Category: Law, Constitution, and Jurisprudence

This is painful. No. Obscurantism and common sophism, and all to common. 1. “Natural Law” (moral, philosophical) (the law is sovereign)-> Natural Law (scientific: reciprocity) 2. Evolutionary Law (People Are Sovereign)(European pre continental and present common law) 3. Common-Law Originalism-Textualism (the democratic polity is sovereign) the purpose is to fore the people and legislature into responsible action. 4. Political Law (Academics, The State is Sovereign) -> Continental Law by Codes 5. Kritarchy (rule by judges, judges decide sovereignty)(Jewish Law) -> Positive Law Legal strategies are demarcated by different allocations of responsibility for decidability. Raz, Kelsen Dworkin and Hartt all come to us and write from the non-european tradition of interpretive scriptural, leal tradition of rabbinical law, that is constantly revised by judges, from their interpretation of a just society at the time. Social Law, Judicial legislation from the bench, that adapts to conditions. Europeans, the founders, and of course, Scalia, come from the ancient European tradition of tort (reciprocity), trifunctionalism, legal neutrality, legal record as evidence, and the responsibility of the polity to steer the direction of society – not the judiciary. The law of peers. Why? The foundation of european law consists in the reciprocal exchange of insurance of defense of self-determination by self-determined means, limiting us to sovereignty in demonstrated interests, reciprocity in display word and deed, duty of performance and care, and adversarial (competitive, adaptive, an evolutionary) markets in all aspects of life. It will take us another fifty years to recover from the damage Raz, Kelsen Dworkin and Hart just as it will take another fifty to recover from the damage of the Marxists in political economy, neo-marxists in aesthetics and culture, postmodernists from sophistry, and Gould Freud and Boaz in pseudoscience. Because of these men, we’ve trained three generations of legal activists to undermine the constitution, the common law, and the long history of european empirical jurisprudence. Exasperating.

This is painful. No. Obscurantism and common sophism, and all to common. 1. “Natural Law” (moral, philosophical) (the law is sovereign)-> Natural Law (scientific: reciprocity) 2. Evolutionary Law (People Are Sovereign)(European pre continental and present common law) 3. Common-Law Originalism-Textualism (the democratic polity is sovereign) the purpose is to fore the people and legislature into responsible action. 4. Political Law (Academics, The State is Sovereign) -> Continental Law by Codes 5. Kritarchy (rule by judges, judges decide sovereignty)(Jewish Law) -> Positive Law Legal strategies are demarcated by different allocations of responsibility for decidability. Raz, Kelsen Dworkin and Hartt all come to us and write from the non-european tradition of interpretive scriptural, leal tradition of rabbinical law, that is constantly revised by judges, from their interpretation of a just society at the time. Social Law, Judicial legislation from the bench, that adapts to conditions. Europeans, the founders, and of course, Scalia, come from the ancient European tradition of tort (reciprocity), trifunctionalism, legal neutrality, legal record as evidence, and the responsibility of the polity to steer the direction of society – not the judiciary. The law of peers. Why? The foundation of european law consists in the reciprocal exchange of insurance of defense of self-determination by self-determined means, limiting us to sovereignty in demonstrated interests, reciprocity in display word and deed, duty of performance and care, and adversarial (competitive, adaptive, an evolutionary) markets in all aspects of life. It will take us another fifty years to recover from the damage Raz, Kelsen Dworkin and Hart just as it will take another fifty to recover from the damage of the Marxists in political economy, neo-marxists in aesthetics and culture, postmodernists from sophistry, and Gould Freud and Boaz in pseudoscience. Because of these men, we’ve trained three generations of legal activists to undermine the constitution, the common law, and the long history of european empirical jurisprudence. Exasperating.