<<http://www.j-bradford-delong.net/movable_type/2004-2_archives/000016.htm l>>
Most Important Court Case Ever? The Eleven-Year-Old is asking, "What was the most important court case ever?" I have three possible candidates: 1. Dred Scott v. Sanford: If Roger B. Taney had found for Scott, then Stephen Douglas and company would have been able to say, "You don't have to vote Republican in order to keep slavery from growing: it's already constrained, already on the way to ultimate extinction." Had they turned back the Republican challenge in the North in 1860, things would have been very, very different thereafter. 2. The Attainder of the Earl of Strafford: Had King Charles I not consented to the attaint and execution of Strafford at the start of the 1640s, he would have had a powerful and competent Prime Minister when the English Civil War started up in earnest. Had Strafford done his usual superb job, Charles I would have won the English Civil War--and the principal that Parliament's powers are held by the Grace of the King and not by Right would have shaped English and world history thereafter. 3. The Condemnation of Origen by the Second Council of Constantinople: Origen maintained that Hell was (or would eventually be) empty: after all, an infinite God with infinite power, infinite mercy, infinite knowledge, infinite benevolence, and infinite patience must eventually be able to teach every finite being the way to salvation--even Satan himself. The condemnation of Origen removed the last possibility that medieval Christianity--East as well as West--would be a tolerant religion along the lines of "Big Raft" Buddhism, with a fundamental belief that we're all going to get to Heaven eventually (although some of us are ahead of others on the road). It put medieval Christianity firmly on the side of teaching people that they need to be really, really scared. Other candidates? Any disagreements? ----- "As first and moderate methods to attain unity have failed, those bent on its accomplishment must resort to an ever-increasing severity. . . . . Those who begin coercive elimination of dissent soon find themselves exterminating dissenters. . . . [T]he First Amendment to our Constitution was designed to avoid these ends by avoiding these beginnings." � West Va. State Bd. of Ed. v. Barnette, 319 U.S. 624 (1943) (Jackson, J.). _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
