The Honorable Al Gore
Vice President of the United States
The White House
1600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW
Washington, DC 20500

By Fax to: 202-456-2461

Dear Mr. Vice President,

Let me introduce myself. I am a husband and the father
of seven and an elder in the Presbyterian Church in America.
I am also a professor of social ethics at a theological seminary.
And I am a Ph.D. candidate in the history of political thought,
focusing particularly on the development of constitutionalism in
seventeenth-century Britain. I am not an ignorant, disgruntled
American but a political philosopher (not a politician or political
scientist) deeply troubled about the state of our nation.

For the last two weeks, I, like many Americans--Republicans and
Democrats alike--have experienced growing concern about the
survival of American constitutional government and the rule of law.
Yesterday, in responding positively to your supporters' appeal to
allow manual recounts to continue in three Florida counties and to
require the Secretary of State's office to include those results in the
final, certified election results for the State of Florida, the Florida
Supreme Court exercised a breathtaking violation of the constitutional
principle of the separation of powers, sweeping aside statutory law
adopted by the legislature and the lawful and prudent exercise
of administrative duties by the executive branch. No doubt their
decision was to your liking. But it is extremely alarming to me as a
political philosopher and historian of political thought. It brings us to
the brink of an extraordinarily dangerous situation: the installation in
office of someone whose claim to that office is not simply doubted but
vehemently rejected by a huge and well-informed part of the citizenry.
I know the argument that all you want is to ensure that the voice of the
people is heard. The Bush campaign played into your hands on that
line by insisting all along that it trusts the people and you don't. But, in
agreement with our founding fathers--who, because they believed in the
sinfulness of man, set up a constitutional order designed to preserve the
rule of law in a system of separation of powers, checks and balances,
and federalism--I trust neither the people nor the government completely.

Instead, I trust God, who reigns over all, and I recognize that our
founders established a prudent system that would minimize the
harm to be expected from the sinfulness of both the people and
their governors. Recall that John Adams called the American
system "a government of laws, not of men."

Our constitutional system carefully provides for the expression of, and
consideration of, public opinion. It includes a system for electing
government officials. It is important that the people's voice be heard in
that system. It is, however, also important that the system work
according to the rule of law, the concern of which is for impartiality
of process, not for attainment of specific ends. Among the hallmarks
of the rule of law enumerated by the late Nobel Prize-winning
economist and political philosopher Friedrich A. Hayek are predictability
(the rules of the game must not change in midstream) and impartiality
(rules must be adopted whose particular effect on particular people cannot
be foreseen). Those hallmarks reflect a Biblical standard of justice as
well: "You shall do no injustice in judgment. You shall not be partial. . . .
But in righteousness you shall judge your neighbor" (Leviticus 19:15).
"You shall not show partiality in judgment; you shall hear the small as
well as the great; you shall not be afraid in any man's presence, for the
judgment is God's" (Deuteronomy 1:17).

Those principles are endangered by the strategy your campaign
has pursued in the Florida election: a strategy that has sought--
and now obtained--the neglect of laws, duly passed by a legislature,
whose impact on specific competitors in specific elections could not
be foreseen and was therefore utterly impartial; a strategy that has
included intentionally singling out heavily Democratic counties for
recounts and neglecting others; a strategy that has sought the
disqualification of overseas ballots, contrary to Federal law, because
it could be foreseen that including them in the count would be more
to your opponent's advantage than to yours, while seeking to
qualify other ballots, contrary to Florida law, because it could be
foreseen that including them in the count would be more to your
advantage than to your opponent's; a strategy that entrusts to biased
hand counters the responsibility to divine the "intent of voters" when
all the evidence they have before them is a "dimpled" or "pregnant"
chad--which could as easily be explained as a voter's last-second
decision not to vote for someone as it can be explained as a voter's
intention to vote for someone.

That your attorneys have managed to get a court comprising six
Democrats and one independent, all appointed by a Democratic
governor, to endorse your strategy does not negate the cold, hard
facts of the case.

So I find myself facing a great moral dilemma. As a Christian, I believe
that the Bible is the Word of God and that it instructs me in my duties.
Among other things, it commands me to "be subject to the governing
authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and the authorities
that exist are appointed by God. Therefore whoever resists the authority
resists the ordinance of God, and those who resist will bring judgment on
themselves" (Romans 13:1-2). What will this entail for me should you
manage, through legal legerdemain, to gain the presidency now? On
the face of it, it would seem that it would require me simply to submit
to you as my president merely because you hold the office. But it is
not that simple.

First, the Constitution, not the president (or any other officer) is the
supreme earthly authority in this country. This passage, therefore,
requires me to submit to the Constitution more than to any officer.

Second, merely holding an office is not by itself proof that one is an
"authority" as the word is used in this text. One who attains an office
illegitimately is not an authority but a usurper. Consider this: In many
countries, an election situation like what we are enduring at present
would have resulted in intervention by the military, brushing aside
whatever the election results might be, and installing someone chosen
by the military. We who believe that government depends for its legitimacy
in part on the consent of the governed would without hesitation conclude
that the new president in that situation was illegitimate and that the people
were not morally obligated to submit to him. I thank God that we have not
seen that happen in America--although, with your intentional
disenfranchisement of overseas military voters, it would be
understandable (though still wrong).

But my aim here is simply to drive home the point that merely
holding an office does not entail legitimate authority.

Third, the text of Romans 13 itself goes on, after those first two
verses, to define what it means by an "authority" to which "every
soul [must] be subject." Such "rulers are not a terror to good works,
but to evil.

Do you want to be unafraid of the authority? Do what is good,
and you will have praise from the same. For he is God's minister to
you for good. But if you do evil, be afraid; for he does not bear the
sword in vain; for he is God's minister, an avenger to execute wrath
on him who practices evil. Therefore, you must be subject, not only
because of wrath but also for conscience' sake" (Romans 13:3-5) That
is, a real "authority" punishes those who do evil, not those who do good;
he is a minister of God; and the reason for submission is not mere fear
of punishment but conscience--a conscience that testifies to the citizen
that submission is the right and good thing, because the authority is
legitimate.

Mr. Vice President, presently you hold office legitimately. But--having
carefully followed the details of this twisted election recount process;
having carefully listened to the attorneys' presentations to the Florida
Supreme Court on Monday and then read them later; having carefully
considered the relevant state election laws (which are not, despite
claims to the contrary, self-contradictory); and having carefully read
the Florida Supreme Court's decision handed down November 21--I
am convinced that if you are declared the winner after all of this, you
will have stolen this election. You will not be a legitimate authority
should you be inaugurated President of the United States.

And that, Mr. Vice President, puts me in a terrible situation. It puts
me in a situation of having to denounce the authority of the titular
president of this nation; of having to approve of others who do likewise;
and of having to admit the legitimacy, in principle, even if not in prudence,
of attempts to supplant you. (I do not say usurp, for only legitimate
authority can be usurped.)

But, Mr. Vice President, I have some consolation. First, I would be
doing no more than what the founders of our country did when, in the
Declaration of Independence, they renounced a king and a parliament
that had forfeited their legitimate rule over the colonies by violating the
transcendent "laws of nature and of nature's God." Second, I would be
doing no more than what the opponents of James II did when, convinced
of his intention to overthrow the British constitution, they sought and
attained his removal from the throne and his replacement by William
of Orange. Third, I would be doing no more than what David did in
ancient Israel when, King Saul having forfeited his legitimacy by
disobeying the commands of God through the Prophet Samuel,
he resisted Saul's rule until at last God removed Saul from office
and installed David, whom He, through Samuel, had previously
anointed king.

Mr. Vice President, I am sure there are many, many thousands,
even millions, of Americans who find themselves facing the same
dreadful choice I am facing. Few will have approached that choice
in quite the same way I have approached it. Perhaps they will not
enlist the same line of reasoning.

But what is crystal clear is that they will approach it. And many--
not only Republicans, but even many Democrats who voted for you
(Thus November 22nd's New York Times on-line edition includes a
story titled "Gore Voters in Chicago Say it's Time for Him to Concede."
A brief excerpt appears after my signature.)--will conclude as I have
concluded. Then we shall have you to blame for the most serious
undermining of the constitutional order this country has ever suffered.

I love America, Mr. Vice President. I love its Constitution and its
Declaration of Independence. I love its amazing system of separation
of powers, of checks and balances, of federalism--so wisely constructed
by men who knew their own sinfulness and knew that it affected all others.
Please, for God's sake, do not sweep those things away.

Concede the election now, Mr. Vice President. You may then be able to
run again four years from now not only with the high esteem of the American
public, which will recognize that you have chosen the good of the country
over your own ambition, but also with a clear conscience.

I pray that God will give you wisdom and humility.

Sincerely,
E. Calvin Beisner
Associate Professor of Historical Theology and Social Ethics
Knox Theological Seminary
5554 N. Federal Highway
Ft. Lauderdale, Florida 33308
e-mail: cbeisner@knoxseminary.org 

E. Calvin Beisner