’s case, but I feel safe in asserting he isn’t endorsing Obama because he believes in the policies he espouses or feels he would be a better president.
How can Kmiec make this argument.
Well, he’s trying to say that the appointments don’t matter because we’re really five votes away from the “Catholic” position as defined by Doug Kmiec, not one. Of course this is totally bogus. I’m not saying he’s right, but that’s just what he’s trying to do.
The only other thing that one can argue is that the president does not have direct control, but even here that’s not entirely true. For instance, presidents can make decisions about funding, and we can be rest assured that there’s a far greater likelihood that President Obama would try to throw taxpayer dollars in support of abortion than President McCain.
Father Angelo has commented on Catholic online and attacks Kmiec’s line of reasoning. Father Angelo indicates that Catholics still need proportionate reasons to vote for a pro-abortion candidate even if they aren’t voting for them because of their support of abortion and even if the candidate only has a minimal amount of control over the abortion issue.
Father Angelo explains, “That Mr. Kmiec makes no reference to Cardinal Raztinger’s 2004 memo regarding the worthiness to receive Holy Communion is inexcusable. What is Catholic Online thinking?
Mr. Kmiec misrepresents the Church’s teaching on the question of voting for pro-abortion candidates. In the memo he would learn that 1) other issues are not comparable with abortion and euthanasia; 2) even if one wishes to vote for a pro-abortion candidate for other reasons than his or her support of abortion, the voter may only do so in the presence of proportionate reasons.”
First, I think it’s wrong to understand court appointments in this fashion as it indulges the pernicious notion of the rule of men rather than the rule of law.
Worse than either of those, of course, is the Rule of Legal Positivists–a race of beings who believe that positive law can over-rule natural law.
Time for an interplanetary-background check.
[...] unknown wrote an interesting post today onHere’s a quick excerptJohn McCain’s position is one that is shared by most Catholics. He is firmly against abortion, and he recognizes that the Constitution is silent on the matter, neither absolutely prohibiting it nor absolutely mandating it. … [...]