End of the Constitution? (Cal Thomas)

Jewish World Review ^ | 7/1/03 | Cal Thomas

[Arrowhead]

Get your history book out. There is a case in 1761 between John Otis, the defendent, and Jeremiah Gridley, the prosecutor for the British Crown and ironically Otis' tutor at Harvard Law School which involved an argument over the legality of what was called the writ-of-assistance. This writ was like a search warrant that could be used for more than what is intended; to search beyond the scope of what is actually being looked for or even where they could look.

While facing a panel of three judges-one of which was a nemesis throughout John Otis' life, Thomas Hutchinson-Otis argued a great oration based upon the arguments by one, Sir Edward Coke, who "challenged the King's power...calling judges to nullify any act that went against an Englishmen's common rights, or against reason,...or if it violated the English constitution."

Now dig this: According to A.J. Langguth, author of Patriots, he writes: But a newcomer to the law like Hutchinson, who had not poured over Coke's commentaries, accepted Gridley's version of more recent history. For Hutchinson, British's Glorious Revolution of 1688 had not only deposed James II, but left Parliament the empire's Supreme authority. The British constitution was now only and whatever Parliament said it was.

Does this not sound strangely familiar to what Cal is saying with regards to Kennedy only relying upon case law within the last 50 years to determine decisions; instead of relying upon the previous centuries of wisdom that travailed through the trial and error of one society to another?

What we have here folks is classic history repeating itself.

Oh, by the way, Otis won the case. Be mindful that this case is what set in motion pre-notions of declaring independence from the Brits.

Arrowhead>>>-----Kennedy-->