fbpx

Posner’s Unjustified Attack on Scalia

I was saddened to read Judge Richard Posner’s vitriolic criticism of Antonin Scalia written in the New York Times with Eric Segall. Judge Posner’s scholarship was the most important contribution to law in the latter half of the 20th century. He reformed many areas of law through the application of economics and did so with clarity, wit, and panache. As Blackstone was the leading legal scholar of this time, so was Judge Posner during my first 25 years as a lawyer.

But being a scholar carries some obligations. And one of them in my view is the obligation of charity—to put the views you oppose in the best possible light before critiquing them. Or if that is not possible within the short space of an op-ed, at least not caricaturing them. I would think that also the obligation of one federal judge to another in the popular press.

And it is obvious from his vast body of work that Justice Scalia does not believe in deferring to the majority, when the Constitution actually prohibits what the majority wants to do. He emphatically does not, as the Judge Posner and Professor Segall claim, embrace “the model of the British Constitution” where the legislature once was the final word.

Justice Scalia rigorously enforces the First and Second Amendments in the Constitution and many other provisions as well, including many that defend the rights of unpopular minorities, like those accused of crimes, because they are in the Constitution. He objects to Obergefell and other Supreme Court decisions when they enforce rights that he cannot find in the Constitution. He believes that in the absence of a constitutional right, majorities of citizens within each state have the authority to pass laws even if they do so based on traditional morality. That is the significance of his reference to policy when he says, as quoted by the authors, that Obergefell allows:

the policy question of same-sex marriage to be considered and resolved by a select, patrician, highly unrepresentative panel of nine is to violate a principle even more fundamental than no taxation without representation: no social transformation without representation.

Because there is no right in the Constitution at issue, his contention is that the matter is one of policy, not law, and that judges are at a comparative disadvantage in deciding such questions because they are few in number and completely unrepresentative. Or perhaps I am a little harsh: the justices do come from fully four of the five boroughs in New York City!

Now maybe the justices should be permitted to make up new rights or there is a right to same-sex marriage fairly implied by the text of the Constitution. These are interesting questions, but the op-ed does not shed any light on them.

Judge Posner is a legal giant who has added greatly to the stock of human knowledge. I am baffled as to why he is stooping to distorting the positions of jurisprudential opponents.

Reader Discussion

Law & Liberty welcomes civil and lively discussion of its articles. Abusive comments will not be tolerated. We reserve the right to delete comments - or ban users - without notification or explanation.

on December 03, 2015 at 12:41:22 pm

Posner has become a foolish crank.

read full comment
Image of Mark Pulliam
Mark Pulliam
on December 03, 2015 at 13:04:59 pm

Professor McGinnis, I especially appreciate this post and share your frustrations.

I have written ((see this chemical engineer’s blog), against lies by same-sex lawyers and in defense of Judge Martin Feldman during the trek to Obergefell. The Supreme Court affirmed the evil of opinion-based ethics. That phrase I discovered in my debates on this site.

You express without the words the objective truth in this post: The bedrock needed for civic morality cannot come from five liberal opinions v four conservative opinions. But you leave open the solution to the problem.

One solution is to recognize the fallacy of the idea that tradition provides the bedrock. Tradition is equally false. Thomas Jefferson recognized the fallacy of tradition when he wrote for scrapping the constitution for the USA every twenty years--upon emergence of the next adult generation. Note that Obergefell could never have happened without the Congress passing DOMA on unconstitutional, Judeo-Christian tradition and then not correcting their error after Windsor v US.

What does physics have to say about same-sex partnerships? It says they cannot independently procreate. Thus, anyone who considers such a partnership must realize they cannot independently procreate. This fact need not be stated in traditional, emotion-laden terms, like “abomination” or any excuse for such inflammatory terms. When two persons want to care for each other as partners, a civic people celebrate regardless of the bodies involved. Yet the partners must maintain civic morality, and the idea that a civic people must brook surrogacy is neither settled nor brought into civic collaboration.

The idea that same-sex partners can procreate through surrogacy need not be an issue that is obfuscated. It’s a fact. Also, the idea that same-sex partners can be good material providers and attentive psychological examples yet cannot provide heterosexual role-models children need, should not be obfuscated. The questions is: are these practices civically moral? Neither religious morals nor other opinion-based ethics apply.

The fact that a fertilized ovum, a single cell, has the right to the dignity and equality of its heritage—of being gestated, delivered, nourished and reared by its biological mother and father should not be obfuscated. The fact that human evolution to this point has been based on heterosexual monogamy for life, such that a couple’s fidelity to children, grandchildren and beyond is physically preferred should not be obfuscated.

And that’s what the opinionated nine have done. Under Justice Kennedy, the self-appointed lord of dignity and equality, the nine has exploited the popular rainbow idea “We’re in love and want to be married, too,” to obfuscate the single-cell fetus’s right to the equality and dignity to not be subjected to adult contracts that deny his or her heritage.

Now, I am not saying that my opinions stated above should rule. What I am saying is that physics is the bedrock of civic morality. Like it or not, the committee of nine faces physics-based ethics as the bedrock of civic morality.

Reform from this woe must be gradual and cautious yet certain.

read full comment
Image of Phil Beaver
Phil Beaver
on December 04, 2015 at 12:12:04 pm

Aww someone is sad that Posner ripped the bitter antiquated Scalia to shreds.

Keep crying.

read full comment
Image of Issac Cox
Issac Cox
on December 04, 2015 at 22:16:30 pm

Poor Posner! A pathetic ruin. How sad he has made Professor McGinnis.

Has Posner not become the Ozymandias of the American judiciary? Was not Percy Bysshe Shelley writing with prophetic insight about Posner when he wrote:

I met a traveller from an antique land
Who said: “Two vast and trunkless legs of stone
Stand in the desert . . . Near them, on the sand,
Half sunk, a shattered visage lies, whose frown,
And wrinkled lip, and sneer of cold command,
Tell that its sculptor well those passions read
Which yet survive, stamped on these lifeless things,
The hand that mocked them, and the heart that fed:
And on the pedestal these words appear:
‘My name is Ozymandias, king of kings:
Look on my works, ye Mighty, and despair!'
Nothing beside remains. Round the decay
Of that colossal wreck, boundless and bare
The lone and level sands stretch far away.”

read full comment
Image of Richard A. Posner
Richard A. Posner
on December 05, 2015 at 11:04:02 am

Both Posner and McGinnis might heed physics.

Albert Einstein, in commenting about ethics, wrote about science, a mere study. We transition to physics--energy, mass and space-time, from which everything emerges. Each science, religion, and ethics--even "pathetic ruin"--emerge from physics.

Here's our adaptation of Einstein's 1941 writing (http://www.samharris.org/blog/item/my-friend-einstein/):

“[Physics-based ethics] has a further characteristic. The concepts which it uses to build up its coherent systems are not expressing emotions. [In physics] there is only “being,” but no wishing, no valuing, no good, no evil; no goals. [The ethics] are derived from our inborn tendencies to avoid pain and annihilation, and from the accumulated emotional reaction of individuals to the behavior of their neighbors.”

read full comment
Image of Phil Beaver
Phil Beaver
on December 05, 2015 at 19:24:04 pm

I guess you mean to say - the US constitution is bitter and antiquated!

sounds like the crying is as usual coming from the left.

What!!! - no orange slices for you AND no participation trophies either!!

read full comment
Image of gabe
gabe
on December 05, 2015 at 19:27:31 pm

Nice description of the US Constitution, I suppose!!!

Now let us see what the wind driven sands shall bring or deposit upon our shores!!!!!

read full comment
Image of gabe
gabe
on December 06, 2015 at 14:13:58 pm

Yes, Scalia does not believe in deferring to the majority always, but because of that he should stop using appeals to democracy when his colleagues has a more expansive reading of what rights the constitution confers.

read full comment
Image of Jr
Jr
on December 07, 2015 at 14:15:53 pm

Quandoque bonus dormitat Homerus.

read full comment
Image of John O. McGinnis
John O. McGinnis
on December 15, 2015 at 22:14:15 pm

What separates marriage from every other form of loving relationship, is the ability and desire to exist in relationship as husband and wife. The marital act is life-affirming and life-sustaining, and can only be consummated by a man and woman, united in marriage as husband and wife. Marriage is not discriminatory because marriage consists of both a man and a woman, united together as husband and wife.
Marriage cannot in essence be, existing in relationship as husband and wife, and not existing in relationship as husband and wife, simultaneously.
Once you remove the necessary requirement for a marriage contract, which is the ability and desire to exist in relationship as husband and wife, thus invalidating the validity of a valid marriage contract, any relationship can be defined as marriage if one so desires. No Judge has the authority to change the letter of the law by removing the necessary requirement for a marriage contract, which is the ability and desire to exist in relationship as husband and wife, thus promoting marriage fraud, which is an impeachable offence.
If you give special marital benefits to some persons who do not have the ability and desire to exist in relationship as husband and wife, you must then give these same benefits to all persons who do not have the ability and desire to exist in relationship as husband and wife.
The only question before the Court should be, is it constitutional to give special benefits to those persons who have the ability and desire to exist in relationship as husband and wife, for the sake of marriage and the family?

read full comment
Image of Nancy
Nancy
on December 15, 2015 at 22:34:50 pm

With all due respect, our Founding Fathers recognized that our unalienable Rights have been endowed to us from The God of Nature, Nature's God, Who Created The Laws of Physics. Our Founding Fathers recognized God to Be, The Most Holy, Undivided Trinity:

http://www.ourdocuments.gov/doc_large_image.php?doc=6

read full comment
Image of Nancy
Nancy
on December 16, 2015 at 10:20:21 am

The Treaty of Paris is a good illustration of Chapter XI Machiavellianism: politicians and priests partner to purloin promise--pick the people's pockets.

Heartfelt as it may be, Bible opinion is no bedrock on which to establish a civic people. Opinions of the Supreme Court, founding fathers, British common law, popes, the Greeks, the families of Abraham--all opinion--seeks to conform to physics.

Physics is mass, energy and space-time, from which everything emerges. Everything includes science, religion, opinion, ethics, lies, crime, evil--everything. "Civic" refers to living during the same time and place and differs from "social" which entails preference or class.

Take for example slavery, which the Bible takes for granted. Versus from the Bible can still be used to claim slavery is just. However, physics informs humans that one human cannot own another. The cost of benefiting from that reality despite Bible interpretation is still accruing. Humans establish physics-based ethics by accepting its benefits.

Physics does not disprove the god theory. However, physics refutes every intellectual construct humans have built on the god theory. Therefore, god constructs are for believers and their hopes and dreams but have no standing in the determination of civic morality.

IMO, everyone knows how to establish civic morality, but many people resist because it's a heretofore unheard idea. However, a person's god is not civic business. What's important is personal liberty with domestic well-being. One person cannot impose their god or other opinion or force on another.

read full comment
Image of Phil Beaver
Phil Beaver
on December 16, 2015 at 13:40:12 pm

With all due respect, Physics emerges due to the laws of physics. Laws cannot create themselves, thus the fact that The Laws of Physics exist, proves that there must be a Creator Who can exist outside Time and Space, Who Created The Laws of Physics, to begin with. This does not change the fact that space is not time and time is not space, although this moment in time, is the same moment in time, on every point of space in God's Universe. One should not be surprised that with Time, God's Universe is expanding and thus moving, because Time does not stand still for no man, or snowmen:) I suppose one could say that Time and Space complement each other.

This does not change the fact that your argument is a non sequitur due to the fact that our Constitution is The Law of The Land, instituted among Men, to secure our unalienable Right to Life, to Liberty, and to The Pursuit of Happiness, endowed to us from God, the purpose of which can only be, what God intended. Our Founding Fathers recognized God to Be, The Most Holy, Undivided Trinity.

read full comment
Image of Nancy
Nancy
on December 16, 2015 at 13:56:40 pm

With all due respect, Physics emerges due to the laws of physics. Laws cannot create themselves, thus the fact that The Laws of Physics exist, proves that there must be a Creator Who can exist outside Time and Space, Who Created The Laws of Physics, to begin with. This does not change the fact that space is not time and time is not space, although this moment in time, is the same moment in time, on every point of space in God’s Universe. One should not be surprised that with Time, God’s Universe is expanding and thus moving, because Time does not stand still for no man. I suppose one could say that Time and Space complement each other.

This does not change the fact that your argument is a non sequitur due to the fact that our Constitution is The Law of The Land, instituted among Men, to secure our unalienable Right to Life, to Liberty, and to The Pursuit of Happiness, endowed to us from God, the purpose of which can only be, what God intended. Our Founding Fathers recognized God to Be, The Most Holy, Undivided Trinity.

If we deny that our unalienable Right to Life, to Liberty, and to The Pursuit of Happiness is endowed to us from God, the purpose of which is what God intended, and thus deny The Spirit of The Law and our Constitution, anything can become permissible, as our inherent unalienable Rights are no longer recognized to be unalienable .

read full comment
Image of N.D.
N.D.
on December 16, 2015 at 17:15:27 pm

Your response instructs me to seek help expressing my statement that everything emerges from physics, including ethics. First, there's the chronology of the universe, for example, at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chronology_of_the_universe . It is the understanding in 2015 that informs humankind that Bible stories have no standing respecting civic morality. Cosmic evolution starts with the emergence of physics--energy, mass and space-time, the article reports "13.799 ± 0.021 billion years ago." Afterwards, there emerged cosmic chemistry, the elements, then the gaseous galaxies, then the planets, all as temperatures declined. If the Bible was written beginning some 3,000 years ago, the emergence of physics can hardly be called a non sequitur.

Wikipedia also has a time-line for life, and another source estimates life began 3.8 billion years ago. See https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn17453-timeline-the-evolution-of-life/ . Before such immensities of time, the opinions various persons held since writing began have no standing in the determination of civic morality.

In 1787, the signers of the draft constitution for the USA did not employ revisionist language from the Declaration of Independence, as you have. And the document they produced rebuked physics in countless ways, such as not freeing the slaves, allowing only 6% of free adult citizens to vote, requiring land ownership as a condition to serve as a representative, not protecting children from labor; help me count. Opinion-based law is no bedrock on which a people can establish civic morality. Let me repeat that: Opinion-based law is no bedrock for civic morality.

Respecting your god, the understanding of physics in 2015 precludes any of the intellectual constructs people have built on the god theory. Some atheists hold that 2015 understanding absolutely precludes the god theory. However, humankind has not yet discovered the limits of perception. We know we have seeing, feeling, hearing, touching, smelling and thinking. However, we do not know what's beyond those senses. Many people can express this point much better than I can--can talk about other means of perception, and I seek their collaboration in our debate. However, the point I am making is that claiming there is no god is a leap of faith I cannot make. Yet I have no complaint against no-harm atheists. By "no-harm" I mean they do not interfere in other people's private pursuits.

My faith is private. It has no impact on either your faith or the trinity you described. But we are not debating private pursuits. We are debating the ineluctable connections due to the fact that our lives have coincident decades and country. Our differing opinions cannot be used to establish civic morality. You cannot impose your religious beliefs on me and I do not want to impose mine on you, because I want responsibility for only one person: my person. If you don't like that proposed civic contract, I seek to understand and consider your alternative.

I assert everyone can benefit from physics, and a civic people will establish the benefits and thereby the ethics. The Bible describes a heaven above, the domain of the gods. Earlier brave, risky people tried to fly mimicking the birds. Some died. However, aviators, using aerodynamics learned to fly and today, thanks to understanding physics, people are exploring outer space. The heavens have escaped to some other imagination. Yet it may be in humankind's future to discover heaven. I don't think so, but my opinion has no standing.

Likewise, everyone can understand the physics of lying. If a person requests a change in established civic morality, they cannot state it as a lie and obtain the collaboration of a civic people. For example, a man and a man say, "We're in love and want to be parents, too," but state their request as "be married." A civic people, respond, you can't be married, but don't know how to express their objections. They are not accustomed to collaborating for physics-based ethics.

The Congress, stupid to physics, resistant to evolution, and knowing no other recourse, legislate that marriage is between a man and woman based on Judeo-Christian tradition. Constitutionally stupid, opinion-based law! The indolent "we, the people" regard it governance "under god," as usual.

The US Supreme Court, proud of their authorization to interpret and expand their labyrinth of opinion pit their Administrative-State-driven plot for gay marriage against the unconstitutional Congress's act. The elect to hear a case with no opposing parties--no plaintiff or defendant; the US has agreed to pay Windsor but the Administration withheld payment so that they can impose their opinion on the people using the Supreme Court. Windsor v US is heard with obvious outcome. The irresponsible Congress takes no action.

The lie that a man and a man qualify to be parents, as refuted by physics, is never discussed by the Supreme Court, even though Judge Felder made the assertion in the customary opinion-based context.

Therefore, the USA awaits rational confrontation with physics respecting marriage (and everything else that does not now conform to physics). Physics informs humankind that a man and a man cannot be parents. Their opinion is that they can, and the Supreme Court's opinion agrees. Thus, the Supreme Court has rebuked physics. By all experience and observations of pain and suffering when humans rebuke physics, humankind establishes ethics, and physics-based ethics is reforming opinion-based ethics. The sooner humankind recognize physics and begins to establish how to benefit, the sooner misery and losses due to opinion-based ethics will be lessened. The first lesson, a civic people never lie comes from Albert Einstein, 1941.

This case does not mean that same-sex partners cannot rebuke physics and be parents. It only means that they have rebuked civic morality as informed by the bedrock: physics. Whether they will suffer woe or not is not known.

You spoke of other arbitrary choices for marriage. They, too can be addressed using physics, understanding the benefits, and thereby establishing physics-based ethics a civic people support. People who take civic morality in their own hands incur no resistance as long as there is no harm. With harm, limitations, force of law, even forfeit of life may come. For example, murder may lead to incarceration for life or loss of life.

read full comment
Image of Phil Beaver
Phil Beaver
on December 16, 2015 at 18:07:52 pm

Your response kindly prompts me to seek help expressing my statement that everything emerges from physics, including ethics. Physics exists, humankind discovers what emerges and how to benefit, and establishes beneficial policy—the system of ethics.
First help: there’s the chronology of the universe, for example, at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chronology_of_the_universe . It is the understanding in 2015 that informs humankind that Bible stories have no standing respecting civic morality. Cosmic evolution starts with the emergence of physics–energy, mass and space-time, the article reports “13.799 ± 0.021 billion years ago.” Afterwards, there emerged cosmic chemistry, the elements, then the gaseous galaxies, then the planets, all as temperatures declined. If the Bible was written beginning some 3,000 years ago, the emergence of physics can hardly be called a non sequitur.
Second, Wikipedia also has a time-line for life, and another source estimates life began 3.8 billion years ago. See https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn17453-timeline-the-evolution-of-life/ . Before such immensities of time, the opinions various persons held since writing began have no standing in the determination of civic morality.
In 1787, the signers of the draft constitution for the USA did not employ revisionist language from the Declaration of Independence, as you have. And the document they produced rebuked physics in countless ways, such as not freeing the slaves, allowing only 6% of free adult citizens to vote, requiring land ownership as a condition to serve as a representative, not protecting children from labor; help me count. Opinion-based law is no bedrock on which a people can establish civic morality. Let me repeat that: Opinion-based law is no bedrock for civic morality.
Respecting your personal god, the understanding of physics in 2015 precludes any of the intellectual constructs people have built on the god theory. Some atheists hold that 2015 understanding absolutely precludes the god theory. However, humankind has not yet discovered the limits of perception. We know we have seeing, feeling, hearing, touching, smelling and thinking. However, we do not know what’s beyond those senses. Many people can express this point much better than I can–can talk about other means of perception, and I seek their collaboration in our debate. However, the point I am making is that claiming there is no god is a leap of faith I cannot make. Yet I have no complaint against no-harm atheists. By “no-harm” I mean they do not interfere in other people’s private pursuits. Also, I have no complaint about your god.
My faith is private. It has no impact on either your faith or the trinity you described. But we are not debating private pursuits. We are debating the ineluctable connections due to the fact that our lives have coincident decades and country. Our differing opinions cannot be used to establish civic morality. You cannot impose your religious beliefs on me and I do not want to impose mine on you, because I want responsibility for only one person: my person. If you don’t like that proposed civic contract, I seek to understand and consider your alternative.
I assert everyone can benefit from physics, and a civic people will establish the benefits and thereby the ethics. The Bible describes a heaven above--the domain of the gods. Earlier brave, risky people tried to fly mimicking the birds. Some died. However, aviators, using aerodynamics learned to fly and today, thanks to understanding physics, people are exploring outer space. The heavens have escaped to some other imagination. Yet it may be in humankind’s future to discover heaven. I don’t think so, but my opinion has no standing.
Likewise, everyone can understand the physics of lying. If a person requests a change in established civic morality, they cannot state it as a lie and obtain the collaboration of a civic people. For example, a man and a man say, “We’re in love and want to be parents, too,” but state their request as “be married.” A civic people, respond, you can’t be married, but don’t know how to express their objections. They are not accustomed to collaborating for physics-based ethics.
The Congress, stupid to physics, resistant to evolution, and knowing no other recourse, legislated that marriage is between a man and woman. The opinion-based act cited Judeo-Christian tradition. Constitutionally stupid, opinion-based law! The indolent “we, the people” regarded it governance “under god,” as usual.
The US Supreme Court, proud of their authorization to interpret and expand their labyrinth of opinion pit their Administrative-State-driven plot for gay marriage against the unconstitutional Congress’s act. They elect to hear a case with no opposing parties–no plaintiff or defendant; the US had agreed to pay Windsor but the Administration withheld payment so that they could impose their opinion on the people using the Supreme Court. Windsor v US was heard with the intended outcome. The irresponsible Congress took no action.
The lie that a man and a man qualify to be parents, as refuted by physics, was never discussed by the Supreme Court, even though District Judge Felder made the assertion in the customary opinion-based context.
Therefore, the USA awaits rational confrontation with physics respecting marriage (and everything else that does not now conform to physics). Physics informs humankind that a man and a man cannot be parents. Their opinion is that they can, and the Supreme Court’s opinion agrees. Thus, the Supreme Court has rebuked physics. By all experience and observations of pain and suffering when humans rebuke physics, humankind establishes ethics, and physics-based ethics is reforming opinion-based ethics. The sooner humankind recognize physics and begins to establish how to benefit, the sooner misery and losses due to opinion-based ethics will be lessened. The first lesson, a civic people never lie comes from Albert Einstein, 1941.
This case does not mean that same-sex partners cannot rebuke physics and be parents. It only means that they have rebuked civic morality as informed by the bedrock: physics. Whether they will suffer woe or not is not known.
You spoke of other arbitrary choices for marriage. They, too can be addressed using physics, understanding the benefits, and thereby establishing physics-based ethics a civic people support. People who take civic morality in their own hands incur no civic resistance as long as there is no harm. With harm, limitations, force of law, even forfeit of life may come. For example, murder may lead to incarceration for life or loss of life.

read full comment
Image of Phil Beaver
Phil Beaver
on December 17, 2015 at 11:07:43 am

I appreciate your faith.
My collaborator and wife of 46 years is Louisiana-French Catholic and a retired teacher.
I think everyone has a faith, even though some people instead claim reason. According to my faith, an entity was responsible for the big bang, 13.8 billion years ago (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chronology_of_the_universe), which seems compatible with your faith. But according to my faith it is alright for me to claim I do not know what that entity was.

However, at that moment, the entity set into action energy, mass and space-time, described as E=mC2 by Einstein. Cosmic chemistry emerged and the universe cooled; inorganic chemistry emerged; gaseous galaxies emerged; and planets emerged. On earth, life emerged 3.8 billion years ago (www.newscientist.com/article/dn17453-timeline-the-evolution-of-life/).
Skipping to the Declaration of Independence, we`re talking 239 years ago. Almost no time on the scales to each 3.8 billion years and 13.8 billion years.
Quoting the second paragraph of the declaration, “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.” In the first paragraph, the authors perhaps described their Creator in the phrase, “the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle [us].”

We don’t know why the authors chose the phrase “Nature’s God,” but I speculate—speculate—that they were taking the ages-old tack of claiming their god would defeat the king’s god, the Protestant trinity. They were a colony of the world’s greatest empire, and only 40% of inhabitants wanted independence.
A year later, the states signed the Articles of Confederation. Subsequently, the war of independence was won thanks to France, and the king of England negotiated a treaty that states that the 13 states are free and independent. There is no nation recognized by the world, especially England and France.
Ten years later, delegates in Philadelphia, authorized to strengthen the Articles of Confederation, proposed a nation, drafting the constitution for the USA that is dated September 17, 1787. I speculate—speculate that the delegates were loath to either return to the typical obeisance to the king’s god or stay with the god of their war victory, so they wrote a godless constitution. Only 70% of delegates signed the document.

“The consent of the governed” is and always was in contention. Our incorporation, A Civic People of the United States, propose to lessen the misery and losses of opinion-based law by slowly, deliberately collaborating on physics-based ethics with laws only when ultimately necessary.

read full comment
Image of Phil Beaver
Phil Beaver
on December 17, 2015 at 13:01:11 pm

It is important to note that due process applies to persons, not sexual desire/inclination/orientation.
Regardless of our desires, persons exist in relationship, not as objects of sexual desire/inclination/orientation, but as sons, daughters, brothers, sisters, husbands, wives, fathers, mothers. It is not unjust discrimination that only a male can be a son, brother, husband, father, and only a female can be a daughter, sister, wife, mother, nor is it unjust discrimination to recognize the self evident truth, confirmed by Science, that the marital act, which is Life-affirming, and Life-sustaining, can only be consummated by a man and woman united in marriage as husband and wife.
Every man is free to choose a woman to be his wife, and every woman is free to choose a man to be her husband, as long as that particular man and woman, have the ability and desire to exist in relationship as husband and wife.
No Judge has the authority to coerce any person into condoning the engaging in or affirmation of sexual acts outside the marital act, which can only be consummated between a man and woman existing in relationship as husband and wife. While our Constitution provides for securing our inherent Right to Religious Liberty, it does not serve to proclaim the equality of sexual acts and sexual relationships.

read full comment
Image of Nancy
Nancy
on December 17, 2015 at 13:02:47 pm
Image of Nancy
Nancy
on December 18, 2015 at 18:16:14 pm

With all due respect, Biology confirms what we can know through both Faith and reason: 1).Speciation occurs at the moment of conception. A human person can only conceive a human person, thus every son or daughter of a human person, from the moment we are created and brought into being at conception, can only be a human person. It is important to note that a son or daughter of a human person remains a human person even if they are not "walking around".

2).The marital act which is Life-affirming and Life-sustaining, can only be consummated between a man and woman, united in marriage as husband and wife.

read full comment
Image of Nancy
Nancy
on December 18, 2015 at 23:22:14 pm

I don't understand your contention.

Neither faith nor reason have standing respecting physics, from which biology emerges. Readers may not have encountered this statement before, but that does not lessen its validity. It's a statement to be understood and enhanced rather than refuted. In other words, it begs collaboration.

A woman supplies ova and a man supplies sperm. The sperm fertilizes an ovum and two cells become one cell. That cell divides and continues to divide to form a fetus. With gestation of the fetus and delivery of the newborn by the woman, the civic man and woman may help the infant make the unbelievably complex transition to viable young adult,

It's the most wonderful transition I know of.

read full comment
Image of Phil Beaver
Phil Beaver
on December 19, 2015 at 11:50:39 am

The zygote of a human person is in essence a single entity, a communion of all the genetic information necessary from a father and a mother for a unique individual, a son or daughter of a human person to exist.

read full comment
Image of Nancy
Nancy
on December 19, 2015 at 23:51:24 pm

Right. And that son or daughter has the right to the dignity and equality of being reared by his or her mother and father, and adult contracts that deny the son or daughter that equality and dignity oppose physics-based ethics. Right?

read full comment
Image of Phil Beaver
Phil Beaver
on December 20, 2015 at 14:12:00 pm

Phil, In recognizing that it is God, with the capital G, that Has Endowed us with our unalienable Right to Life, to Liberty, and to The Pursuit of Happiness, the purpose of which is what God intended, our Founding Fathers recognized that the source of Love Is God, not Physics. Ethics flows from The Truth of Love.

1 John Chapter Four

"...* Beloved, let us love one another, because love is of God; everyone who loves is begotten by God and knows God.
8
Whoever is without love does not know God, for God is love.
9
In this way the love of God was revealed to us: God sent his only Son into the world so that we might have life through him.f
10
In this is love: not that we have loved God, but that he loved us and sent his Son as expiation for our sins.g
11
Beloved, if God so loved us, we also must love one another.
12
No one has ever seen God. Yet, if we love one another, God remains in us, and his love is brought to perfection in us..."

There is order in truth as there is order in Love.
Just as every element of truth will serve to complement and thus enhance the fullness of Truth, so, too, does every element of Love serve to complement and thus enhance the fullness of Love.
God Is Love. Love exists in relationship. Love is not possessive, nor is it coercive, nor does it serve to manipulate for the sake of self-gratification. Love is a gift given freely from the heart. Every act of Love is ordered to the inherent personal and relational Dignity of the persons existing in a relationship of Love.

read full comment
Image of Nancy
Nancy

Law & Liberty welcomes civil and lively discussion of its articles. Abusive comments will not be tolerated. We reserve the right to delete comments - or ban users - without notification or explanation.

Related