Does the “Lesser Magistrate” have Ethics and Morals?
Apr 6th, 2010 by Randy Toman
I quote a few paragraphs from Gary DeMar in his March 30,2010 article “High Law VS. Horizontal Law
“The Constitution states that it is “the supreme law of the land” (Art. 6). This can’t mean that it is the supreme moral law of the land since there is very little of what we think of moral law in it. The Constitution is the supreme law of the land only in terms of what powers are actually enumerated in the document itself. If the Constitution does not address a topic, it has no authority over it and therefore does not carry the validity of “supreme law.” The Constitution assumes an existing body of moral law. That’s why you will not find a prohibition against murder, rape, theft, marriage. These moral issues were settled by the populations of the various colonies (and later states) and were written into their law codes. Paul Campos, law professor at the University of Colorado, is nearly correct when he writes:”
“Like all hotly contested questions of constitutional law, the question of whether abortion is a constitutional right has nothing to do with the meaning of the Constitution. What decides constitutional questions are the political preferences and ideological inclinations of federal judges, and nothing more.”
“And where are these “political preferences and ideological inclinations” found and shaped? That’s the real and only meaningful question, and it’s the question that modern-day jurists do not want to answer. Attempts are made to anchor present judicial decisions in previous decisions. That only takes them back a notch. At some point, there has to be a final notch. The anchor must come to rest on something solid, unmovable, and ultimately stable. While the proper understanding of a fixed law might change, the law itself and its transcendent origin cannot.”
“Soon after Charles Darwin, law logically had no foundation upon which it could be built. In fact, law could be nothing more than a flexible sociological construct hurriedly assembled for any moment in time to meet immediate circumstances. It was Christopher Langdell (1826–1906), dean of Harvard Law School and founder of the “case method” of teaching law, who impacted legal education with “his belief that the basic principles and doctrines of the law were the products of an evolving and growing process over many years.” Every secular law school, college, university, and public school in America today has a worldview that is consistent with Langdell’s evolutionary views. Why are we surprised when the Supreme Court and lesser courts rule in terms of evolving ethical assumptions?”
Here is the link to the rest of the article
http://americanvision.org/2010/post/higher-law-vs-horizontal-law/
If what Gary DeMar wrote is anywhere close to being correct, and I believe he is, it would explain the why we have no “Lesser Magistrate” stepping up the plate. If we have a set of evolving ethical assumptions why would any magistrate want to step out side the political correctness of bureaucratic safety. Why he is jumping right into the world of ethical and moral assumptions and if he is hinged on Secular Humanism and Progressive Ideological beliefs, he must go along with the boys upstairs. (Obama and crew) Why he doesn’t even have to strain, he believes he in correct and in line with the thinking of the day.
Folks we have a problem and I’m not so sure we have any “Lesser Magistrates” willing to do any thing. I suggest all you “Constitutional” experts take a close look at this article and tell us how we get around this ethic and moral question. Where do we go to find these so call ethics and morals and/or the “Lesser Magistrates” with them?
WE SHALL SEE——and shortly how this is to work out.