Showing posts with label Natural Law. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Natural Law. Show all posts

Thursday, March 7, 2024

Wednesday, March 7, 1274. Death of St. Thomas Aquinas.

 


Thomas Aquinus died on this day in 1274.  He was a proponent of the major Catholic school of thought, natural theology, and the father of a school of thought known as Thomism after him.

Monday, May 1, 2023

Normalizing Mental Illness isn't helping to address it.



Guardrails on roads aren't put up because if they're not, everyone will drive off the road.  They're put there, so an errant driver doesn't drive off the road and get hurt or killed.

Drinking laws don't exist because, if they don't, everyone will take up drinking at an early age.  They're there because some will, to their detriment, and the laws make it harder.

Controls, of all types, exist as some, but only some, will go over the boundaries into self-destruction, or the destruction of others.

We should have remembered that before we started taking down the guard rails on sexual conduct.


Readers of this blog, if they hit only one or two entries, probably come away with the impression that I'm an arch-conservative or a flaming liberal.

I note that, as readers who only hit this one, are going to think "oh, reactionary conservative".  Not so, my views don't fit easily into a right or left category, and that's because they're all based on a set of guiding principles, one of which is the adherence and belief in science and nature.

Both the left and the right are fully at war with nature right now.  And this is one of the things causing the country to be so massively polarized.

I'm not in the Trumpist right by any means, but lefties who wonder how anyone could be should take stock in this.  Right now, a fair part of the left, and not even the far left, is pretty much invested in normalizing mental illness. We've gone from a state in which an aberrant behavior, but one that didn't otherwise control every aspect of a person's personality, was forced upon society as normal, and forced upon those who bore it as their singular identity, to one in which outright mental illness is now being proclaimed as normal.  There's a pretty big difference between a person experiencing some disordered inclinations, to having those inclinations define them in every way and be celebrated.

There's also a big difference how far down a scale a person goes once they depart from a genetic mean.  Some people, for example, might be excessively materialistic to their personal detriment.  Not too many take that all the way into compulsive theft.  Or, for example, some people might have an inordinate fascination with food.  Calling somebody a glutton is out of style now days, but not too many of those people take it all the way into compulsive overeating.  Some people are inordinately fascinated with themselves, but only a true minority take it into narcissism.  Some people drink more alcohol than they should, but then there are also alcoholics.

Part of what keeps people from going overboard with deeply seated negative personality deviations is societal and legal controls, legal controls being a species of societal ones.  The law will step in if you steal.  Societal pressure, anymore, will step in if you eat too much. You get the point.

Some of our deeply seated natural instincts are the ones that can really get out of control if they are allowed to delve beyond an acceptable mean, and decay into mental illness.  A person has a right to defend themselves, but not to become compulsively violent.  Those who do become psychopaths.  We shouldn't tolerate temping people into being psychopaths, but in fact with do.

As people know that abnormal is in fact not normal, they naturally get up in arms about it at the point where they're told they have to accept it in spite of the evidence their own eyes affords them.  The far right, as personally hypocritical as it is, at least on some social issues doesn't advocate for normalizing mental illness.

The left, in contrast, has at first done everything it could to take down the guardrails. . . we can hardly remember, for example, that Hugh Hefner was once prosecuted for obscenity.  Once that had the predictable results, and the decay really set in, its tried to normalize the decay.

And, as it was only a matter of time, we're just about to go through one more door, maybe, in which a mental illness/deeply destructive compulsion, is about to be regarded as "A Okay".  Inevitably, we're now going through one more door.  Consider this twitter post from the group Gays Against Groomers:

New pedo flag and “orientation” just dropped. Meet the “YAP” community: Youth Attracted Persons.

According to them, they are oppressed, and you are a hateful, fascist bigot if you oppose them.

Normalizing pedophilia was always the goal. They are the next victim class.

And already a Virginia professor is wanting to make sure that the term "minor attracted person" is used rather than pedophile, as the latter term might be regarded as offensive.

That's right.  Since Obergefell, we've gone from altering the normal, universal understanding of marriage, to forced acceptance that there's no difference between homosexuality and heterosexuality, to chose your own gender, and we're about to go to molesting children being a life choice.

And, take for example, Montana legislator Zachary Raasch.

Never heard of Raasch?  Well, if you are following the news, you've heard of him being proclaimed as a hero for disrupting Montana's legislature.

But not as Raasch, but as the self-proclaimed Zooey Zephyr.

Raasch was a high school wrestler who, at some point, decided he'd rather be a woman, even though that's genetically impossible.  He had himself surgically castrated and a pseudo vagina surgically created and is taking drugs to complete as much of the process as can be.  He's deeply mentally disturbed, as this Twitter post likely demonstrates to anyone who isn't so far gone down this path as to be unable to see.

Rep. Zooey Zephyr
@ZoAndBehold
This is my ideal relationship with a man: one where I'm riding him, and also ready to end his life.
Quote Tweet
SAKON🐳✨
@sakonlieur
Lose. #原神 #GenshinImpact #Childe #Lumine #rkgk
Show this thread
Image

That's deeply weird.

Raasch is interested in other disturbing things, such as transhumanism.  He's heavily into video gaming.  He's a Manga fan, as the distressing image above shows.  According to one person whose detailed his interests, who is of course only one person, he's  "shows all the classic signs of an autogynephilic—a man who (often spurred by pornography or fetish) becomes sexually aroused by the idea of themselves as a woman."   Raasch's known "relationships" have included at least two other men affecting the trans identity, one of whom was also a "furry".

Raasch has clocked himself in the mantle of a type of crusader, disruptively arguing that not allowing people afflicted with a desire to change their gender will lead to suicide.  Even pro LBGTQ groups assert this argument should not be made as it is counterproductive.  But all of this is instructive.  Starting no later than the 1960s, and perhaps a couple of decades earlier than that, we started taking the fences down.  By the time of Obergefell, we were ready, or at least some were, to knock a stone wall down.  Now it's so far down that a person who is obviously deeply mentally ill is being portrayed as some sort of crusader for civil rights.

And the next step. . . almost taken.

Many have been concerned that the US seems to be sliding towards fascism.  It probably isn't, in literal terms, as fascism properly understood is a corporatist political theory that has no real popularity in the US. What we are sliding towards, however, is on one hand a deeply authoritarian anti-democratic populist right and a deeply anti-natural left.  

Should this get any worse, the left will be more to blame for it than the right.

The left went to war with democracy in the late 1960s and began to advocate for rule by an autocratic court, which it apparently thought it could keep left wing forever, as lawyers were, and are, generally political liberals.  It certainly did keep it left wing for a long time.  Concern over this only developed when the court returned to actually interpreting the law, one really significant actually accomplished during the Trump administration.  Now the left, which was previously perfectly happy to leave the Court completely to itself, is howling with rage over supposed ethics concerns on the Court, something that it didn't care much about previously, and much of which is just a thinly veiled desperate effort to remove justices while the Democrats control the Oval Office and Senate.  At any rate, the left is now deeply dedicated to being wholly at war with human nature, vested in the concept that every human being has a right, basically, to be a god of their own.  Liberal commentators, like Robert Reich, who likely would have thought Raasch nuts up until relatively recently, are all for such fantasies now.

It's well worth remembering that it was the German, Italian, Spanish and Japanese radical left that appeared long before the extreme right in those nations.  German communists, which had its own collection of now benighted individuals who really aren't very admirable in real terms, appeared well before World War One and struggled to seize the country from the less radical Socialist when the German monarchy collapsed in 1918.  The Communists can't be blamed for the Nazis, but fear of Communism certainly contributed to the rise of the Nazis and their electoral success in a major way.  More than a few German voters who voted for the Nazis in 1932 were voting against the Communists.

And the Spanish Communists were headed for a clear usurpation of democracy in Spain before the Spanish right revolted.  The Spanish right was deeply anti-democratic, but the Spanish left wasn't dedicated to it either.

And while the claim that is sometimes made that moral decay in Weimar Germany lead directly to the rise of the Nazis isn't really correct, there's a slight element of truth to that, albeit it's only a piece of a much larger pie.  The Communists of the late 19th Century and early 20th Century were absolute in supporting the libertine.  Marx's dictum that "all wives shall be held in common" was a Communist position, and many early Communists expressed that in their personal lives flagrantly.  Whitaker Chambers notes in Witness than he and his wife became exceptions over time, starting at the point at which she became pregnant, as the expectation was that she'd abort the child, the Communist norm.

It isn't that the Socialist government of Weimar Germany made the country a moral sewer, but it is the case that following the First World War some urban areas of Germany did experience a notable moral decay, if a person can recognize one, that did repel some conservative Germans.  It was not the case that this was a major factor in the Nazis coming to power, but rather just one more thing.

Pre war Naiz poster, swastika removed, showing Hitler being chummy with German children, and therefore appealing to traditional values.  In reality, of course, Hitler never had any children of his own and shacked up with the fairly pathetic Eva Braun until right at the end of the war, marrying her only then.  He wasn't a family values kind of guy, but appealing to traditional Western European values made him seem attractive to some scared elements of German society. . . much the way serial polygamist and generally icky Donald Trump appeals to many legitimately scared Americans now.

And hence why I note it here.  On the right, there's a definite fascination right now with finding a vehicle to return to existential conservative values.  In the more thoughtful camps, this is being expressed in terms of Christian Nationalism. Some are just expressing it in terms of traditional conservatism.  But the populist right is really picking it up as people are shocked by the rapid change in this area and know it to be wrong without thinking deeply on it.  People turned to Trump in the first place, as he basically promised to burn the entire edifice down.

He's promising that again.

Yes, personally he may be morally bankrupt, but then Hitler wasn't a choir boy either.  People, in desperation, will turn to those who seem to be able to get things done.  And in doing that, they'll adopt the conspiracy theories that explain how something so weird could happen.

The left closing a blind eye to the really disturbing events going on here is feeding the right.  It's a rare person who can closely cut between two extremes and not fall into one.  People are being pushed into one here.

And the really mentally ill are being left behind.

This is the second time in recent decades we have done this.  Earlier we decided that people with mental illness, often caused by drugs or alcohol, would be happier if not detained. So we set them out on the streets, where they likely descend further into drugs and alcohol.  Compulsions in this are too can be massively overwhelming.  St. Matt Talbott found that in order to overcome alcoholism he actually had to take routes that avoided taverns, lest he fall into them.

In other words, he put up his own guardrails.

In the area we are referencing here, profound sexual deviance, that's also the case.  Prior to the aftershocks of the Stonewall Riot era, most homosexuals lead pretty normal lives, even if they engaged in the conduct.  The societal guardrails, of which the legal recognition of some of the natural law in the form of laws pertaining to families, men and women, were part of that.  Once that started getting taken down, it left those with pulls, often developed pulls, in other directions to try to stay on the road by themselves.  

Drinking is one thing.  Alcohol is a poison and while the species is long acclimated to it, it's an acquired taste of some degree.  But the biological imperative to reproduce, no matter how much moderns may wish to frustrate it, is wired into us.  The overwhelming majority of human beings will not fall into deviance, but in every society up until this very one, the societal laws, if not the statutory ones, operated to affect guardrails.  Even those people who like to note "but the ancient Greeks" blind their eye to hte fact that no less of a a figure than Plate railed against homosexuality.

Homosexuality, of course, is just one of the deviations, and in contemporary terms it's nearly a garden variety one.  All sorts of other plagues exist in this area, from people addicted to pornography to people who engage in serials conventional affairs. Indeed, the last item is the oldest of the deviations of them all, and probably the one that gets more people killed, even now, than any other.  

Some years ago, on a Catholic Things You Should Know, Fr. Michael O'Loughlin noted being in a group of friends, who were secular friends, in which one of them noted longingly that he wished he could go back and look at women the way he had before he had knowledge, to put it delicately.  There's more than a little to that.  Indeed, it's worth noting how many long married men remarry, and always have, very rapidly after a spouse dies.  It's likely a certain acclimation has something to do with that.  And its been noted that in our modern society, where the rules about monogamy and chastity have broken down, it's become harder for those with serial "partners' to really form a bond.  Indeed, according to psychologist, after men have had eight such partners, their chances of delving down into the below 18 ranks for more dramatically increase.

And the long example of pornography should warn us.  The entire culture is pornofied, but some descend into various types of mental illness due it.  Raasch likely has, although we can't know for sure what caused him to take the deviation that he did.  

But simply asserting that everyone has to accept it as normal makes no more sense than pretnding alcoholism is normal. 

Or, pretending pedophilia is normal.

But the logic is there.  If cutting off your member and having a fake vagina, and taking drugs to affect the appearance of a woman is normal, then pedophilia, which requires a lot less than that, must be too.

But it isn't.  Neither is transgenderism. 

Monday, October 3, 2022

Something in the wind, part 3 of 3. The rise of the radical populist right. Getting what you wish for.

Part Three of this series is brought to you by Giogia Meloni and Clarence Thomas.

Meloni and Thomas.1

Thomas?

Yes, we'll explain down below, sooner or later.

In the first two parts of this three part series, I've looked at the election of Giorgia Meloni and the reasons for her rise. In the last episode, we tried to sum up the source of her popularity, and how that relates to a now, semi-fawning, American far right.  Italy has now gone down this path.  Others, now more than ever, are urging the United States to do the same.

Which bring up the dread Law of Unintended Consequences.

All of us probably heard our mothers, or somebody, give us the warning "Be careful what you wish for, lest it come true!"  Probably, few stop to realize that this warning was delivered by non-other than Aesop as far back as 260BC.  His sage advice has hung around for a good reason.  The danger of getting something more than you asked for, in terms of secondary effects, is always pretty high.  Nobody tends to think much about that, however.

Far right admirers of Meloni, or Orban for that matter, are disgusted with the "woke" drift of American progressivism and goals that it has, some of which have been quite successful, which seem to offer promise to countering that.  These folks, in many instances, are horrified by progressive efforts that seek to remodel every institution of society and even our basic natures, if they can, and they likely really cannot, which doesn't mean that they can't do a lot of damage in the effort.

But others, and indeed most, of the Americans who are on the Trump train are on it only for one or two reasons.  Some are there for economic reasons, upset by the export of American jobs overseas for decades and a rising tide of immigrants.  Others are horrified by the seeming triumph of the woke and the redefinition of marriage.  Probably most have a vague sense that this ain't the way things ought to be.2

And I agree.

This ain't the way things ought to be.

But, I'm a dreaded intellectual Catholic, the very sort of people that the founders of this Great Nation abhorred and dreaded, and which many in the culture still do. 

Some feel that this era has passed, and such distinctions no longer matter, but I wonder, and I'm not the only one.  Ross Douthat, regarding current American Conservatism, has posted the following on his Twitter account within the last few days.

Current American conservatism: a low-church nondenominational Protestant mass movement trying to exert influence via intellectual Catholics strategically placed inside hollowed-out/secularized institutions of high-church denominational Protestantism.

If you dig deeper into this, you'll find that folks like Douthat, and Catholic intellectual circles, are concerned that ultimately they are there to be used, but when the time comes, they'll be dumped.

Now this may be surprising in an era when the real intellectuals on the Supreme Court, for example, are all Catholics.  All of them.  And its no surprise that this is the case.  By their training, both in their Catechism, and in their profession, they have to be, and were probably always inclined in that direction.  It used to be, however, that this was also true of others of different backgrounds, and while saying it is definitely dangerous, as it can be so easily misunderstood, it's still true of observant Jewish individuals, such as the recently departed Justice Ginsberg, which is part of the reason she was so widely, and justifiably, admired.  

It's getting pretty hard, however, to find serious intellects of the same type who are coming out of what's become of mainstream American conservatism.  Yes, they are there, to be sure.  Mitch McConnell is one, no matter what you think of him.  He's a Baptist. John Hickenlooper is a Quaker. Ben Sasse is a Presbyterian who was once a Lutheran.  And I don't mean to suggest a person has to be Catholic, or even religious, to be a heavyweight intellect by any means.

Rather, what I'm suggesting is this.

A lot of those in the Trump populist right are basically adherents to a sort of intellectualism lite, and often participants in the American Civil Religion, which claims Protestant Christianity as its foundation, but which advances it in a very lenient fashion, omitting, in its current form, darned near all of the New Testament list of behaviors between male and female, and indeed between male and male, and female and female, of a certain category, that were listed as sinful.3

So again, if we're turning the clock back, as Chesterton says we can, who will be comfortable with that and who won't?

Let's get back to voting and what you get, in the end.

In the German elections of the early 1930s, some people really did want to elect a radical racist party into power that would kill the Jews and hopefully, in their line of thinking, punish the French and wipe out the Bosheveks whereever they could be found.

But most voters who went to the polls probably didn't really have sending their sons to freeze to death at Stalingrad or being asked to put a bullet into a rabbi's head, or crush the skull of a Jewish infant in with a rifle butt, in mind at the time.

Observant German Lutherans, over half the county's religious community, didn't imagine that they'd have to fight off an attempt to consolidate them into a state approved variant of their faith.  German Catholics didn't imagine they'd be hiding impaired children from thinly disguised euthanasia programs.

Italians, in the 1920s, didn't imagine, for that matter, that some twenty years later they'd be sending their sons to fight one of the best armies in the world in North Africa, and others to fight the Red Army in the East.

Benito Mussolini.  He was the authority.  All you would have to do to verify this would have been to ask him. . .

Oh, I know, some will read this (among the few who do) and dismiss it as wild hyperbole.  And, for that matter, I'm not saying that anyone is going to be freezing in a few years on the Volga.

What I am saying is that a lot of right wing populist truly talk the talk, but don't really walk the walk, and probably don't want to either.

I'm also saying it's hard, when you go shopping for really radical political movements, to buy just part of the pie.  I.e, it's hard to say "I'll have a think slice of immigration reform please" and not get "here's your populist pie, including a complete set of family values you aren't following. . . "

Which takes us back to Clarence Thomas and more particularly his dissent in Dobbs.

Now, the Dobbs decision is 213 pages long in the original reporter, and we can't expect everyone to have read it.  I haven't read it all, either. But Dobbs, we know, got the abortion topic right.  Roe v. Wade, as most constitutional scholars long ago admitted, just made stuff up that wasn't in the Constitution, and it had long prior become completely unworkable.  Dobbs just sent things back to the states, where they belonged in the first place.

The Dobbs majority was quick to point out, in the text, that it was in no way shape or form seeking to expand the holding in Dobbs beyond the opinion itself, and it in particular it was no threat to Obergefell.

Well, baloney.

That's the same thing Justice Kennedy said in Obergefell. At the time that decision was handed down, the Court indicated it wouldn't expand into anything else, and those advancing the cause that prevailed in Obergefell likewise promised they had nothing else on the agenda.  Obergefell was, as noted, in our opinion on it at the time, a judicial coup, one preceding the attempted January 6, 2021, coup, and one basically fed into the other.

Kennedy was wrong in his declaration, and those 

I write separately to emphasize a second, more fundamental reason why there is no abortion guarantee lurking in the Due Process Clause. Considerable historical evidence indicates that “due process of law” merely required executive and judicial actors to comply with legislative enactments and the common law when depriving a person of life, liberty, or property. See, e.g., Johnson v. United States, 576 U. S. 591, 623 (2015) (THOMAS, J., concurring in judgment). Other sources, by contrast, suggest that “due process of law” prohibited legislatures “from authorizing the deprivation of a person’s life, liberty, or property without providing him the customary procedures to which freemen were entitled by the old law of England.” United States v. Vaello Madero, 596 U. S. ___, ____ (2022) (THOMAS, J., concurring) (slip op., at 3) (internal quotation marks omitted). Either way, the Due Process Clause at most guarantees process. It does not, as the Court’s substantive due process cases suppose, “forbi[d] the government to infringe certain ‘fundamental’ liberty interests at all, no matter what process is provided.” Reno v. Flores, 507 U. S. 292, 302 (1993); see also, e.g., Collins v. Harker Heights, 503 U. S. 115, 125 (1992).

As I have previously explained, “substantive due process” is an oxymoron that “lack[s] any basis in the Constitution.” Johnson, 576 U. S., at 607–608 (opinion of THOMAS, J.); see also, e.g., Vaello Madero, 596 U. S., at ___ (THOMAS, J., concurring) (slip op., at 3) (“[T]ext and history provide little support for modern substantive due process doctrine”). “The notion that a constitutional provision that guarantees only ‘process’ before a person is deprived of life, liberty, or property could define the substance of those rights strains credulity for even the most casual user of words.” McDonald v. Chicago, 561 U. S. 742, 811 (2010) (THOMAS, J., concurring in part and concurring in judgment); see also United States v. Carlton, 512 U. S. 26, 40 (1994) (Scalia, J., concurring in judgment). The resolution of this case is thus straightforward. Because the Due Process Clause does not secure any substantive rights, it does not secure a right to abortion. 

The Court today declines to disturb substantive due process jurisprudence generally or the doctrine’s application in other, specific contexts. Cases like Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U. S. 479 (1965) (right of married persons to obtain contraceptives)*; Lawrence v. Texas, 539 U. S. 558 (2003) (right to engage in private, consensual sexual acts); and Obergefell v. Hodges, 576 U. S. 644 (2015) (right to same-sex marriage), are not at issue. The Court’s abortion cases are unique, see ante, at 31–32, 66, 71–72, and no party has asked us to decide “whether our entire Fourteenth Amendment jurisprudence must be preserved or revised,” McDonald, 561 U. S., at 813 (opinion of THOMAS, J.). Thus, I agree that “[n]othing in [the Court’s] opinion should be understood to cast doubt on precedents that do not concern abortion.” Ante, at 66.

For that reason, in future cases, we should reconsider all of this Court’s substantive due process precedents, including Griswold, Lawrence, and Obergefell. Because any substantive due process decision is “demonstrably erroneous,” Ramos v. Louisiana, 590 U. S. ___, ___ (2020) (THOMAS, J., concurring in judgment) (slip op., at 7), we have a duty to “correct the error” established in those precedents, Gamble v. United States, 587 U. S. ___, ___ (2019) (THOMAS, J., concurring) (slip op., at 9). After overruling these demonstrably erroneous decisions, the question would remain whether other constitutional provisions guarantee the myriad rights that our substantive due process cases have generated. For example, we could consider whether any of the rights announced in this Court’s substantive due process cases are “privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States” protected by the Fourteenth Amendment. Amdt.  14, §1; see McDonald, 561 U. S., at 806 (opinion of THOMAS, J.). To answer that question, we would need to decide important antecedent questions, including whether the Privileges or Immunities Clause protects any rights that are not enumerated in the Constitution and, if so, how to identify those rights. See id., at 854. That said, even if the Clause does protect unenumerated rights, the Court conclusively demonstrates that abortion is not one of them under any plausible interpretive approach. See ante, at 15, n. 22. 

You get the point.4 

So here's the deal.  Thomas would strike down an entire series of substantive due process cases.  And indeed, his logic on this is infallible.  He's correct.5

And that's why I wonder, quite frankly, if rank and file populists have thought this out.

Once you board the logic train, you have to go where it goes.  It's like going on a transcontinental railroad trip. 

Once you board the logic train, you have to go where it takes you and you can't get off early.  It's like going on a transcontinental railroad trip.  You buy your ticket, and you can't pretend the train doesn't run all the way across the country and just stops, and turns around, in Denver.  You'll go through Denver. . . but the train will keep going.

The string of cases that Thomas mentions are in fact in peril now, and they likely also ought to be.  But Thomas didn't mention Loving v. Virginia.  Now, I think Loving v. Virginia can still be defended, and it undoubtedly can be on Natural Law grounds.

Loving v. Virginia was, you will recall, the case that determined that states couldn't ban interracial marriages.

Now most people, and certainly any decent people, would find that concept horrific.  Of course states can't ban interracial marriages. But they did, in some instances, up until that time.  It was Loving v. Virginia that struck that down.  Not too many people want to go back to that.

As critics of Dobbs have mentioned, as the state's can and have litigated in all of the areas that Thomas mentions, it's odd, sort of, that he omitted this one.  Well maybe not.  There's another way to address this case too, but it's still worth noting that this is the one area that would personally impact Thomas in a very direct way, and which is contrary to his personal worldview.

At the Wyoming State Bar convention, this came up during a speech by a constitutional scholar who also publishes in the Tribune. At some point during the speech, I don't know where, Harriet Hageman left the room, and she was apparently pretty disgruntled with what the speaker was saying, although I don't know that it was this. An email that circulated among Wyoming State Bar members later claimed that Hageman "heckled" the speaker, and the speaker perceived it that way, although many people disagreed with that characterization.  If nothing else, this all goes to show how uncomfortable people on the far populist right are with where this all leads.

The backdoor out of this is, as noted, Natural Law, but most populist really don't want to go there either.  

Natural Law has come up in American law repeatedly over the centuries, although now it is official eschewed. At one time it was not.  We've dealt with both of those themes here before, with the most interesting example of it being the case The Antelope, which we've written about at least twice.  That was the case in which the United States Supreme Court decided that slavery was contrary to the natural law, but allowable under the law of the United States as countries could legislate contrary to the natural law, to wit:

Now, if somebody is wondering how this gets us out of this mess, it doesn't.  Under the holding in The Antelope, outlawing anything not mentioned in the Constitution, no matter how shocking, would be okay.

But following this, on more than one occasion, the Court referenced Natural Law in order to support a decision. At least as recently as the 1980s, the Court found that laws addressing homosexual conduction were allowable, as homosexuality was contrary to the Natural Law.  A Wyoming jurist found that laws banning adoption by homosexual couples were allowable for the same reason, and more recently than that.

Now, some are going to find that really shocking as well, but once again, if we're on the populist train, this is where that goes, and frankly most of those on the hard populist right, are okay with this.  I.e., that would cure the Loving v. Virginia problem, as banning marriage between heterosexual couples based on race is contrary to the Natural Law.

But the ancient law of humanity also tried to make sure that the same impulses that gave rise to marriage assured them.  Hence, the creation of the Common Law's common law marriage.  How many on the Trump train want to return to the days of the Heart Balm Statutes?

My guess is not many, and certainly not Trump himself, who is a serial polygamist.  

Now, I'm not here to judge people's morals by any means.  But this is a topic worth considering.  In the current political world we live in, we have a Senator who is divorced and remarried and at least one extremely right wing politician entering the legislature has a wife who was married before as well.  You can be guaranteed that some of those now running have openly lived lives involving cohabitation outside of marriage, as it is so common.  Are people really comfortable with a return to the old law on all of this?

Well, sincere Catholics, like me, might be. But this is a Protestant nation.  Here in town, there's a huge Protestant church that I think is "non-denominational" (I'm not completely certain).  Somebody I know who attends it is on their third marriage.  In the American Civil Religion, that seemingly doesn't cause problems, and I don't doubt that person's sincerity in attending.  But in American law, prior to the post World War Two Supreme Court trip that Justice Thomas complained, of, it would have.

Do people have this in mind?

Looking around, I really doubt it.  People seem to believe that the Constitution applies only to other people, not to themselves, or worse yet, they have a false belief about what the history of our laws and the Constitutional law really is.  In reality, at one time marriage was solely the province of the states, and they could allow or ban whatever they chose.  Restricting firearm carrying was pretty common, and the concept of "open carry" around town nonexistent.  Prohibiting members of certain races from certain neighborhoods through restrictive covenants completely allowable and in fact the norm.  The only way around that is the Natural Law, but the Natural Law brings in concerns that most Americans aren't really prepared to deal with, even remotely.

And if you are dabbling with concepts of Natural Law, you sooner or later are going to stray into concepts of Subsidiarity and the like.  Those concepts make most Americans squirm in their seats, at least if they aren't of the left.  Vest the economy entirely downwards, accept a lower standard of living for the middle class and the wealthy in favor of vesting the economy in families and elevating the poor.  Nobody too rich, and nobody too wealthy.  An economy that favors sustainability forever over one that does not.

Chesterton would have been comfortable with all of that.

Jefferson might have been.

Giorgia Meloni is probably comfortable with all of that.

Most Americans now. . . definately not.

Footnotes:

1.  Okay, Meloni's photo here, taken from a Reel, is unfair.  She's an effective speaker and clearly highly intelligent, as is Thomas.  This illustrates, however, how Italian politics isn't American politics, gushing from Ted Cruz and Marjorie Taylor Greene aside.  Meloni is an intellectual, if perhaps a somewhat scary one, compared to Cruz and Greene, and Thomas is definately an intellectual.  Greene and Cruz certainly dont' seem to be, and frankly some or perhaps a lot of their positions wouldn't square with either Meloni's or Thomas'

Added to that, Meloni is a politician in a  unique Italian environment where things are done, said, or portrayed that definately would never be here.

2.  This is the source, I think, of the lot of election discontent.

It's also the source of a lot of election denialism. The thought is that "people can't have really voted for Biden, as people can't really be for. . . ".  In another form, which isn't the same, its "votes for Biden can't count, as what he stands for is vile, and therefore. . . "

Almost lost in all of this is the fact that Trump lost the popular vote twice.  His first election was only legitimate, and it was legitimate, due to the artifact of the electoral college.  Of course, this causes people to unthinkingly babble "we aren't a democracy" (we are) "but a republic".  I've addressed that elsewhere, but using that as an argument shows that the person advancing a point is largley ignorant of what they're trying to advance.

3.  It might be worth noting here that fully 1/3d of American Evangelical Protestants believe the United States Constitution, which never mentions God, was inspired by God.  The newly appointed interim Wyoming Secretary of State has publicly taken this position in his campaign material.

For reasons that are partially addresssed in this essay, that's a fairly startling and scary proposition.  Traditional Christianity holds that inspired texts cease with the end of the Apostolic Age, at which point there were no more general revalations.

4. It should be noted, and will be later in the text, that even if Thomas' logic is correct on the cases he mentions, he's only commenting in regard to procedural due process. For that reason, his comments have been read to probably mean more than they should be.

I'll address Loving v. Virginia below, but Griswald v. Connecticut is another such example.  Even if Thomas' criticism of the case in a procedural due process context are correct, it doesn't address Federal Supremacy might mean that the Federal Government has completlely dominated the field here to the detriment of indivdual states through the laws pertaining to pharmacueticals.

5.  But see footnote 4.

Prior Related Threads:

Something in the wind, part 1 of 3. The rise of the radical populist right. A second look at the Italian election. . . and a bunch of other stuff.


Something in the wind, part 2 of 3. The rise of the radical populist right. A second look at the Italian election. . . and a bunch of other stuff.