The Classical Liberal Constitution
Вставка
- Опубліковано 9 вер 2014
- Richard Epstein of NYU Law School joins Theodore Ruger of Penn Law School and Jeffrey Rosen of the National Constitution Center to discuss the "classical liberal" approach to constitutional interpretation.
Learn more about our upcoming programs at www.constitutioncenter.org/debate. - Розваги
I cannot stop listening to Epstein
Natural Law is written upon every heart. Do not violate another's life liberty or property. Natural Rights are derived from Natural Law. Only you have Right to your life liberty and property, I have no Right to your life liberty or property. Civil gov't are established among consenting men by compact only to defend our Natural Rights under Natural Law. As soon as a Civil gov't attempts to do any other exercise, no matter how well intentioned, it inevitably violates Natural Law and specifically someone's Natural Rights. Continue to walk in the blessings of Liberty under Law!
The classical liberal idea is most eloquently and convincingly expounded by people like Hayek who ditched this ridiculous and hysterical mysticism of so-called "natural law." It hampers the very cause it's meant to support and it's only clung to nowadays by sentimental, credulous, third-rate thinkers.
Eptstein dropping the knowledge bombs. I agree about the moderator, he seems to get in the way of the conversation.
Great discussion.
The argument that Mr. Ruger makes regarding the nature of political protection against infringement is, in essence, a fraudulent one though, because if the principle that restrictions upon government action are unnecessary due to the protections inherent in the political process then there is no point in having a Constitution which establishes a government of enumerated powers, at all. In that case, we should simply have a system of representative democracy and discard the Constitution entirely. Why protect against any infringements upon the citizenry via government if the political process provides sufficient protection against government? Hence, once the argument is taken to its natural logical conclusion, one can see very clearly that it is not only an anti-constitutional argument, but it is one that certainly Mr. Ruger would not accept in the areas in which he would be opposed to government action infringing upon the rights of the citizenry.
This leads us to anther interesting aspect regarding this issue that is worth mentioning which is that some people seem to recognize the dangers associated with a Constitutional violation only when the thrust of the danger is inimical to their ideology. This case serves as an excellent example of this. The same people who rant and rave about the Citizens United decision on the grounds that vast amounts of money in politics have a deleterious and destabilizing effect on the political process are, on the other hand, completely content with the Federal Government having virtually unlimited taxing and regulatory powers regarding what people choose to purchase. Very simply, the reason for this is that the act which was passed, the ACA, was favorable to their political ideology. Yet, they themselves believe that money in politics from private enterprise has an enormous corrupting influence. Under their theory, then it is certainly possible for Congress to be unduly influenced by private enterprise to pass legislation which would compel individuals to purchase one consumer good or another. If the case had arisen on those grounds, it is difficult to conclude that these same people would not have come to a very different conclusion, in that in this case, the power is being used in a manner in which they find odious and dangerous.
The founders I think understood that governmental powers could end up being used in an evil manner by people who were well meaning and wanted expediency over careful consideration of all aspects of a governmental action with far reaching results that often are not considered at the time. The Constitution is there and difficult to amend to protect the people as a whole over government over reach, though done for well meaning reason, never the less results in evil for the people as a whole. JMHO Epstein has a wonderful understanding of this.
Hey Intro CEO: wow! Great enthusiasm! Wow! Wow! Wow! Wow!
This post is hilarious... Richard is so dense and fair-minded in his review and the moderator simply "downgrades" the conversation with each transition, basically ignored the "logical train of thought" into a pathetic headline that bear no resemblance to reality... why the moderator?
Why’d the liberty is not me if’s I respect our ways and laws respecting and the democratic restraint? It’s outside for me to know why’d if’s it’s your intentions not everyone ? I respect responsibility as I respect my Father’s🙏🏻?
LOVE Jeffrey Rosen!!
unwritten ? BUT implied ? THE Constitution as a global instrument, and the world as perceived by Jefferson , Madison, Adams, and Monroe ? The Political Mind Set of A Revolutionary.......1700's style ! ISOLATION then, ISOLATION now, ISOLATION forever !!!!!!
The National Constitution Center is not funded by the government, it's funded by corporations which explains this
too bad they can read plain English
Load of bull. The reason they made it so hard to change so people can’t make changes.
Why is Mr. Epstein going to roman law in regards to the United States Constitution? let me tell you TO CONFUSE THE SITUATION. he said he may be the last roman law professor yet he finds a way to mention it with laughable examples of why the United States Constitution is so hard to understand, Mr. Epstein speaking about the right of americans to have private property from an ancient roman law perspective asks "is it lawfull even if the roman government blows up the property but takes none and Mr. Epstein asks still speaking from a roman law perspective about the bill of rights "if you can take private property how do you measure compensation when its supposed to be just?"
Epstein is complicating things that are self explanatory or easy to define. I believe Mr. Epstein wants the constitution to be a big ball of playdoe that can be molded in to whatever shape that is needed for the powers that be. by his tactics of telling people that easily definable words in the context of the constitution are merky and need an expert to define he tells us that we common citizens are unequipped to understand our constitution without the explination from our leaders in government or intellectual superiors. So lets read some definitions and see if us common folk can understand them.
" ABRIDGE" to shorten (a book, a play, etc.) by leaving out some parts
: to lessen the strength or effect of something, such as a right. "COMPENSATION" something that is done or given to make up for damage, trouble, etc.
: something good that acts as a balance against something bad or undesirable
: payment given for doing a job
:paying fair market value for property seized.
Definition of FREEDOM
1
: the quality or state of being free: as
a : the absence of necessity, coercion, or constraint in choice or action
b : liberation from slavery or restraint or from the power of another : independence
c : the quality or state of being exempt or released usually from something onerous
d : ease, facility
e : the quality of being frank, open, or outspoken
f : improper familiarity
g : boldness of conception or execution
h : unrestricted use
2
a : a political right
"PRIVATE" for the use of a single person or group : belonging to one person or group : not public
: not relating to a person's official position or job
: not known by the public or by other people
property
: something that is owned by a person, business, etc.
: a piece of land often with buildings on it that is owned by a person, business, etc.
: a special quality or characteristic of something
I think it is very hard to understand where we are now without a knowledge of history. That would include Roman Law and English Magna Carta. Seems like it helps to know where you came from to understand why and where you are now? JMHO.
This is very clever. The theory here is create a jurisprudence regime which would rule any legislation unconstitutional that doesn't conform to libertarian /Conservative ideology. No more need to worry about things like elections or the will of the people, in essence defacto rule by right wing judges. In the over 200 years of our history all our former judges got it all wrong who would have thought. And what about that guy sitting at the right. Are we suppose to believe he was there to refute these claims by Epstein. He couldn't stop saying how brilliant Epstein is and almost no push back. And do my taxes pay for this organization? How are they funded?