Mere Natural Law

[Skull]

Mere Natural Law - Originalism and the Anchoring Truths of the Constitution - Regnery Publishing

Quote:

Mere Natural Law by Hadley Arkes In this profoundly important reassessment of constitutional interpretation, the eminent legal philosopher Hadley Arkes argues that "originalism" alone is an inadequate answer to judicial activism.

 

[DGS49]

I have not seen an example of "natural law" (as most educated Americans understand the term) impacting Constitutional interpretation. In fact, I find the whole concept to be deeply flawed.

Originalism and "judicial activism" are on opposite ends of the spectrum. Judicial activism is finding bizarre new "rights" hidden in unwritten parts of the Constitution - e.g., the "right" to obtain an abortion. Originalism correctly finds that such speculative rights are not compatible with the document being interpreted.

Please explain.

 

[Muhammed]

The Democrats use originalism to justify enslaving Americans. Over and over and over again. The only consistent thing in USA politics is that the Democratic party of slavery supports slavery. Wilson in WWI, Roosevelt in WWII, Truman in the Korean war, Johnson in the Vietnam war. Military conscription is a particularly abhorrent form of slavery. The worst.

And over and over again a Republican had to emancipate the slaves. Nixon emancipated the slaves. That's what he promised to do during his campaign for the presidency, and he delivered. Nixon emancipated the slaves.

Hypocrites!

Democrat presidents always look for any fucking reason to enslave Americans.

In court, The Democratic party of Slavery jurists cited Vattel's Law of Nations to justify enslaving people and using them as cannon fodder in WWI. But then they ignore the same Vattel's Law of Nations treatise on natural law when it comes to defining the term of art "Natural Born Citizen", just so they could get Obama in office to try to gaslight the public into believing that they are not the party of slavery.

Don't drink the Kool-Aid.!

The US Democratic Party of Slavery is full of shit.

The US Democratic party of slavery is an extremely evil institution. It's called the party of slavery for a reason.

 

[Skull]

I have not seen an example of "natural law" (as most educated Americans understand the term) impacting Constitutional interpretation. In fact, I find the whole concept to be deeply flawed.

Originalism and "judicial activism" are on opposite ends of the spectrum. Judicial activism is finding bizarre new "rights" hidden in unwritten parts of the Constitution - e.g., the "right" to obtain an abortion. Originalism correctly finds that such speculative rights are not compatible with the document being interpreted.

Please explain.

The author Arkes responds to a criticism of his book. Perhaps it will clarify for you:

Natural Law and Originalism – Hadley Arkes

 

[Stryder50]

Mere Natural Law - Originalism and the Anchoring Truths of the Constitution - Regnery Publishing

Quote:

Mere Natural Law by Hadley Arkes In this profoundly important reassessment of constitutional interpretation, the eminent legal philosopher Hadley Arkes argues that "originalism" alone is an inadequate answer to judicial activism.

Rest of the commentary text might help clarify;
...
Untethered from “mere Natural Law”—the moral principles knowable by all—our legal and constitutional system is doomed to incoherence.

The framers of the Constitution regarded the “self-evident” truths of the Natural Law as foundational. And yet in our own time, both liberals and conservatives insist that we must interpret the Constitution while ignoring its foundation.

Making the case anew for Natural Law, Arkes finds it not in theories hovering in the clouds or in benign platitudes (“be generous,” “be selfless”). He draws us back, rather, to the ground of Natural Law as the American Founders understood it, the anchoring truths of common sense—truths grasped at once by the ordinary man, unburdened by theories imbibed in college and law school.

When liberals discovered hitherto unknown rights in the “emanations” and “penumbras” of a “living constitution,” conservatives responded with an “originalism” that refuses to venture beyond the bare text. But in framing that text, the Founders appealed to moral principles that were there before the Constitution and would be there even if there were no Constitution. An originalism that is detached from those anchor - ing principles has strayed far from the original meaning of the Constitution. It is powerless, moreover, to resist the imposition of a perverse moral vision on our institutions and our lives.