The statement below is indicative of a fundamental divide in legal
thought, between "law" as "whatever is enforced", and "law" as "that
which is a written constitution or authorized by a written
constitution, and consistent with fundamental principles of
constitutional government". Ideally, the two should coincide in
practice, but they often don't, and when they don't we are confronted,
as citizens, with the choice which to support in our own
decisionmaking. Make no mistake. The alternatives are fundamentally,
logically, incompatible. This can be made more clear by listing the
alternatives side by side (which may not align depending on your
viewer):Law is whatever is enforced Law is only what is constitutional Legal realism Legal idealism Legitimacy is current majority view Legitimacy is original act of ratification Court decisions trump constitution Constitution trumps court decisions Rule of men Rule of law Yielding to power Adherence to principle Voting one's pocketbook Voting for what's good for the country Getting re-elected Compliance with one's oath of office Corruption Integrity Fascism Constitutionalism Ron Moore wrote:
-- ---------------------------------------------------------------- Constitution Society 7793 Burnet Road #37, Austin, TX 78757 512/374-9585 www.constitution.org [EMAIL PROTECTED] ---------------------------------------------------------------- |
_______________________________________________ To post, send message to [email protected] To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/firearmsregprof Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as private. Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are posted; people can read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or wrongly) forward the messages to others.
