The Evolution of Law (continuation of the Hovind Blog)

Discussion in 'Politics' started by justsomedude, Jun 1, 2007.

  1. justsomedude

    justsomedude
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    May 31, 2007
    Messages:
    10
    Likes Received:
    0
    I just wanted to address a topic I spent time reading last night......though I won' t go in to the details.......it involved the application of law, by definition what is Ceaser's, and Biblical/Constitutional authority.

    Specifically, there seems to be a misunderstanding in the role the court was intended to play in law so I will give you a quick train-up.

    The intention of the Constitution was to be a literally interpreted document, meaning that it was set in stone, understood word for word, and was an absolute authority.

    The role of the courts was to interpret law, not the Constitution. In other words they took the absolutes of the Constitution and applied them to the law to see if it was infact "Constitutional"

    This was reflected in law through the type of law that was practiced. For years, as the Constitution was understood literally, the other major source of information for lawyers was Sir William Blackstone's Commentaries on Law; which were based on Biblical principals.

    After Darwin's theory of Evolution became popular a new idea emerged regarding law. Christopher Columbus Langdell of Harvard introduced the idea of case law. He believed that as man is evolving, so should his laws. Case law took the absolutes of the Constitution and gave them over to be interpreted by the Judges. So now the absolutes of Constitutional Law became the opinion of judges based on their morality. Not only that, but the precedence of previous cases means that one bad apple spoils the barrel (Roe vs Wade is a good example) The first major decision in the U.S. court system using case law was the removal of prayer from schools in 1962.

    Ironically, this is what Hovind was protesting for the benefit of all of us.

    The Constitution took similar courses as the Bible in the minds of many, since the mainstream worldview has changed. It has become clouded by the idea the interpretation is in the eye of the beholder and not the originator of the document. Just as has been done with the Constitution, the authority of the Bible is mocked by those who treat it not as an absolute truth, but a book that can be interpreted to suit their specific beliefs and desires. This kind of thought is a scapegoat people can use to promote their own agenda while convincing others they are in the bounds of the law, when in fact they are not. Sad but true.
     
  2. rbell

    rbell
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2006
    Messages:
    11,103
    Likes Received:
    0
    so let me get this straight...
    • Hovind was being dishonest for our own good.
    • The Constitution is on equal ground with the Bible.
    • If we disagree with your assessment, we are God-forsaking, Bible-mocking, evildoers.
    Does that about cover it?
     
  3. justsomedude

    justsomedude
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    May 31, 2007
    Messages:
    10
    Likes Received:
    0


    • No, but he understood this principle and that's where all the trouble starts.

      No, but their meaning was dictated by the originator, not the reader.

    No, you're missing the point. Actually this post was about the Constitution's interpretation. I was just paralleling it with what liberals do with the Bible. To disagree with this assesment is like denying World War II, it happened and secular history confirms it.

    No.

    Perhaps if I had not mentioned the H word you wouldn't be so mad........Hovind
     
  4. Magnetic Poles

    Magnetic Poles
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    May 16, 2005
    Messages:
    10,407
    Likes Received:
    0
    Thanks for enlightening us ignorant folks, oh wise one!

    Not quite. Otherwise there'd be no provision for amending it. As society changes, the Consitition must be a living document, otherwise it becomes a fossil. For example, in the 18th century, the only mass media was the press, hence we had freedom of the press codified in the First Amendment. Now most people get their news from television, and increasingly, the Internet. The freedom of the press has been interpreted to cover other media. So the spririt and intent was freedom of the media to operate independent of the government, not just the literal press.

    They still perform that function.

    You cannot rule by the Bible in the U.S., only the Constitution, which by the way has no mention of God or Jesus.

    Theres a huge stretch...and a lack of understanding. Biological evolution has nothing to do with law, or any change of the way it is understood or applied over time. Evolution is not an evil word. You yourself have probably evolved your thinking on some subjects over time.

    Hovind is a convicted tax evader. I pay my taxes, he should pay his as well.

    ANY text is subject to interpretation. People understand passages to mean different things; and not just among various denomination, but even here in this microcosm of Baptists on the BB. Interpretation can be right or wrong, but we all view information through a filter.
     
  5. justsomedude

    justsomedude
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    May 31, 2007
    Messages:
    10
    Likes Received:
    0
    I apologize for coming accross as rude. By train-up I only meant that I would share information that I have. I wasn't trying to tell anyone that they are stupid.

    I agree with you. Amendments would require adding hard language to the constitution that would become an absolute on which to guage the law. However, the written language of the Constitution and its amendments is at the mercy of the thousands of judges across the country. Depending on which one you get you'll get a different interpretation.


    No most don't. They make new psuedo-law under the guise of obeying the constitution based on their own opinions. The exception is where judges personal opions align themselves with the Constitution.



    I know that. All I said was that Blackstone's commentaries were based on Biblical principles. You're putting words in my mouth.



    Yes, but Charles Langdell's ideas of law were directly connected to his belief in biological evolution as stated by him.

    According to the courts, which is why this discussion is going on. But my topic is on Constitutional law which was being debated on the Hovind thread. I did not mean for my topic to be taken aggressively (because it was associated with the name "Hovind").

    When something is taken literally, it usually becomes more clear. A constitution that's definition changes from court case to court case, gives you no guaranteed system of government or unalienable rights. Changes in the meaning of the Constitution should be done through amendment only; and should not be subject to case law interpretation which is the basis of my arguement. Case law serves personal agendas, not the people.
     

Share This Page

Loading...