Posted on 04/06/2022 8:35:52 AM PDT by Kaslin
In a written response she presented to the Senate Judiciary Committee, Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson put herself at odds with a 2,000-year-old understanding of the nature of the law and the foundation of human rights.
A half-century before Christ was born, the Roman senator Cicero plainly explained the foundation of a just law.
"There is a true law, a right reason, conformable to nature, universal, unchangeable, eternal, whose commandments urge us to duty, and whose prohibitions restrain us from evil," he said.
"It is not one thing at Rome and another at Athens; one thing today and another tomorrow; but in all times and nations this universal law must for ever reign, eternal and imperishable," he said.
"It is the sovereign master and emperor of all beings," said this great Roman statesman. "God himself is its author, its promulgator, its enforcer. He who obeys it not, flies from himself, and does violence to the very nature of man."
Almost 1,900 years later, Thomas Jefferson, the primary author of the Declaration of Independence, sent a letter to Henry Lee, citing Cicero as one of the inspirations for that document.
"This was the object of the Declaration of Independence," Jefferson wrote Lee in 1825, "not to find out new principles, or new arguments, never before thought of, not merely to say things which had never been said before; but to place before mankind the common sense of the subject."
"All it's authority rests then on the harmonizing sentiments of the day," Jefferson said, "whether expressed in conversations, in letters, printed essays or in the elementary books of public right, as Aristotle, Cicero, Locke, Sidney, etc."
How exactly did the 18th-century American Declaration of Independence echo the pre-Christian declarations of Cicero? Both are based on the correct belief that, as Cicero put it, there "is a true law, a right reason, conformable to nature, universal, unchangeable, eternal" and that "God himself is its author, its promulgator, its enforcer."
In the Declaration, Jefferson invoked "the Laws of Nature and Nature's God" and noted that "all men" have "unalienable rights."
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness," says the Declaration.
Unfortunately, for much of its history, the United States violated this principle, first by allowing slavery to persist and then by allowing segregation.
In 1963, when he was unjustly locked in the Birmingham jail for peacefully protesting segregation, the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. explained why segregation was an un-American system of unjust laws.
"One may well ask: 'How can you advocate breaking some laws and obeying others?'" King said. "The answer lies in the fact that there are two types of laws: just and unjust. I would be the first to advocate obeying just laws. One has not only a legal but a moral responsibility to obey just laws. Conversely, one has a moral responsibility to disobey unjust laws. I would agree with St. Augustine that 'an unjust law is no law at all.'
"Now, what is the difference between the two? How does one determine whether a law is just or unjust?" King wrote. "A just law is a man made code that squares with the moral law or the law of God. An unjust law is a code that is out of harmony with the moral law. To put it in the terms of St. Thomas Aquinas: An unjust law is a human law that is not rooted in eternal law and natural law."
King then called for America to live up to the fundamental principles enshrined in the Declaration and the Constitution.
"One day the South will know that when these disinherited children of God sat down at lunch counters, they were in reality standing up for what is best in the American dream and for the most sacred values in our Judaeo Christian heritage," he said, "thereby bringing our nation back to those great wells of democracy which were dug deep by the founding fathers in their formulation of the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence."
The Founding Fathers, as noted, said in the Declaration that "all men are created equal" and "endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights" including "Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."
A set of written questions that Republican Sen. Ted Cruz of Texas (for whom this writer's daughter works) submitted to Jackson during her confirmation hearings asked the following: "Please explain, in your own words, the theory prevalent among members of the Founding Fathers' generation that humans possess natural rights that are inherent or inalienable."
Jackson responded: "The theory that humans possess inherent or inalienable rights is reflected in the Declaration of Independence, which states: 'We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness."
The very next written question asked Jackson: "Do you hold a position on whether individuals possess natural rights, yes or no?"
Jackson responded: "I do not hold a position on whether individuals possess natural rights."
So, she does not agree with the foundational principal of the Declaration of Independence?
Cicero, the Founding Fathers and King clearly had a different view.
So she must be ok with bringing back slavery if she doesn’t hold the position that we have natural rights? She didn’t even answer the first question Cruz asked but quoted the phrase in the Declaration of Independence. She is NOT qualified! She needs a few more classes on this country and our freedoms.
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."
Ketanji Brown doesn't know what a woman is and doesn't know what the Declaration of Independence is, which makes her a perfect Democrat but out of consideration as a traffic court judge, much less a Supreme Court justice.
Why do these people, even on our side, insist on taking Late 18th to Mid 19th Century situations and dropping them into 21st Century value systems?
I find this irritating.
Slavery pre-existed before the United States was born. The US wasn't born in a vacuum. It was born in an imperfect crucible which could not be perfected at the time of the founding. It took time, hundreds of thousands of lives, and millions of people being treated unfairly, but the US was never intended to be a static entity, nor could it be. I have no doubt that future generations will look back on us in horror for this or that wrong or injustice.
Does that mean we should stop the train of improvement or development because we have never been, have not, and will never be "perfect"?
Utopia is a Leftist concept that when paid lip services to, only damages ourselves, and strengthens and emboldens our enemies.
It really bothers me to see it. I think there is too much of that at TownHall, and is why I stopped reading there regularly years ago, and only view it when it gets posted here.
Always push the “RACE BS” instead of the FACTS!
I didn't read it as a slam against the country being founded in the 18th century and not having 21st century values. I read it as the author's attempt to segue from Jefferson's era to MLK's era and show how the principles the country was founded on can be used to solve problems even centuries later.
Why do these people, even on our side, insist on taking Late 18th to Mid 19th Century situations and dropping them into 21st Century value systems?
I find this irritating.
“I do not hold a position on whether individuals possess natural rights.”
/\
ALL YOU NEED TO HEAR
Our whole Republic is founded on inalienable rights.
Notice she refuses to use the word inalienable
She believes we have no rights that cannot be revoked.
This is the Republic kill shot
And she is the assassin.
How can she defend the constitution, which is the sole job if the Supreme Court, is she won’t even acknowledge the plain text of our founding documents.
This IS the hill to die on.
defend the constitution, which is the sole job OF the Supreme Court,
Don’t be distracted by the dead irrelevant slavery red herring.
She refuses to endorse inalienable rights,
The foundatiin of our Republic.
Don’t forget about branDUHn reminding us those rights aren’t absolute.
Jackson doesn’t answer questions because it is a taunt to the Republicans. “I’m in and there is nothing you can do about it and I don’t have to answer your questions, cracker!!”
Without the Declaration the Constitution is invalid.
Exactly right.
Sheâs sending a message: sheâs willing to do ANYTHING to advance the revolution. And you canât stop her. Her âbadâ answers are deliberate.
Sadly nothing matters because the Pedo-wing of the Republican Senate will still vote for her.
Questions for the Record for Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson
https://www.judiciary.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/Judge%20Ketanji%20Brown%20Jackson%20Written%20Responses%20to%20Questions%20for%20the%20Record.pdf See 79 of 330
Sorry, but it says page not found.
How can she defend the Constitution that was already killed by ALL of our elected AND appointed on Usurpation Day?
In her defense many say that ânatural rightsâ are a religious and not a legal principle. However, the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights says, âthe inherent dignity and of the equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family is the foundation of freedom, justice and peace in the worldâ. The Soviet Union ensured any taint of religion was removed before the document was adopted.
There were many people at the founding of the country who thought slavery to be morally wrong. But, it wouldn't have been possible to get a Constitution approved, and the nation established if slavery was prohibited from the outset. Still, it was a high priority to end the practice, even in the 18th century. The founding fathers knew it was going to be a contentious issue, and it was.
What always concerns me about the people who try to hang the curse of slavery around the neck of the founding fathers, is that they ignore the efforts of so many to end it. The process to end slavery was initiated by the founding fathers.
Leftists do not believe in natural law, and they hate its incorporation into the founding laws of this nation. Leftists would void the Constitution, ignoring unalienable rights, because they want the law to be whatever they declare it to be, and rights to be only what they allow them to be.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.