Comments on: The Judiciary Was Excluded From Policymaking

By: vicfedorov

vicfedorov — Sat, 06 Aug 2011 16:37:07 +0000

The Jersey Plan, advocated a judiciary that could enlist soldiers to enforce its decisions upon the states. So such was within the frame of debate. The point is a better country, truth, not necessary an obsolescence. Nor is inaccesible legal language consistent with the simplicity of truth, and belief in understanding. For instance the point of the constitution is peace between the states, the federalist papers say that first thing. If that point is no longer a concern, then is not the constitution seriously questioned?

By: vicfedorov

vicfedorov — Sat, 06 Aug 2011 16:36:21 +0000

I don't think the constitution is trying to do much more than establish peacetime in America. There is a difference between what the consitution is allowed to do, and what it should do. The shortness of language on the judiciary in Article 3, coupled with historical fact, the roman republic which popularized the three branches of federal government, only came about to its judiciary later in history, when the soldiers went on strike, untill they had offices designed to sue officials for folly in general and with war. These tribunals had the power to veto legislation out of ethical concern. They were mostly focused on morality in the executive and legislative branch, which required a pedigree for office; the tribunes generally had to come from the lower class, out of the natural fear, the upper class in the judiciary would collude regarding their interests. Thus the judiciary as a form for the people, is capable of evolving, there is a real politic.

By: vicfedorov

vicfedorov — Fri, 05 Aug 2011 21:51:58 +0000

the constitution is about peacetime prosperity between the states. http://vicfedorov.wordpress.com/2011/06/25/americ…
It's doing something fairly simple. The judiciary needs to establish and even understand states rights, and that local officials abridge decision making in peaceful assembly and are neither state nor people. There's a difference between usurping, and enabling the means to enforce. We're up against the status quo, which is no paradigm of law.

By: vicfedorov

vicfedorov — Fri, 05 Aug 2011 21:51:58 +0000

By: vicfedorov

vicfedorov — Fri, 05 Aug 2011 17:55:33 +0000

One of the greatest lessons is to think for yourself

By: vicfedorov

vicfedorov — Fri, 05 Aug 2011 17:29:03 +0000

http://vicfedorov.wordpress.com/2011/06/25/americ…

By: vicfedorov

vicfedorov — Fri, 05 Aug 2011 17:28:29 +0000

The concept of a judiciary examining legislation, was practiced in classical times. Criminal matters weren't handled by state but as a last resort if tribal councils couldn't handle it. The N.J. Plan, which gave less power to the federal government than the Virginia Plan, as the N.J. Plan advocated states making their own trade pacts; whose fairness of pact or contract may be adjudicated by federal courts. Federal Courts, were also considered in the N.J. Plan as appropiate for analyzing treaties, with foreign nations. The judiciary could also keep track of the tricky issues of new states emerging to the west, and their legal issues.

By: Jeff Matthews

Jeff Matthews — Sun, 17 Jul 2011 12:48:18 +0000

While you consider the above examples, how about this twist?

The actor does not appear to be a serious threat to life of the victim, but he does appear that he can cause injury. Let's say he was unarmed, but he was threatening to beat the victim.

The victim pulls out a gun and shoots to kill. He aims for the heart. However, he misses and hits a leg. Nonetheless, the actor develops gangrene, which is unsuccessfully treated, and he dies.

So, to kill would be more force than necessary. He aims to kill. His shot misses and would not normally kill. But due to a complication, the shot kills anyway.

Can we solve this one by Natural Law? Or will we need a jury composed of 12 idiots in a box?

By: Jeff Matthews

Jeff Matthews — Sun, 17 Jul 2011 12:30:51 +0000

Ok. Let's look at the relevant part.

"Wherefore if a man, in self-defense, uses more than necessary violence, it will be unlawful: whereas if he repel force with moderation his defense will be lawful."

How do we know when someone uses "more than necessary" violence? Is "necessary" defined anywhere?

And is the test for what is necessary an objective one or a subjective one? This can be important.

First twist: Suppose the actor appears to have a gun, but it turns out he is, in fact, unarmed?

Does Aquinas tell us whether we are guilty if we actually, subjectively believe the actor was a greater threat than he actually was?

For a second twist, what if the actor wanted us to believe he was more dangerous than he was? What if he uses a toy gun that looks real?

Third twist. What if the actor has a real gun and says, "Everything will be fine if you cooperate and hand over your wallet?"

Where does Aquinas deal with each of these?

The point being…. He left us with the word "necessary." People can differ widely on what they consider "necessary." We need a Natural Law answer. People will screw it up. What does Natural Law tell us as to what is "necessary" in each of the scenarios?

By: GRusling

GRusling — Sun, 17 Jul 2011 09:59:35 +0000

The above rule is equally true for any law made by congress. The discussion and (often) debate surrounding the adoption of any law will clearly identify what the legislators involved "meant" when they created that law. No "court" is authorized to modify the law by "interpretation" so the concept that any such authority ever existed is fatally flawed.

"The constitution, on this hypothesis, is a mere thing of wax in the hands of the Judiciary, which they may twist and shape into any form they please." – Thomas Jefferson

Today, we see that occur so often that it is generally considered the norm, and few have the will to challenge it…