Law doesn't "govern lawlessness." On my view, that term is so abstract that it conveys little concrete meaning.
Every law (or nearly so), beyond it's original canon, is written in reaction to some nefarious deed, or trend. That action (or rather, reaction) is in fact what governance is. A good and moral people have little need of governance, and therefore have few laws above them. I would submit that the goodness (lawfulness) of a people can be directly correlated to the lack of burdensome law within their society.
[...] Rather, law imposes penalties on behaviors that are unacceptable/intolerable to society as defined by legislatures expressing and acting on behalf of the public interest. The emphasis is on behaviors.
A correct definition on measure, though I would submit that the emphasis is on deterrence. Efficacy may have little to do with it. Behavior modification reeks of punishment, which is not the idea, or is not meant to be the idea.
Evidently you believe that the mere existence of the penalty will have a profound behavior-modification effect [...]
Within limits, yes, I do. To counter your temperance argument, I need only point to the huge spike in abortions the very moment abortion was made legal. There is no doubt in my mind that legalization has a legitimizing effect.
Whatever "moral issue" was involved here, the mere existence of law couldn't touch it. You can prohibit something all day long, but if the people want it, they will get it. And don't fool yourself about that!
Whatever I may desire, legal or otherwise, is at my fingertips- A temptation more certain for me, perhaps, than for most others... It is both a pleasure and a curse, and a product of my brilliantly misspent yoot. I know perfectly well how easy it is to obtain things on the street, even though I now elect to abide (mostly) within the confines of the law.
Even so, and especially when addictions are removed from the argument, most people do tend to stay within the confines of the law, and that which is made "legal" is given some weight of moral credence, even when it is truly immoral in value. Most of the ailments from which our nation suffers are directly related to "relative morality" or "moral equivalence" finding the weight of some supposed virtue by way of "legality" through the courts, chief among them, of course, the ability to take life without just cause.
Now, through this moral relativism and it's fulcrum, called multiculturalism, we now have an ever burgeoning body of law to define limitations to liberty which were once without need, being a good and gentle people, instead of the people of lawlessness we have become. In striving to write these strange ethics into law, instead of relying on the Judeo-Christian ethic of our birth, we sully ourselves and ruin all that we once called freedom.
As I said. It is just a matter of whose morality one legislates. there is no such thing as a moral vacuum. Amorality is nothing more than a theoretical construct, a word to define a concept, impossible to effect IRL.
I do fully understand your references to Skinner, BTW, and I do not want to make light of your point. There is a point to be made there, of course; but considering my already overly loquacious missive, I will leave it for another day. Suffice it to say that good law is not effected by pleasure or pain, as per Skinner, but by the higher sense of reason. Those who are lawless are merely deterred, be it by fines and penalties to appeal to reason, or by incarceration (or worse) to remove the felon from the order of society.
Of course the federal government cannot grant itself power over life or anything else. It has a charter to execute which it received directly from the sovereign People; nothing more, nothing less — and it is a charter that is supremely devoted to the defense of the life, liberty, and property of the people. All the powers that the federal government has ultimately are grants from the people. (And the people live in the several states.)
Agreed. Perfectly said.
So we can say we understand the federal obligation to defend Life while noting that the federal government is acting as if it did not recognize its obligation. TO US.
YES! This is the point in fact! My question to you then, would be this: In what way was it proper for the federal government, in the light of it's obligation, to have ever allowed any state to legalize abortion in the first place? Herein lies the basis of my argument, and if I am not mistaken, that of my good FRiend EternalVigilance, as well.
I do not believe that justice will be restored unto this nation until Congress, assembled, renews that obligation before the People, and before God, as is proper, and as is their solemn, sworn duty. How they do that does not concern me, but that they do, with all due haste and good effect, is of paramount necessity. We are a nation of laws, and only the law can put the issue of Life beyond it's own reach, where it belongs.
It has certainly been a pleasure speaking with you, betty boop! I have a feeling I would enjoy your company so much more; a back porch, some sweet tea, and deep conversations being more to my liking, where I am less inconvenienced by these accursed thumbs of mine (all 10 of them)! :D
Have a great day.
America always has the Congress it deserves.. Congress always matches the morality of the people.. If the people are good, Congress is good, if the people are corrupt then Congress is corrupt.. If machine politics chooses Congress the people don't approve of Congress.. but deserve it anyway because they didn't revolt.. being corrupt cowards..
In what sense did the federal government "allow" states to legalize abortion? It seems to me the federal government "forced" the states to legalize abortion.
Prior to Roe v. Wade, IIRC, abortion was illegal in the state of New York and in most of the other states as well. Roe v. Wade overturned all state laws that penalized abortion. It was the federal government, via SCOTUS, that made abortion legal — in states that had formerly prohibited it.
The point is the states had the better judgment of this issue than the SCOTUS did. But all state objections to the abominable practice of abortion were silenced by Roe v. Wade. The justices supplanted their own "wisdom" for that of the people of the several states acting through their state legislatures, and gave it the effect of a universal law. The states are helpless to do anything about it.
Roe v. Wade was an act of judicial tyranny pure and simple, a usurpation of power that diminishes the natural rights of the people now living — not to mention their posterity.
At least, that's how I assess this issue, FWIW.
Honestly roamer_1, I really don't see that you and I fundamentally disagree WRT the abortion issue. But then, maybe I'm still missing something. In any case, it's a delight to converse with you. You're a fine, eloquent writer!
Thank you so much for your excellent essay/post!