Is it legal because the government says so?

[mikewhitney]

I thought this was interesting

material

This link for this post likely will expire soon but it is http://losthorizons.com/MidEditionUpdate.htm

[seer]

I thought this was interesting

Remind these folks of a truth Thomas Jefferson articulated on all our behalf:

"A free people claim their rights as derived from the laws of nature, and not as the gift of their chief magistrate."

Actually:

We hold these truths to be self-evident: That all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

Rights come from God, or God given laws of nature.

[rogue06]

Legally speaking, something is deemed legal because the government says it is legal. That, however, has nothing whatsoever to do with whether something is right or wrong.

[Jedidiah]

Legally speaking, something is deemed legal because the government says it is legal. That, however, has nothing whatsoever to do with whether something is right or wrong.

What is the government basis for legality? Is it not Constitution? What happens when, as is the case today, "courts refuse to obey the Constitution . . ." The question becomes blurred. If the Constitution is the basis for law, then government actions in conflict with the Constitution are not legal. It is indeed a valid question. Murder is not legal. Abortion is legal. These according to the law. They are inconsistent so the question is quite blurred today.

[Meh Gerbil]

What is the government basis for legality? Is it not Constitution? What happens when, as is the case today, "courts refuse to obey the Constitution . . ." The question becomes blurred. If the Constitution is the basis for law, then government actions in conflict with the Constitution are not legal. It is indeed a valid question. Murder is not legal. Abortion is legal. These according to the law. They are inconsistent so the question is quite blurred today.

The Constitution was a treaty between the governors and the governed.
The U.S. Government quit honoring that treaty a long time ago - the government is now an oligarchy and no longer a democratic republic.

[rogue06]

What is the government basis for legality? Is it not Constitution? What happens when, as is the case today, "courts refuse to obey the Constitution . . ." The question becomes blurred. If the Constitution is the basis for law, then government actions in conflict with the Constitution are not legal. It is indeed a valid question. Murder is not legal. Abortion is legal. These according to the law. They are inconsistent so the question is quite blurred today.

I was speaking in broader terms than just the U.S. As for the Constitution... keep in mind that we have one branch in charge of interpreting it and deciding what is and is not constitutional. So in effect the government is deciding what is legal.

[Jedidiah]

I was speaking in broader terms than just the U.S. As for the Constitution... keep in mind that we have one branch in charge of interpreting it and deciding what is and is not constitutional. So in effect the government is deciding what is legal.

Again I say, "If the Constitution is the basis for law, then government actions in conflict with the Constitution are not legal. It is indeed a valid question. Murder is not legal. Abortion is legal. These according to the law. They are inconsistent so the question is quite blurred today." If they are falsely interpreting what is legal, then what is 'really' legal after all.

[Tassman]

Actually:

We hold these truths to be self-evident: That all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

Rights come from God, or God given laws of nature.

Not your he must more approve the homage of reason, than that of blindfolded fear."

https://www.monticello.org/site/rese...igious-beliefs

Thomas Jefferson also advocated separation of Church and State, which has been incorporated into the US legal system...so keep your god to yourself.

[seer]

Not your he must more approve the homage of reason, than that of blindfolded fear."

https://www.monticello.org/site/rese...igious-beliefs

Thomas Jefferson also advocated separation of Church and State, which has been incorporated into the US legal system...so keep your god to yourself.

Tass, I did say it necessarily was the Christian God (though as we have discussed he borrowed from Locke which was the Christian God), but that our rights came from God. Not man. And since our rights do come from God (a religious principle) you can not divorce the source of our rights from the political since we have no rights apart from God. And as we have discussed in the past Jefferson had no problem using biblical morality when he revised the Virginia Law Code.

From you link:

Jefferson believed in the existence of a Supreme Being who was the creator and sustainer of the universe and the ultimate ground of being.

[Jedidiah]

Thomas Jefferson also advocated separation of Church and State, which has been incorporated into the US legal system...so keep your god to yourself.

What exactly was the "separation of Church and State" that Jefferson advocated?

[Teallaura]

Yes, no and maybe.

Depends on your view of governance - but those who accept that authority flows from the governed would agree that law too, flows from the governed. You yes, it's legal or not because the government says so but if what the government says is not consistent with what the governed consent to then no, it's not even though government says it is. Then you get into the murky stuff where it just depends - that is usually cleared up by which entity hollers more.

[Tassman]

What exactly was the "separation of Church and State" that Jefferson advocated?

[Tassman]

Tass, I did say it necessarily was the Christian God (though as we have discussed he borrowed from Locke which was the Christian God), but that our rights came from God. Not man. And since our rights do come from God (a religious principle) you can not divorce the source of our rights from the political since we have no rights apart from God. And as we have discussed in the past Jefferson had no problem using biblical morality when he revised the Virginia Law Code.

All of which is irrelevant given that every ruling since the case of Lemon v. Kurtzman has confirmed, in the view of the highest court in the land, that the Constitution effectively created a separation of church and state.

[Catholicity]

"Congress shall make no law establishing a religion nor prohibit the free excercise thereof" Isn't that fairly clear? I thought it was left to each state. Well it was.

[Jedidiah]

You seem to have sidestepped my question by answering the one you wish I had asked. "What exactly was the "separation of Church and State" that Jefferson advocated?" What did he advocate? Here is the pertinent sentence in that brief letter.

Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between Man & his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, & not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," thus building a wall of separation between Church & State.

In other words what Jefferson advocated was exactly what the Constitution gives us. "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." This is nothing like what the activist judicial branch has given us today.