Parts of the constitution rise from common law, which, as I commented previously rises from quite ancient moral considerations. For example, the due process protections.
Yech - I thought Linda Denno (Sept 17/24) had more or less settled this. I guess, however, that her expertise got in the way of her explanation. Since I know nothing and therefore feel no compulsion to do either the academic thing (quote Burke, Locke, et al) or the lawyerly thing (cite Rutledge, Marshall et al), let me throw an axe at the issue.
Very (!) broadly the New Testament can be seen as The Covenant re-imagined and re-executed for its time - and, similarly, the American constitutional documents can be seen as the third try at setting rules for a society based on natural law - i.e. on the sense of justice children show before their parents, siblings, and schools modify their behavior.
Accept this, and it's obvious that the American covenant intends the rule of natural justice but human nature and social complexity conspire to corrupt the application of these ideas - meaning that the courts vs legislature stand-off is merely one way of addressing human failure while the explicit limitation of authority within the constitutional documents is another, and the endless semantic hairsplitting courts indulge in is largely consequential damage reflecting the limitations of those caught in the system and so fundamentally irrelevant to the discussion at hand.
Best response yet by John. Can natural law as a jurisprudential guide stand under John's withering positivic attack? John's argument is one of utility as opposed to philosophy. Let's kick out all the judges who fail to evince the necessary amount of humility.
Parts of the constitution rise from common law, which, as I commented previously rises from quite ancient moral considerations. For example, the due process protections.
Not to worry. An epic beatdown rebuttal is coming!
Yech - I thought Linda Denno (Sept 17/24) had more or less settled this. I guess, however, that her expertise got in the way of her explanation. Since I know nothing and therefore feel no compulsion to do either the academic thing (quote Burke, Locke, et al) or the lawyerly thing (cite Rutledge, Marshall et al), let me throw an axe at the issue.
Very (!) broadly the New Testament can be seen as The Covenant re-imagined and re-executed for its time - and, similarly, the American constitutional documents can be seen as the third try at setting rules for a society based on natural law - i.e. on the sense of justice children show before their parents, siblings, and schools modify their behavior.
Accept this, and it's obvious that the American covenant intends the rule of natural justice but human nature and social complexity conspire to corrupt the application of these ideas - meaning that the courts vs legislature stand-off is merely one way of addressing human failure while the explicit limitation of authority within the constitutional documents is another, and the endless semantic hairsplitting courts indulge in is largely consequential damage reflecting the limitations of those caught in the system and so fundamentally irrelevant to the discussion at hand.
Was the constitution drafted for the purpose of protecting democracy or because we each have the right to our own lives and self-governance?
Best response yet by John. Can natural law as a jurisprudential guide stand under John's withering positivic attack? John's argument is one of utility as opposed to philosophy. Let's kick out all the judges who fail to evince the necessary amount of humility.