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

[Dale-c]

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.

ALL law is someones view.
That view is who they believe God is.
That is why we must stand up for Christian law because otherwise we have atheist law that changes on the whim of man. Then we get abortion, sodomy etc.

 

[TCassidy]

The English experienced a paradigm change June 15th 1215 in a field near Runnymede when King John signed the Magna Carta effectively changing the English system from Rex Lex to Lex Rex. Everything since then has been attempts to adjust the Lex Rex system.

 

[Dale-c]

The English experienced a paradigm change June 15th 1215 in a field near Runnymede when King John signed the Magna Carta effectively changing the English system from Rex Lex to Lex Rex. Everything since then has been attempts to adjust the Lex Rex system.

And per haps a struggle to take it abck to Rex Lex I would presume?
It has been a struggle for centuries.

 

[Daisy]

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

Well, yes exactly - they were not worshipped as God and their rulings were tempered by the Church.

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

Always? Well...not exactly if you consider that time and English kings existed before the Magna Carta.

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.

You mischaracterise, yet again, what liberals believe and that we all believe in exactly the same thing. The law historically has been changeable. Otherwise, we could just do away with Congress - Congress which is mentioned prominently in the US Constitution.

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.

Theocrats are not conservatives; they are extremists. Ditto the worst of the Libertarians. But you're right - I do want to impose justice and equality for all on you through legislation and rule of law as long as the Constitution is not violated and I am opposed to American Talibanists.

 

[Dale-c]

I do want to impose justice and equality for all

What is justice? What is equality? Who defines that?

Everyone claims to want that or something similar, it is just that there is disagreement as to what it is.

You mischaracterise, yet again, what liberals believe and that we all believe in exactly the same thing. The law historically has been changeable. Otherwise, we could just do away with Congress - Congress which is mentioned prominently in the US Constitution.

So you believe in evolutionary law.
That is common these days but it is a blasphemous heresy. God doens't change and neither does law.
We do have congress to apply God's law to our particular situations but if they conflict with God's law, they arn't law.

 

[Daisy]

So you believe in evolutionary law.
That is common these days but it is a blasphemous heresy.

Blasphemous heresy? Exaggerate much?

God doens't change and neither does law.

Uppercase Law may not change, much, but lowercase law certainly does. The Law says nothing about tariffs and how they may be collected or who has sufferage, but the law says plenty. And it has changed over time - see slavery, for instance.

We do have congress to apply God's law to our particular situations but if they conflict with God's law, they arn't law.

No, Congress may not prefer one religion over another without violating the Constitution.

 

[Scott J]

You mischaracterise, yet again, what liberals believe and that we all believe in exactly the same thing. The law historically has been changeable. Otherwise, we could just do away with Congress - Congress which is mentioned prominently in the US Constitution.

Nope. I haven't mischaracterized judicial liberals at all. It isn't a matter of changing the law either. The USC sets a very specific means for doing so.

It was intentionally difficult and amounts to much more than Congress writing a statute that effectively denies that words placing Constitutional limits on them mean what they mean. Wealth redistribution programs are a good example. For 150 years, it was recognized that the Federal gov't was not constitutionally empowered to do it. Liberals decided they wanted to do it anyway and circumvented the constitutional process through Congressional statute and a complicit judiciary that failed to do its job of enforcing the letter of the Constitution thus being a check on the confiscation of the constitutional rights of a minority... in this case the rich.

Theocrats are not conservatives; they are extremists.

Humanistic socialists aren't liberals in the classic sense... they are extremists that lack respect for the rights of individuals.

Ditto the worst of the Libertarians.

"The worst of the libertarians"? So you can be considered a "worst" for believing that individuals have rights that no one (including a democratic majority) has a right to confiscate without due process?

But you're right - I do want to impose justice and equality for all on you through legislation and rule of law

Equality is not just unless you have a way of making everyone the same in talent, effort, ethic, etc. Justice demands that people receive equal treatment under the law... not that they are ensured an equal or even what YOU consider an equitable outcome.

Your idea of justice and equality is to me very unjust and unequal.

as long as the Constitution is not violated and I am opposed to American Talibanists.

Wealth redistribution programs violate the clear text of the constitution by confiscating the property of an earner and giving it to someone who did not earn it in exchange for electing the "right" politicians.

I am opposed to American Talibanists (if we are talking about a state religion) and humanistic social engineers (ie the modern American concept of "liberal"). I don't want government telling homosexuals they can't be homosexual or enter into contracts with each other nor do I want government attempting to force employers to treat homosexuals "equally" when their choices are morally repugnate to them.

As it is, religious conservatives have just as much "right" to impose their moral views on you as you do to impose your moral views concerning "equality" on them since unfortunately liberals have suceeded in giving Gov't a right to meddle in such things.


As for wealth redistribution programs, truly: "Democracies survive only until the voters discover that they can vote themselves largesse from the public treasury ..." -- Alexander Tyler

Unless we reverse the trend of big gov't social engineering... our fate is sealed. We are headed toward a totalitarian state.

 

[Scott J]

No, Congress may not prefer one religion over another without violating the Constitution.

But you think it is perfectly fine for them to favor one moral position over another so long as religion is not admitted, right?

BTW, religion and religious ideals were freely referenced and used by the people who wrote the Constitution... The law may and without fail will favor or disfavor some religious sects. It is inevitable but must not be intentional.

For instance, the growth of Federal wealth redistribution and poverty programs clearly favored the religious liberals' ideal of the social gospel and humanitarianism. Liberalism made charity the primary concern and the gospel of repentance secondary if a concern at all.

Intentional or not, it disfavored those who used charity as a vehicle to spread the gospel to the poor, orphans, disabled, elderly, etc. We already have a state religion... liberals just won't allow it to be called what it is. You have adequately proven in this very thread that you agree with the state religion... and are offended that others want to change it to something else.

I oppose state religion... so I don't want yours or anyone else's receiving gov't sanction.

 

[church mouse guy]

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.

No, Daisy, the British invented the notion that the command of the king was the law. That was proven invalid when the Germans pointed out that their actions were legal under the nazi legal system.

No one called for a theocracy, Daisy. It would be nice to have a legal system wherein the Supreme Court could not call for the murder of 40,000,000 unborn because the law was based upon the idea that thou shalt not murder and not based upon the fact that the command of a judge was the law of the land.

As for the specific commandments relating to the enforcement of the Christian religion, they have always been outside of consideration according to our constitution.

The problem that you have, Daisy, is that under your system of thinking, you really cannot find anything wrong with what the nazis did.

 

[Dale-c]

The problem that you have, Daisy, is that under your system of thinking, you really cannot find anything wrong with what the nazis did.

Thus the point of this thread

 

[church mouse guy]

Rubbish! Ever read Magna Carta? As interpreted by whom? You? Me? Pat Robertson? etc etc

The truth is that it was British thinking that called for the abolition of natural law. It was thought by the egotistical British that they would rule the world and that British law would be in effect everywhere. So the British never gave an answer to nazi law which was the command of the German king, specifically everything that the nazi party did in Germany was properly legal under German laws.

Once again, Matt, we are not talking theocracy but a legal system based upon the commandments against murder, etc. Such a system would find abortion illegal because it is murder. Currently, abortion is found legal because it is the command of the king.

 

[Daisy]

No, Daisy, the British invented the notion that the command of the king was the law.

No, church mouse guy, that notion existed long before there was a Britain.

That was proven invalid when the Germans pointed out that their actions were legal under the nazi legal system.

Please explain a bit further what you mean by this.

No one called for a theocracy, Daisy. It would be nice to have a legal system wherein the Supreme Court could not call for the murder of 40,000,000 unborn because the law was based upon the idea that thou shalt not murder and not based upon the fact that the command of a judge was the law of the land.

Actually, Dale-c does seem to be calling for a theocracy by confusing law with Law. Perhaps I am misreading him, but he seems to believe that our, the US's, government is Bible-based when it is not.

As for the specific commandments relating to the enforcement of the Christian religion, they have always been outside of consideration according to our constitution.

Agreed.

The problem that you have, Daisy, is that under your system of thinking, you really cannot find anything wrong with what the nazis did.

Actually, under my "system of thinking" I really can find quite a bit wrong with what the Nazis did.

BTW, I call Goodwin's Law on you.

 

[church mouse guy]

Well, Daisy, natural law prevailed until the British overthrew it in the 19th century. The British called natural law nonsense on stilts. They thought that everyone would have British law sooner or later. However, that did not go as planned.

Then Germany arose and agreed that the law was the command of the king and passed their own laws that Jews were not human beings and therefore for the good of Germany it was necessary to rid Germany of Jews by any means possible. That being the command of the king or the law of the land Germany acted legally in murdering the Jews just as we are acting legally in murdering the unborn.

 

[Matt Black]

Where on earth do you get all this nonsense from? That the 'British' (who did not exist BTW before the 17th century) overthrew natural law in the 19th century? That we worshipped our kings as divine (only two Stuart kings, James I and Charles I, claimed Divine Right, and a rather messy civil war killed off that notion, along with Charles - the rest of the country disagreed with them). Since Magna Carta - and here we're talking English not British, the power of the kings had been progressively circumscribed by the representatives of the people - Parliament - so much so that by the 19th century - the period you're talking about - Parliament was supreme, not the king.

So, drop the nonsensical comparison to the Nazis, lest I invoke the wrath of Godwin's law upon thee!!

 

[church mouse guy]

Wow, Matt, maybe someone will draw you a picture. The command of the king is a metaphor for saying that the law of a country was whatever the people who made the laws said that it is.

English theory came undone at Nuremburg because the nazi party acted legally according to legally passed German law and the English had helped pave the way by overthrowing natural law. OK?

Let's face it: the English no longer rule the waves or the world.

 

[Dale-c]

Let's face it: the English no longer rule the waves or the world.

Sad to say, I don't think the US will much longer is GWB keeps up the policeman of the world policy. :-(