GEORGE WASHINGTON STATED

Firearms are second only to the Constitution in importance; they are the peoples' liberty teeth.



First Inaugural Address of George Washington...April 30, 1789

The preservation of the sacred fire of liberty and the destiny of the republican model of government are justly considered as deeply, perhaps as finally, staked on the experiment entrusted to the hands of the American people.

The Second Amendment of the U.S. Constitution

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

The First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Abraham Lincoln said:

"In this age, and in this country, public sentiment is everything. With it, nothing can fail; against it nothing can suceed. Whoever molds public sentiment goes deeper than he who enacts statutes, or pronounces judicial decisions."

James Madison Declared

The adversaries of the Constitution seem to have lost sight of the PEOPLE altogether in their reasonings on this subject; and to have viewed these different establishments not only as mutual rivals and enemies, but as uncontrolled by any common superior in their efforts to usurp the authorities of each other. These gentlemen must be reminded of their error. They must be told that the ULTIMATE AUTHORITY, wherever the derivative may be found, RESIDES IN THE PEOPLE ALONE. (Federalist Papers, No. 46, p.294; emphasis added.)

Saturday, October 23, 2010

Case Law System...will destroy this country

When "relativism" is applied to the law it is called "legal positivism." This "positivism" started in the 1870s when  Harvard Law School Dean Christopher C. Langdell tried to compare apples with oranges; He assumed that Darwin's theory, which is still argued over, of biological evolution could be and should be applied to jurisprudence. He, I believe, to a certain degree, believed that since man evolved, that his laws and the Constitution should evolve under the guidance of judges. It was at that time that students of the law would study decisions of judges rather than the Constitution. Since that time history, precedent, and the views and beliefs of the Founders became more and more irrelevant and the Constitution as a hindrance to the advancement of a "progressive" society. Personally I find the analogy of comparing a biological system and a legal system as totally asinine.

I believe that a leading relativist and progressive, John Dewey, in 1927 was as wrong as he could be when he stated:

"The belief in political fixity, of the sanctity of some form of state consecrated by the efforts of our fathers and hallowed by tradition, is one of the stumbling-blocks in the way of orderly and directed change."

As this approach was gradually adopted by this country's law schools the pillars of the foundation of our nation were eroded and the nation started to become a nation of men and not one of law. The only good I see is that this new theory of relativism increases the business of the legal system and their income. If the foundations of the law keep shifting like the sands in the desert then the arguments defending one position versus another are infinite and can change from day to day or case to case. A nation with this kind of foundation is bound to crumble into a mound of dust in time.

No comments: