Latin class. Do you believe in Lex Rex or Rex Lex

Don't know about Lex Rex or Rex Lex, but tonight I'm eating Tex Mex.

:laugh:

(runs for cover)

 

Okay, the British saddled us with the notion that the law is the command of the king in the 19th century as I understand it. I think that the USA has that system of the law is the command of the king. For example, we have legalized lotteries, pornography, abortion, and sodomy.

As a practical matter, justice is for sale and the rich buy their way out of troubles.

What we need is a law based upon Christian principles. Then the state could not legalize abortion because of the commandment of not murdering. However, the USA is becoming more and more corrupt in their legal system while become weaker and weaker because of the inability to pay government debt or reign in government expenditures while at the same time being forced to spend vast amounts of blood because other nations will not stand against the spreading worldwide darkness.

 

Dale, what I am saying is that the command of the king as law was shown unworkable at the Nuremburg Trials in Germany because the Germans acted properly according to German law.

I am also saying that money is king in the courtroom in the USA.

I am also saying that it is sunset for the USA unless we can find a legal system based upon ideas such as thou shalt not murder, because abortion is murder and the state lottery is theft, etc. I am also saying that the USA has few allies able and willing to fight the growing world darkness and that we are almost spent because of the decadence of our people.

 

>As a practical matter, justice is for sale and the rich buy their way out of troubles.

When and where hasn't this been the case?

Law based on Christian principles? We can't agree on how to regulate churches based on Christian principles.

 

Whose 'Christian principles'? Yours? Mine? The Pope's? Pat Robertson's? Fred Phelps'?

 

>Doesn't make the concept wrong just because people are sinful.

Which form of govt is least harmful if controlled by sinful people? Libertarian!

 

The British invented the system that the command of the king is the law so we can thank the British for that setback. The British said that natural law was nonsense on stilts but it was at least headed in the correct direction. The British have no answers as they have sunk back into the paganism that they escaped centuries ago with the introduction of Christianity to the British Isles from Rome.

The answer, of course, is to use The Holy Bible as the guide as to what is right and what is wrong. It is wrong to murder, it is wrong to lie especially in giving evidence in court, it is wrong to steal, etc.

 

The British didn't invent that; it is pretty common. At least they did not maintain that the king is God or a god.

You think it should be illegal to lie, to fail to honor your parents, to be envious of your neighbor? How about to have a different god or no god or many gods?

It's one thing to keep the Law yourself and quite another to impose it on others. I do not want an American Taliban or Christian shariia.

 

>How do libertarians stand on sodomy?

Probably not standing. <G>

In truth, don't ask, don't tell?

 

Rubbish! Ever read Magna Carta?

As interpreted by whom? You? Me? Pat Robertson? etc etc

 

In the US, we don't prosecute under moral law, but under criminal and civil law. Neither do we use the Bible as a source of law, but the Constitutions and various criminal statutes legislated into law.

If you go around stealing cars in non-Christian countries, which the US qualifies as, I do believe you will be prosecuted under their criminal laws.

When was the first abortion law enacted in the US?

 

Well... not exactly. They believed in the divine right of kings... which pretty much put their rulings on par with God's.

This has always been countered to one extent or another by the notion of the rule of law.

The "rule of law" versus the "rule of men" is also one of the dividing lines between conservatives and liberals concerning the judiciary. Liberals believe in a "living Constitution" and that the law is malleable... effectively the "rule of men". Our founders and genuine conservatives (ie, libertarians, lower case "l") believe(d) in the rule of law.

Really? OK. Let's apply that to the "social justice" issues you argue liberal positions for. If you want to keep your ideal of moral law fine but don't impose it on others through wealth redistribution programs, anti-discrimination laws, publicly funded schools, etc, etc, etc.

What you really mean is that you don't want conservatives imposing their positions on YOU... You really have no qualms about imposing yours on us.

 

BTW, the legal question concerning abortion should be kept distinct from the moral question.

Legally/scientifically, when does a person become a person is the ONLY relevant question. The ONLY reasonable way to determine this is to allow medical science to tell us the point at which a human life is not "life"... which if not at conception would not be long after.

There is no reasonable argument to sustain a "right" or law built upon the logic:

Irresponsible act => unwanted consequence => special additional right granted to avoid responsibility by killing someone else.