Tuesday, July 3, 2012

To the credit of Mr. Bumble

or, a foreigner's comments.

Of course, the question of whether a given law is logically consistent with a narrow scope of (written, "foundational" or, paradoxically "superior") law is an important one, in that the police should be able to tell whether they should be arresting citizens or legislators; not that the latter is envisioned or practised much, according to a particular and narrow scope of law.

It is a sad thing, however, that this seems to be the only competence of various superior courts; elsewhere several people are remarking that more important than whether a document like Veritatis Splendor is infalible is whether it's true. Similarly, more important than whether a given law is legal ("constitutional") is whether it is just; or, under the maxim that an unjust law is no-law-at-all, whether a given piece of legislation is indeed a true law.

Alas...

no beadle me

2 comments:

TGWWS said...

And this is why, as an American, a Thomist, and a Catholic, between a good Catholic justice who justifies his decisions constitutionally (I name no names, but he is ethnically Italian) and a good Catholic justice who justifies his decisions based on the natural law upon which the U.S. Constitution, however tenuously, is based (his ancestors came from Africa), I have always preferred the latter!

Belfry Bat said...

Well, of all the things a youngish Northern Foreigner had never heard of! See, this is what happens when one gets one's history (even very-recent history) from the current-events portion of the internet. Well, I'm much ├Ždified to learn of this Other Mr. Justice, and his theory of jurisprudence.

Post a Comment