Thomas M. Miovas Jr. Posted March 28, 2009 Report Share Posted March 28, 2009 This is the unfortunate result of the fact that the framers probably did not fully grasp the extent to which arbitrary meddlings on man's rights would develop, as a consequence of there being no unmistakable constitutional litmus test for proper law. I guess the problem is that the litmus test would have to be an abstract principle -- i.e. man's rights -- and the Founders, even though they were political revolutionaries, were not philosophical revolutionaries. In other words, they didn't have Objectivism to guide them. They had an implicit grasp of rationality, but not enough to overcome Kant who was rising at the same time. Hence, the implicit rationality could not overcome the explicit irrationality. Still, they were insightful enough to have checks and balances all throughout the government, and even though the House voted for an ex post facto law, even Obama recognizes that this is unconstitutional and will not sign it. So there are some guidelines, but they require men to be able to understand to some extent what the purpose of the law is. Unfortunately, since man's life is not the explicit standard, we get environmental protection laws saving fish and wildlife over man Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.