Constitutional law is supposed to be legitimized by the Constitution. Nominees should be versed in how decisions are arrived at, not just the decisions.
Our philosophy of law should be stated. And if judges have to cite the philosophy, they might arrive at a different decision. It woujld be like this. If there is one fault in the chain of reasoning, all the following conclusions are incorrect. Math would be an example. If there is a flaw, then the rest of the conclusions are suspect. Roderick T. Beaman,D.O. Board Certified Family Physician Protect freedom. Disarm the government. ________________________________ From: earl reese <[email protected]> To: [email protected] Sent: Wed, May 19, 2010 3:42:46 AM Subject: Re: [LibertarianExchange] Elena Kagan Agreed but what is the difference between the law which the Constitution makes possible and the philosophy of law as allowed by the Constitution? I'm a little slow and this question is not meant to be rhetorical. I need help here. On Thu, May 13, 2010 at 11:55 AM, Roderick T. Beaman <crazylibertarian@ yahoo.com> wrote: > >When Pres. Barack Obama presented Elena Kagan as his next Supreme Court >nominee, he cited her expertise in constitution law. He did not cite her >expertise in the Constitution, only constitutional law. > >As one pundit has observed, I think it was Gary North, law schools teach case >law, not philosophy of law. I think something is wrong with that. > >Roderick T. Beaman,D.O. >Board Certified Family Physician >Protect freedom. Disarm the government. > > -- Earl One hundred victories in one hundred battles is not the most skillful. Seizing the enemy without fighting is the most skillful. Never will those who wage war tire of deception. Sun Wu (Tzu)
