Replies

Do you know of any country, in all of recorded history, that resticted its laws to malum in se?

paulsen wrote:

Do you know of any country, in all of recorded history, that resticted its laws to malum in se?

In western civilization, from the beginning of time, there have been only two kinds of HUMAN WRONGS:

MALUM IN SE, from Latin, for wrong in and of itself and MALUM PROHIBITUM, also from Latin, meaning, wrong because society says it's wrong.

We don't need laws to tell us that it is wrong to murder, steal or repudiate an oath to God. Theft, murder and violating a sworn oath to God are MALUM IN SE, whether we have laws against those offenses or not.
All other wrongs, from failure to acquire a building permit to bribery, are wrong because we, society, via our law-makers, have labeled certain acts to be against public policy.

The United States is a codified republic inasmuch as nothing is against the law unless there is a law specifically saying so.
Just like our HUMAN RIGHTS, the basis for all MALUM PROHIBITUM laws is found in the Constitution. The prohibited conduct and the conditions for declaring acts to be against-the-law are spelled out in a constitution, be it federal or state. All provisions, both RIGHTS and wrongs mentioned in a constitution, must be adhered to as a constitution is the supreme law and can only be changed by procedures outlined in its [the constitution's] own text.

When this country was established there were procedures made for writing other rules, orders and laws. These additional laws included STATUTES written by federal and state governments and ORDINANCES enacted by lesser government entities. All rules, orders and laws must CONFORM to -- not violate -- any portion of the U.S. Constitution.
There was no provision then, and there is no provision now, to permit the President, the Senate, Congress or any judge to change -- VIOLATE -- any portion of the Constitution of The United States of America.

EVOLUTION_OR_RIGHTS_AND_WRONGS_IN_AMERICA
Address:http://www.chuckkleinauthor.com/evolution_of_rights.html Changed:1:06 PM on Friday, October 14, 2005

No. Did I ever claim there ever was such a country or imply that the law should only punish malum in se crimes?

I was merely pointing out the (gaping) flaw in the all too commonly trotted out "Why not legalize murder" arguement that someone always seems to throw out on these threads.