Showing posts with label Great Ideas. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Great Ideas. Show all posts

Sunday, December 13, 2015

The end of law: peace, order and the common good


1. Jay in Federalist No. 2

Nothing is more certain than the indispensable necessity of government… the people must cede to it some of their natural rights, in order to vest it with requisite powers.

2. “Law is said to bind those subject to it, and whoever is bound find his freedom curtailed to some extent.”

3. “The purpose of law [is]… to protect and promote true liberty. Law tends to make men good, directing them to their last end pointing out to them the means necessary to this end.”

4. Plato.

Mankind must have laws, and conform to them, or their life would be as bad as that of the most savage beast. Plato, Laws IX, p. 754 The reason for this “No man’s nature is best for human society; or knowing, always able and willing to do what is best.”

5. “True are or politics is concerned, not with private but with public good (for public good binds together states, but private only distracts them); and that both the public and private good as well as of states is greater when the state and not the individual is first considered.”

6. Although a person knows in the abstract that this is true yet if he be possessed of absolute and irresponsible power, he will never remain firm in his principles or persist in regarding the public good as primary in the state, and the private good as secondary. Human nature will always be drawing him into avarice and selfishness, avoiding pain and pursuing pleasure without any reason, and will bring these to the front, obscuring the juster and better… For if a man were born so divinely gifted that he could naturally apprehend the truth, he would have no needs of laws to rule over him ; for there is no law or order which is above knowledge, nor can mind without impiety, be deemed the subject or slave of any man, but rather the lord of all. I speak of mind, true and free, and in harmony with nature. But then there is no such mind anywhere, or at least not much; and therefore we must choose law and order, which are second best.

7. Aristotle

“Now if arguments were in themselves enough to make men good, they would justly… have won very great rewards… [but] they are not able to encourage the many to nobility and goodness. For these do not by nature obey the sense of shame, but only fear, and do not abstain from bad acts because of their baseness but through fear of punishment; living by passion they pursue their own pleasures and the means to them, and avoid the opposite pains, and have not even a conception of what is noble and truly pleasant since they have never tasted it.”

8. For he who lives as passion directs will not hear arguments that dissuades him, nor understand it if he does; and how can we persuade one in such a state to change his ways? And in genera passion seems to yield not to argument but to force. The character, then, must somehow already be there already with a kinship to virtue, loving what is noble and hating what is base.

But it is difficult to get from youth up a right training for virtue if one has not been brought up under right laws; for to live temperately and hardily is not pleasant for most people, especially when they are young. For this reason their nurture and occupations should be fixed by law; for they will not be painful when they have become customary.

9. [E]ven when they are grown up, practice and be habituated to them, we shall need laws for this as well, and generally speaking to cover the whole of life; for most people obey necessity rather than argument, and punishments rather than the sense of what is noble.

10. [I]f…the man who is to be good must be well trained and habituated, and go on to spend his time in worthy occupations and neither willingly nor unwillingly do bad actions, and if this can be brought about if men live in accordance with a sort of reason and right order, provided this has force—if this be so, the paternal command indeed has not the required force or compulsive power (nor in general has the command of one man, unless he be a king or something similar); but the law has compulsive power, while it is at the same time a rule proceeding from a sort of practical wisdom and reason. And while people hate men who oppose their impulses, even if they oppose them rightly, the law in its ordaining of what is good is not burdensome.

11. [W]hat should be the conditions of the ideal or perfect state; for the perfect state cannot exist without a due supply of the means of life… There will always be a certain number of citizens, a country in which to place them, and the like.

12. [A state even if great by numbers] [W]e ought not to include everybody, for there must always be in cities a multitude of slaves and sojourners and foreigners; but we should include those only who are members of the state, and who form and essential part of it.

13. [Aristotle then argues that size makes a country more difficult to govern as laws cannot be efficiently and effectively implemented even-handedly.] Moreover, experience shows that a very populous country can rarely, if ever, be well governed; since all cities which have a reputation for good government have a limit of population… For law is order, and good law is good order; but a very great multitude cannot be orderly: to introduce order into the unlimited is the work of a divine power—of such power as holds together the universe. Beauty is realized in number and magnitude, and the state which combines magnitude with good ordr must necessarily be the most beautiful.

14. Aquinas

Article I. Whether law is something pertaining to reason? Law is a rule and measure of acts, by which man in induced to act or is restrained from acting [law is derived from ligare (to bind), because it obliges one to act.]

15. Article 2. Whether the law is always directed to the common good? It would seem that the law is not always directed to the common good as to its end.

a. Objection 1. For it belongs to law to command and forbid.

b. Aquinas Answers: Now the first principle in practical matters, which are the object of practical reason, is the last end; and the last end of human life is happiness of beatitude… Consequently, the law must regard principally the relationship to happiness.

Saturday, January 24, 2015

The Militarization of Police Forces as Violative of the Third Amendment, Part II

Standing Armies?

        One of the earliest arguments in favor of the federal constitution was the necessity of unity among the states to preclude the necessity of a standing army which was seen as a threat to the liberty interests of all.

Safety from external danger is the most powerful director of national conduct. Even the ardent love of liberty will, after a time, give way to its dictates. The violent destruction of life and property incident to war, the continual effort and alarm attendant on a state of continual danger, will compel nations the most attached to liberty to resort for repose and security to institutions which have a tendency to destroy their civil and political rights. To be more safe, they at length become willing to run the risk of being less free.

The institutions chiefly alluded to are STANDING ARMIES and the correspondent appendages of military establishments. (Federalist Paper, No. 8, supra, at 67).

        In Federalist No. 8 Hamilton clearly demonstrates the “classic republican skepticism of peacetime armies” (Akhil Reed Amar, supra, at 267):

The perpetual menacings of danger oblige the government to be always prepared to repel it; its armies must be numerous enough for instant defense. The continual necessity for their services enhances the importance of the soldier, and proportionably degrades the condition of the citizen. The military state becomes elevated above the civil. [emphasis added] The inhabitants of territories, often the theatre of war, are unavoidably subjected to frequent infringements on their rights, which serve to weaken their sense of those rights; and by degrees the people are brought to consider the soldiery not only as their protectors, but as their superiors. The transition from this disposition to that of considering them masters, is neither remote nor difficult; but it is very difficult to prevail upon a people under such impressions, to make a bold or effectual resistance to usurpations supported by the military power. (Federalist Paper, No. 8, supra, at 69-70).
       This is the problem we now face.  "Tell me what the difference is between an increasingly militarized police force and a standing army,” Sen. Tom Coburn (R-Okla.) said during a hearing before the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee, the first congressional hearing on the militarization of police.  (Senators blast DOD program that 'militarized police' By Tim Devaney, The Hill, 09/09/14 03:13 PM EDT  http://thehill.com/regulation/217136-senators-blast-dod-program-to-militarize-police; accessed on December 25, 2014 at 1428 hrs. P.S.T.).

"It's hard to see a difference between the militarized and increasingly federalized police force we see in towns across America today and the force that Madison had in mind when he said 'a standing military force with an overgrown executive will not long be a safe companion to liberty,' " said Sen. Tom Coburn (R., Okla.) on Tuesday, referring to one of the Founding Fathers.  (Grossman, Updated Sept. 9, 2014 7:38 p.m. ET; accessed on December 24, 2014, at 1509 hrs. P.S.T.).
       Senator Coburn’s concern was given particular effect on this Christmas in one specific but poignant example:

Manchester [CT] Police are on a mission this Christmas Day--delivering toys to needy children.
Police cruised through town this morning in an armored vehicle, decked out in lights and tinsel, to hand out toys to needy children.

The officers' sleigh is the department's armored Bearcat, a $250,000 vehicle that is designed for tactical emergency response. (Manchester Police Help Santa on Christmas Day By 
Stephanie O'Connell, NBC Connecticut, Thursday, Dec 25, 2014 • Updated at 7:02 PM EST; in http://www.nbcconnecticut.com/news/local/Manchester-286828801.html; accessed on December 26, 2014, at 2025 hrs P.S.T.).  

Insidious Military Occupation and Domination of Society?

A peacetime ‘army’ of para-military police forces can lead to what Hamilton and the founding fathers feared most:

The inhabitants of territories, often the theatre of war, are unavoidably subjected to frequent infringements on their rights, which serve to weaken their sense of those rights; and by degrees the people are brought to consider the soldiery not only as their protectors, but as their superiors. The transition from this disposition to that of considering them masters, is neither remote nor difficult; but it is very difficult to prevail upon a people under such impressions, to make a bold or effectual resistance to usurpations supported by the military power. (Federalist Paper, No. 8, supra, at 69-70).

       Or as Patrick Henry put it:  “Here we may have troops in times of peace.  They may be billeted in any manner [emphasis added]—to tyrannize, oppress, and crush us.”  (Quoted in Akhil Reed Amar, supra, at 61).

       Police Special Weapons and Tactics (SWAT) teams are the ‘poster images’ of actions to ‘tyrannize, oppress, and crush us’ by police paramilitary operations gone awry:

SPECIAL WEAPONS AND TACTICS TEAMS were created in the late 1960s for extreme scenarios like saving hostages and taking down active shooters. But police departments soon began deploying them in more mundane situations. In 1984, just 40 percent of SWAT teams were serving warrants. By 2012, the number was 79 percent. In all, the number of SWAT raids across the country has increased 20-fold since the 1980s, going from 3,000 per year to at least 60,000. And SWAT teams are no longer limited to large cities: In the mid-1980s, only 20 percent of towns with populations between 25,000 and 50,000 had such teams. By 2007, 80 percent did.
Much of the increase has been driven by the drug war, says David Klinger, a former Los Angeles cop and a professor of criminal justice at the University of Missouri-St. Louis. "If we didn't think that drugs were the most evilest thing in the history of God's green earth," he says, "and weren't running hither and yon trying to catch people with dope in their house, none of this would have happened."
Today, 85 percent of SWAT operations are for "choice-driven raids on people's private residences," Peter Kraska, an Eastern Kentucky University researcher who studies tactical policing, said in a recent Senate hearing. According to a study released by the American Civil Liberties Union earlier this year [referenced above], 62 percent of SWAT deployments were for drug raids. The study found that in these raids, drugs were found only half of the time. When weapons were "believed to be present," they were not found in half of the cases for which the outcome was known. (http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2014/10/swat-warrior-cops-police-militarization-urban-shield ; accessed on December 27, 2014 at 2330 hrs. P.S.T.). 
 
Presently, the problem was best summarized in a recent editorial in the Sacramento News and Review:

For too long, we’ve allowed ourselves to think that people who are killed or harmed by police must have done something wrong. But does anyone really think that mental illness, or shoplifting, or car theft, or outstanding warrants on burglaries, or—for crying out loud—selling loose cigarettes on the street demands an immediately executed death sentence?  (Editorial, Sacramento News and Review, December 25, 2014, http://www.newsreview.com/sacramento/shocking/content?oid=15834400; accessed December 26, 2014, 0107 hrs. P.S.T.)
                According to Human Rights Watch (“HRW”), a nonprofit, nongovernmental organization that supports human rights around the globe, in response to Ferguson protests:

Police have responded with threatening measures – such as pointing military assault rifles at peaceful protesters and deploying armored vehicles – that infringe on rights to peaceful assembly and expression. They have also used apparently unnecessary or excessive force – including firing teargas and rubber bullets into crowds, and arbitrarily detained journalists covering the events.
The police response to the protests has also raised concerns about the accountability of law enforcement, Human Rights Watch said. Some police officers were not wearing name tags or badges with visible numbers, witnesses said. Early in the police response, four law enforcement agencies were involved, with officials on the scene refusing to identify which agency was in charge. This made it difficult to determine whether each of the agencies had policies on the use of force and whether they were being followed.  (Human Rights Watch, US: Holder Should Press for Police ReformFerguson Unrest Shows Need for Effective Oversight, Transparency, August 20, 2014; at http://www.hrw.org/news/2014/08/20/us-holder-should-press-police-reform; accessed on December 26, 2014, at 1908 hrs, P.S.T.).
        After direct observations in Ferguson by HRW personnel, in another news report, HRW commented:

Human Rights Watch spent several days in Ferguson, beginning on August 17, to investigate and report on the reasons behind the protests, as well as the police response. Law enforcement agencies in a number of instances used teargas, rubber bullets and other tactics in apparent violation of the right to peaceful assembly and freedom of expression, and engaged in possible excessive use of force.

In one episode, police pointed rifles at a local resident and her 15-year-old daughter who were peacefully protesting in a private parking lot even though they had permission from the owner. In another case, a group of peaceful marchers and a photojournalist were surrounded by armored police vehicles, backed into a driveway, and tear-gassed three seconds after being told to disperse.

The law enforcement response to the protests featured a lack of transparency and accountability, Human Rights Watch said. These problems may have been exacerbated by the large number of separate local, county, and state agencies involved and the lack of communication among them. Missouri state officials have provided inconsistent information regarding which agencies were involved and when. Public records requests Human Rights Watch submitted on August 28 have gone unanswered, beyond the three-day time period that Missouri public records laws mandate for a response. (Human Rights Watch, US: Missouri Should Review Ferguson Response. Law Enforcement Failures Show Need for Effective Oversight, Transparency, September 9, 2014; at http://www.hrw.org/news/2014/09/09/us-missouri-should-review-ferguson-response; accessed on December 26, 2014, at 1920 hrs, P.S.T.).
In a concluding news report on this issue, HRW determined that:
Human Rights Watch found serious problems in the police response to the protests. The problems included the intimidation of protesters that infringed upon their rights to assembly and freedom of expression, which are protected under both the US Constitution and international law. At times, the police used unnecessary and disproportionate force. The authorities also hindered media organizations from gathering news on the protests. (Human Rights Watch, US:  Respect Rights of Ferguson ProtestersPast Abuses Highlight Need for Improved Police Response, November 19, 2014; at http://www.hrw.org/news/2014/11/19/us-respect-rights-ferguson-protesters; accessed on December 26, 2014, at 1914 hrs, P.S.T.).
The fact is that by coopting military practices, training and equipment, the federal government is now involved in our local police forces.  For example, what is a police officer going to use a grenade launcher for?
The use of tactics such as showing up at people’s homes and making arrests in the middle of the night were standard practices of the Soviet NKVD (People’s Commissariat of Internal Affairs) during the reign of Iosif Stalin.  Is this what we want for America in the 21st century? 

Sunday, July 6, 2014

Syntopicon of Great Ideas of the Western World: Law

Great ideas—“the ideas basic and indispensable to understanding ourselves, our society, and the world in which we live.”[1]

The Great Books of the Western World. Mortimer Adler prepared the Syntopicon:  a collection of some 3,000 topics discussed in the great books, organics under each of 102 great ideas.

An alphabetical arrangement of anything is a cowardly retreat from an intelligible ordering of the material.[2] 



[1] Mortimer J. Adler, Six Great Ideas (NY: McMillan Publishing Co., Inc. 1981),  at 3.
[2] Id. At 22.

Syntopicon

Outline of  Law[1]



1.  The definition of law

            1a.  The end of law: peace, order and the common good

            1b.  Law in relation to reason or will

            1c.  The authority and power needed for making law

            1d.  The promulgation of law:  the need and the manner of its declaration

2.  The major kinds of law:  comparison of human, natural, and divine law; comparison of natural and positive, innate and acquire, private and public, abstract and civil rights.

3.  The divine law

            3a.  The eternal law in the divine government of the universe; the law in nature of all creatures

(1)   the natural moral law as the eternal law in human nature

(2)   the distinction between the eternal law and the positive commandments of God

3b.  The positive law: the difference between the law revealed in the Old and the New Testament

(1)   Law in the Old Testament:  the moral, the judicial, and the ceremonial precepts of the Old Law

(2)   The Law in the New Testament:  the law of love and grace; ceremonial precepts of the New Law

4.  The natural law

            4a.  The law of reason or the moral law:  the order and habit of its principles

            4b.  The law of men living in a state of nature

            4c.  The a priori of principles of innate or abstract right:  universal law in the order of freedom; the objectification of the will

            4d.  The natural law as underlying the precept of virtue:  its relation to the moral precepts of divine law
           
4e.  The relation of natural law to natural rights and natural justice

            4f.  The relation of natural law to civil or municipal law:  the state of nature and the regulations of the civil state

            4g.  The relation of natural law to the law of nations and to international law:  sovereign stated and the state of nature

            4h.  The precepts of the natural law and the condition of the state of nature with respect to slavery and property

5.  The human or positive law:  the sanction of coercive force

            5a.  The difference between laws and decrees

            5b.  The kinds or divisions of positive law

            5c.  The justice of positive law:  the standards of natural law and constitutionality

            5d.  The origins of positive law in the legislative process:  the function of the legislator

            5e.  The mutability or variability of positive law:  the maintenance or change of laws

            5f.  The relation of positive law to custom

            5g.  The application of positive law to cases:  the casuistry (the solving of specific cases or right and wrong in conduct by applying general principles of ethics) of the judicial process; the conduct of a trial; the administration of justice

            5h.  The defect of positive law: its need for correction or dispensation by equity

6.  Law and the individual

            6a.  Obedience to the authority and force of law:  the sanctions of conscience and fear; the objective and subjective sanctions of law; law, duty, and right

            6b.  The exemption of the soverign person from the coercive force of law

            6c.  The force of the tyrannical, unjust, or bad laws:  the right of rebellion or disobedience

            6d.  The educative function of law in relation to virtue and vice:  the efficacy of law as limited by virtue in the individual citizen

            6e.  The breach of law:  crime and punishment
           
(1)    the nature and causes of crime
(2)    the prevention of crime

(3)    the punishment of crime

7.  Law and the state

      7a.  The distinction between government  by men and government by laws:  the nature of constitutional or political law

      7b.  The supremacy of law as the principle of political freedom

      7c.  The priority of natural to civil law:  the inviolability or inalienability of natural rights

      7d.  Tyranny and treason or sedition as illegal acts:  the use of force without authority

      7e.  The need for administrative discretion in matters undetermined by law:  the royal prerogative

      7f.  The juridical conception of the person:  the legal personality of the state and other corporations

8.  Historical observations on the development of law and on the diversity of legal systems or institutions

9.  The legal profession and the study of law:  praise and dispraise of lawyers and judges



[1] The Great Ideas, Vol. 2, Chapter 46:  Law