I really liked the last part of this video where one of the speakers says the Declaration of Independence is not a legal document, but lays down the values which the Articles of Confederation and Constitution attempt to protect. There is a real problem today. We have a Declaration and Constitution created on a Christian interpretation of Natural Law and God, but a legal system based on Legal Positivism. I have attended two Federalist Society sponsored Constitution Day debates, and unfortunately, the debater on the side of "less government/more Federalism/state independence" is incapable of defending his position. I do not think it is possible to defend a Natural Law document in a Legal Positivism framework. Where does that leave the future of Constitutional Law in the US?
I guess Lynn Uzzel at 2:40 min from the Univ. of Va. forgot about the Magna Charta being the basis for our statement "No Taxation with Representation". The Enlightenment was based upon a completely different philosophical basis. The enlightenment led to the French and then the Marxist Revolutions not the American. These foundational principles of the Declaration are Christian based principles discovered through centuries of thought and experience in various nations particularly England starting with St. Augustine's "The City of God" which transformed medieval law and coming out of the European Reformation which the Enlightenment opposed. George Bancroft the leading American historian in the 1900s stated that John Calvin was the "Father of America" and that "He who will not honor the memory and respect the influence of Calvin knows little of the origin of American liberty." Gary Amos in his scholarly work "Defending the Declaration" shows this is the historical fact detailing each phrase of the Declaration is rooted in Christian political thought. Even more scholarly is Dr. John Eidsmoe's treatise called "Historical and Theological Foundations of Law Vols. 1-3" which details these principles in Volume 3., starting on p. 1368. He concludes by saying, "The Hebrews have influenced civilization and law more than any other people, teaching us that true law originates with God. Nearly every society had posited a divine or at least a supernatural source of its laws, but Hebrew thought added an ethical dimension to jurisprudence. Law is right, true, and good, because the one true God who ordained law is right, true, and good...The Hebrews also provide us with a model of representative government in the Hebrew republic of the judges, and of limited constitutional monarchy in the days of the earlier Hebrew kings....In Christianity Law is infused with grace." We have certainly learned from many other systems of law in what to do and what not to do but the Enlightenment was rejected by the Founders and the People of the United States at the foundation of our nation. It seems this piece has forgotten the political philosophers which undergirded the thoughts on government, the laws of Nature, the law of God and liberty such as John Selden (1584-1654), John Milton who defended Puritan republicanism, Sir Edward Coke's Institutes on the English common law, Bracton's De Legibus, Johannes Althusius' "Politica" which expounded the forms of government and the role of law from the Scriptures, Hugo Grotius' "On the Law of War and Peace" detailing the law of nature, Samuel Pufendorf's treatise on the laws of nature and God both come from the Creator and hold every person accountable to law, John Locke, cited as an enlightenment thinker was actually a reformed Christian writing on the "Reasonableness of Christianity" and then he wrote his "First and Second Treatise on Government" which cites extensively the Scriptural basis for law and liberty, and then there is Montesquieu and Emmerich de Vattel, Samuel Rutherford in his book "Lex Rex" Blackstone in his Commentaries and then Kent in his Commentaries showed that a consensus of thought had formed from Reformation Christianity that God is the Author, not only of Scripture, but also of the Law of Nature that is of universal application throughout the world. The law of Nature authorizes the establishment of government, and also limits the authority of government by God-given natural rights. Because of the Fall, man is steeped in original sin and his understanding of the Law of Nature has become corrupted. For this reason God gave man the Revealed law of Scripture and wrote the Law of nature in stone on Mt. Sinai. The law of Nature is best understood by those whose consciences are informed by Scripture. To this law of nature, illumined by Scripture for our understanding, we look for the foundation of law and government. Read John and Sam Adams, James Otis, Patrick Henry, John Jay and you will see their dependence upon the Old Testament Israel as a model. Armed with this understanding, the Founding generation sought to govern themselves according to these ancient principles of law and when the king and Parliament tried to subjugate the colonies under principles opposed to the principles of liberty they fought a war to reestablish them and preserve their liberty under law. Our law has the Creator as its source. The Enlightenment rejected that and established man or the society in a social compact as the source which led to serious usurpation of the rights of man in the French and Russian Revolutions. These two ideas are still battling each other today. Which would we like to live in? I for one, desire to live in liberty under law.
RESTORE THE PURSUIT OF HAPPINESS!!!!!! Now such a thing happiness, above all else, is held to be; for this we choose always for self and never for the sake of something else, but honor, pleasure, reason, and every virtue we choose indeed for themselves (for if nothing resulted from them we should still choose each of them), but we choose them also for the sake of happiness, judging that by means of them we shall be happy. Happiness, on the other hand, no one chooses for the sake of these, nor, in general, for anything other than itself. Aristotle; Nicomachean Ethics; Book I. Section 7.
Everyday we have opportunity to do the right thing, it is a personal choice at any given time to stop what your doing and assist someone who is in trouble. Everyday I witness scores of people pass up the opportunity leaving it to someone else. They are to busy, or what ever good reason they have to stop and assist. Whatever choice they make other than to assist is the wrong choice, for whatever good reason they have. We the people will have to retrieve our republic from the tyrant's if Trump fails in cleaning house ! I hope the blood our freedom fighters have shed, the lives lost are not in vain because when the right thing to do is past up by the majority, for whatever good reasons they have.
![The 1787 Paradox: A Constitution Designed for Liberty That Protects Slavery [No. 86]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/NvLH0UCt6e4/mqdefault.jpg)
![The 1787 Paradox: A Constitution Designed for Liberty That Protects Slavery [No. 86]](/img/tr.png)
7:33
sus
I really liked the last part of this video where one of the speakers says the Declaration of Independence is not a legal document, but lays down the values which the Articles of Confederation and Constitution attempt to protect. There is a real problem today. We have a Declaration and Constitution created on a Christian interpretation of Natural Law and God, but a legal system based on Legal Positivism. I have attended two Federalist Society sponsored Constitution Day debates, and unfortunately, the debater on the side of "less government/more Federalism/state independence" is incapable of defending his position. I do not think it is possible to defend a Natural Law document in a Legal Positivism framework. Where does that leave the future of Constitutional Law in the US?
I guess Lynn Uzzel at 2:40 min from the Univ. of Va. forgot about the Magna Charta being the basis for our statement "No Taxation with Representation". The Enlightenment was based upon a completely different philosophical basis. The enlightenment led to the French and then the Marxist Revolutions not the American. These foundational principles of the Declaration are Christian based principles discovered through centuries of thought and experience in various nations particularly England starting with St. Augustine's "The City of God" which transformed medieval law and coming out of the European Reformation which the Enlightenment opposed. George Bancroft the leading American historian in the 1900s stated that John Calvin was the "Father of America" and that "He who will not honor the memory and respect the influence of Calvin knows little of the origin of American liberty." Gary Amos in his scholarly work "Defending the Declaration" shows this is the historical fact detailing each phrase of the Declaration is rooted in Christian political thought. Even more scholarly is Dr. John Eidsmoe's treatise called "Historical and Theological Foundations of Law Vols. 1-3" which details these principles in Volume 3., starting on p. 1368. He concludes by saying, "The Hebrews have influenced civilization and law more than any other people, teaching us that true law originates with God. Nearly every society had posited a divine or at least a supernatural source of its laws, but Hebrew thought added an ethical dimension to jurisprudence. Law is right, true, and good, because the one true God who ordained law is right, true, and good...The Hebrews also provide us with a model of representative government in the Hebrew republic of the judges, and of limited constitutional monarchy in the days of the earlier Hebrew kings....In Christianity Law is infused with grace." We have certainly learned from many other systems of law in what to do and what not to do but the Enlightenment was rejected by the Founders and the People of the United States at the foundation of our nation. It seems this piece has forgotten the political philosophers which undergirded the thoughts on government, the laws of Nature, the law of God and liberty such as John Selden (1584-1654), John Milton who defended Puritan republicanism, Sir Edward Coke's Institutes on the English common law, Bracton's De Legibus, Johannes Althusius' "Politica" which expounded the forms of government and the role of law from the Scriptures, Hugo Grotius' "On the Law of War and Peace" detailing the law of nature, Samuel Pufendorf's treatise on the laws of nature and God both come from the Creator and hold every person accountable to law, John Locke, cited as an enlightenment thinker was actually a reformed Christian writing on the "Reasonableness of Christianity" and then he wrote his "First and Second Treatise on Government" which cites extensively the Scriptural basis for law and liberty, and then there is Montesquieu and Emmerich de Vattel, Samuel Rutherford in his book "Lex Rex" Blackstone in his Commentaries and then Kent in his Commentaries showed that a consensus of thought had formed from Reformation Christianity that God is the Author, not only of Scripture, but also of the Law of Nature that is of universal application throughout the world. The law of Nature authorizes the establishment of government, and also limits the authority of government by God-given natural rights. Because of the Fall, man is steeped in original sin and his understanding of the Law of Nature has become corrupted. For this reason God gave man the Revealed law of Scripture and wrote the Law of nature in stone on Mt. Sinai. The law of Nature is best understood by those whose consciences are informed by Scripture. To this law of nature, illumined by Scripture for our understanding, we look for the foundation of law and government. Read John and Sam Adams, James Otis, Patrick Henry, John Jay and you will see their dependence upon the Old Testament Israel as a model. Armed with this understanding, the Founding generation sought to govern themselves according to these ancient principles of law and when the king and Parliament tried to subjugate the colonies under principles opposed to the principles of liberty they fought a war to reestablish them and preserve their liberty under law. Our law has the Creator as its source. The Enlightenment rejected that and established man or the society in a social compact as the source which led to serious usurpation of the rights of man in the French and Russian Revolutions. These two ideas are still battling each other today. Which would we like to live in? I for one, desire to live in liberty under law.
Well said brother. God Bless!
7:34 Sus!
We all have amogus!
RESTORE THE PURSUIT OF HAPPINESS!!!!!!
Now such a thing happiness, above all else, is held to be; for this we choose always for self and never for the sake of something else, but honor, pleasure, reason, and every virtue we choose indeed for themselves (for if nothing resulted from them we should still choose each of them), but we choose them also for the sake of happiness, judging that by means of them we shall be happy. Happiness, on the other hand, no one chooses for the sake of these, nor, in general, for anything other than itself.
Aristotle; Nicomachean Ethics; Book I. Section 7.
INALIENABLE INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS!!!! E PLURIBUS UNUM
Replaced by "In God We Trust" In reason we trust or in faith? Natural Righrs or Supernatural Rights? Relection or Revealation. Nurture and Nature. 🇺🇸
Everyday we have opportunity to do the right thing, it is a personal choice at any given time to stop what your doing and assist someone who is in trouble. Everyday I witness scores of people pass up the opportunity leaving it to someone else. They are to busy, or what ever good reason they have to stop and assist. Whatever choice they make other than to assist is the wrong choice, for whatever good reason they have.
We the people will have to retrieve our republic from the tyrant's if Trump fails in cleaning house ! I hope the blood our freedom fighters have shed, the lives lost are not in vain because when the right thing to do is past up by the majority, for whatever good reasons they have.
ಡ ͜ ʖ ಡ
Ok, who's ready to get back to the office now?
Crimes & Corruption