Please disable your Ad Blocker to better interact with this website.

We often see, read or hear that the United States of America is a country governed by the rule of law and yet the meaning of such is ambiguous. As it turns out the rule of law may mean a number of things – laws determine legal actions and prescribe punishment for violation; all people and agencies are subject, or limited, by the law; what most have historically meant, by rule of law is the presupposed underpinning Natural Law, which has historically been a limit upon human appetite – but there is a relation between those different meanings viz: the governed have Rights which are protected from the Governed by those very laws i.e., fiat would itself be unlawful. Now the concept that the governed have Rights and the Natural Law understanding of rule of law is where the Declaration of Independence relates to the United States Constitution; Jefferson words thunder the Natural Law as he asserts: “We hold these Truths to be self-evident…” and generations of Americans have been moved by such noble – dare-we-claim, hallowed – terms. The Founding Fathers view of man was such that they held us capable of both great good and great evil; the divided government was their means of protecting us – this Nation – from ourselves. The underpinning – of the Founder’s actions – was Christendom was a rationally ordered objective reality worldview and its attendant Natural Law as its centerpiece…

Modern philosophy (ideology adorned as philosophy…), beginning over 230 years ago (see below for a abbreviated list of thinkers and events which produced deposed classical metaphysics), provides a denial and rejection of Christendom (along with Nature and Nature’s God) – which jurists and social scientists systematically assimilated (dim-witted cogs as many may be…) – and then systematically worked to organically invert the conception of law, beginning with a reducing “man” and “nature” to concepts of social construction… As one denies human nature, one denies inalienable rights… Such action has led to a gradual – albeit, ineluctable – jurisprudential repudiation of the rule-of-law…

Replacing and contrary to the rule-of-law is the rule of nature – which can be understood as: might makes right; this intimates a form of despotism – or the rule of men, which may be understood as another way of asserting rule by appetite/ego a.k.a. as might makes right… Such rules may be located upon a continuum from the benevolent despotism of a Monarch (historically, in Christendom, Monarchs reign as a birth-right and have been somewhat constrained in power due to Church’s moral influence), to autocratic despotisms of the 20th Century’s atheistic socialist regimes e.g., USSR, China and Nazi Germany. Where might makes right any laws exist for the governed, the government is naturally exempt from such laws; moreover the laws are actually not laws i.e., the laws restrict the individual in his/her choice, but they do not protect the individual from the fiat of those who rule. In such a “society” there are no Rights, there are only privileges, which may be revoked at the drop of a hat, or change in the weather…

take our poll - story continues below

How have you been greeting people this holiday season?

  • How have you been greeting people this holiday season?  

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.
Completing this poll grants you access to iPatriot updates free of charge. You may opt out at anytime. You also agree to this site's Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.

Trending: Michelle Obama Says She’s Smarter Than Anyone

Erstwhile the United States may have been asserted as the epitome of what Christendom produced, although some have a short-sighted deleterious view of the United States, certainly, it is not perfect – considerably less now than it formerly was – but in contrast with other historic Nations, once the Greatest of Nations… Philosophically – or perhaps I should say axiomatically – the United States jurisprudence began repudiating its Founding doctrines as the ink was drying, but only on the fringe and in an insidiously organic manner.  Alloying the objective world view of Christendom with skepticisms contemporary to the 1800’s which antedate the Declaration of Independence; thus the repudiation was to varying degrees unconsciously assimilated and – to varying degrees – lay latently within the minds of jurists and other educated… Some of those insidious ideas – we opine – prompted Teddy Roosevelt’s Bull Moose Platform (obviously Roosevelt did not grasp the implications, or else he would not have argued for them – it would seem them to morally enervating and inimical to Roosevelt’s worldview). However, it was not until later in the 20th Century – with the: technological advance and the easing of information distribution; Universities opened to all, and the social-sciences no longer constrained by “principles of morality,” whereby humans were made the subjects of experimental manipulation – that the views confined to the educated minority became widely distributed; and the concentration of the admixture of views dramatically shifted towards the skeptical…

Post World WWII the United States – culturally – seemed to have a re-embrace of its heritage, but – as it is sometimes said – “the candle burns, brightest before it is extinguished,” and as the 1960’s became the 1970’s the Supreme Court made the unalienable Right to Life, considerably smaller… in fact, the unalienable Rights were in principle repealed!

Without the Natural Law, and with the supplantation of the Christendom (“Hey, Hey, Ho, Ho Western Culture’s gotta go…” courtesy of Jesse Jackson at Stanford University 1988) it would only be logical for a re-emergence of the pre-Socratic ideal of Justice – ‘Harm you enemies, and help your “friends” – and thus the rule of law is an anachronistic phrase which Obama – were he a tad bolder – would have included with his assertion that: “We are no longer a Christian Nation.” For once Obama was honest, but of course – with Obama – it was likely a case of rubbing the Right’s nose in their business…

We see no utility in positing and detailing a series of instances, in which Government and politicians, have acted in violation of the Law; such an activity is analogous to producing an un-narrated Power Point presentation for the blind i.e., Americans – by and large – not possessed of the understanding necessary to draw the proper inference from any such delineation of usurpations. Instead, we will point to instances where either the Constitution is directly assaulted, or its philosophical underpinnings have been rejected, viz:

1.) Ratification (1868) of the 14th Amendment is ratified; the “equal protection clause” allows Federal Courts to apply the Bill of Rights to the States nullifying State Laws (a process of substantive due-process); lays the ground for judicial activism…

2.) The equal-protection-clause was dormant until the Courts were removed from redress – in-any-practical-manner – by States (through the Senate prior to 1913) the ratification of the 17th Amendment (1913); with the ratification of the 17th Amendment the “living” Constitution is a fait accompli…

3.) The 1973 Roe vs. Wade decision; this obliquely legalizes murder, as it obliquely denies inalienable rights…

4.) Romer vs. Evans (1996); the Courts tacitly claim sodomy is “no big deal,” which leads to legal protection of homosexuality and other (but, not all yet!) perverse sexual acts… The tacit embrace of sodomy tacitly denies “Laws of Nature and Nature’s God”… Inalienable rights come from God, deny God and Nature, you deny inalienable rights…

 

Below is an abbreviated list of events (only a few examples) – or publications – which produced cultural changes to spur legal recourse…

1.) Humanist Manifesto I (1933) provided the intellectual impetus for the advancement of philosophic materialism (note: materialism comes in as many flavors as Baskin Robins ice-cream e.g., scientism, logical-positivism, secularism, nihilism, humanism, modernism, et al) in the University;

2.) Humanist Manifesto II (1973);

3.) The Kinsey Report (1948);

4.) Playboy magazine (1953);

 

Below is an abbreviated (many, many more could be added) list of thinkers and events which unconsciously promoted rejection of classical metaphysics (i.e., the philosophical ground of the U.S. Constitution):

(1285-1347) William of Ockham; rejects Saint Thomas Aquinas’s worldview (Christendom) synthesis posited in the Summa Theologia; Ockham is a nominalist…

(1418-1427) Publishing of The Imitation of Christ; thought to be written by           (1380-1471) Thomas a’ Kempis – tacitly advocates philosophy and theology separation…

(1469-1527); Nicolai Machiavelli taught power mongers how to manipulate people…

(1588-1679) Thomas Hobbes Hobbes argues for a large ubiquitous Government; humans are passionately driven, cannot be trusted with liberty and need ‘to be to be told what to do’…

(1483-1546) Martin Luther Explicitly advocates removing philosophy’s influence from faith; advocates doctrine of Sola Scriptura…

(1596-1650) Rene Descartes; Descartes proof of the soul’s existence (posited in his Discourse on Method); renders philosophers to skepticism, empiricism, and finally critical idealism…

(1632-1704) John Locke Locke’s natural law is

(1711-1776) David Hume Kant credits Hume with ‘awakening him from a slumber’

(1724-1804) Immanuel Kant Copernican Revolution ala The Critiques of Pure Reason

(1770-1831) Georg W. F. Hegel Dialectical History…

(1844-1900) Friedrich Nietzsche übermensch; Will-to-Power…

(1856-1939) Sigmund Freud psychoanalysis; predicated upon philosophical materialism…

(1859-1952) John Dewey Primary signer of Humanist Manifesto I; father of modern education…

(1879-1966) Margaret Sanger; Planned Parenthood originator; she aimed to eliminate Blacks via abortion…

(1905-1980) John P. Sartre atheistic existentialism

(1913-1960) Albert Camus atheistic existentialism

(1894-1956) Alfred Kinsey Kinsey Report distorted claims regarding American sexuality; Kinsey’s studies are predicated upon prison populations and Kinsey and his perverted staff molesting infants; these facts were omitted from news coverage and public discourse…

(1904-1990) B.F. Skinner Behaviorist psychology; an argument that humans conduct is deterministic (controlled by man’s environment) and that human free-will is nonsense.

(1911-2004) Ronald Reagan (Note this writer is a fan of Reagan, but facts are facts); 1969 No-Fault Divorce signed into Law by California Governor Ronald Reagan.

(1921-2006) Betty Friedan; The Feminist Mystique; Betty was not a fan of traditional marriage

The opinions expressed in this commentary are solely those of the author and are not not necessarily either shared or endorsed by iPatriot.com.

TJDonegan7

 

Join the conversation!

We have no tolerance for comments containing violence, racism, vulgarity, profanity, all caps, or discourteous behavior. Thank you for partnering with us to maintain a courteous and useful public environment where we can engage in reasonable discourse.

CONTACT US

Need help, have a question, or a comment? Send us an email and we'll get back to you as soon as possible.

Sending

Log in with your credentials

or    

Forgot your details?

Create Account

Send this to a friend