How did Hamilton create legal nightmares?
How many lawyers in Hamilton's day (or Lincoln's, for that matter) were NOT self taught, and had not gone to college?
Only 300 people in the US understand Jefferson's natural rights?
What have you got against Common Sense?

Was Hamilton a better thinker than Jefferson? In what areas? Jefferson was a very poor financial manager; Hamilton was a very good logistics and financial manager. Jefferson was a profligate spender in his private life, and was bankrupt when he died.

Why do you suppose that "People frequently challenge my thought on that in no uncertain terms"? It's OK to have unpopular opinions -- why do you need a poll to prove that 8% agree with you, and 6% do not, the rest not giving a rat's ass one way or the other?

Hamilton dropped out of college.

I did write something on that but it is 20,000 words and I am not allowed to share a link.

There were nothing like what we know of as law schools at the time of birth of our Great Republic. Harvard and William and Mary claim to have the oldest law schools (Litchfield does too), starting around the end of the 18th and beginning of the 19th century, but those claims seem to be based on something like the fact they had a person who was called a professor of some kind of law. In those days, aspiring lawyers would "read the law" by serving as interns, or apprentices, to practicing lawyers. One can still become a lawyer in this fashion in a few of the older jurisdictions. I think a 7 year period of "reading the law" is required. My opinion is that if someone wants to actually practice law "reading the law" is the best way to learn what it means to be a lawyer. So, typically, students at law schools will clerk for law firms part time if they want to get an idea of what they're getting into--or they should.

So I think it likely that Hamilton became a lawyer by "reading the law" as most did. How good of a lawyer he was I don't know really, but from what I understand he was generally successful though long-winded, unlike his nemesis Aaron Burr, who was succinct and on-point. They tried a few cases together.

Jefferson, of course, was a lawyer as well (we are a nation of lawyers, not men). Both were remarkable, highly intelligent men. Who was the better thinker? John Adams.

I created a poll to prove I am right. — ernestm

Truth is not democratic.

Not surprisingly,about one in a million understand — ernestm

As you clearly already know.

Ah, I get it now, you expect us all to disagree with you, thus proving you right. Right?

I generally do not like comparing people's intelligence as a whole, but like to compartmentalize it. Even then, it is usually just becomes "the guy I agree with more is better than the guy I do not like." For example, my intuition says Jefferson, but this is just my base perceptions of the two men. It has nothing to do with anything resembling the actual positions of the two men.

Hamilton dropped out of college. — ernestm

So? Bill Gates, Steve Jobs, Mark Zuckerberg and Oprah Winfrey dropped out of college too.

I did write something on that but it is 20,000 words and I am not allowed to share a link. — ernestm

The gods are merciful.

I quite liked Common Sense. The pamphlet by Thomas Paine, that is, not the everyday notion. I am very much opposed to the everyday notion of common sense.

Paine's idea of common sense is based on naive realism, which is a simple but rather limited epistemological system, and tends to lead to people holding beliefs as true without considering the limits of their own perception. For example, there is the conflict between pro-life and pro-choice positions. Both sides believe their views necessarily true by intuition, but have reached totally opposing conclusions.

There were nothing like what we know of as law schools at the time of birth of our Great Republic. Harvard and William and Mary claim to have the oldest law schools (Litchfield does too), starting around the end of the 18th and beginning of the 19th century, but those claims seem to be based on something like the fact they had a person who was called a professor of some kind of law. — Ciceronianus the White

Amateurs. Leiden University had its first university course in 1575 and Leuven probably before that. Tssk. Tssk. No wonder US law is such a morass, it's still 200 years behind continental Europe. :P

For example, there is the conflict between pro-life and pro-choice positions. Both sides believe their views necessarily true by intuition, but have reached totally opposing conclusions. — ernestm

I don't agree. From a legal perspective, the debate centers around the woman's right over her body versus the state's right to regulate. From a philosophical perspective, the debate most often centers around the concept of personhood and when the fetus gains inherent rights. Regardless, the abortion issue no more centers around intuition than any other issue.

not quite right. The debate is over the woman's right to liberty over her unborn child's right to life. The point is that each side can offer equally vaid answers based on common sense alone, but in the USA, if you understand Jefferson's natural rights, there is a very clear answer. Of course it does take a year's full time study to get even an approximate understanding of Jefferson's view, but as Franklin changed 'sacred and undeniable' to 'self evident,' everyone thinks their own self evident view is obviously better and morever, most are unaware there is any alternative to paine's naive realism. And thats my point.

Amateurs. Leiden University had its first university course in 1575 and Leuven probably before that. Tssk. Tssk. No wonder US law is such a morass, it's still 200 years behind continental Europe — Benkei

The School of Law at Bologna was founded in 1088, and is by my understanding the oldest in the Western world--one of the many great things brought into the world by Italy.

But if it wasn't for the New World, the sauce on the spaghetti would still be milk gravy.

not quite right. The debate is over the woman's right to liberty over her unborn child's right to life. — ernestm

Exactly wrong. Roe v. Wade held specifically that the unborn child was not a person: "All this, together with our observation, supra, that throughout the major portion of the 19th century prevailing legal abortion practices were far freer than they are today, persuades us that the word "person," as used in the Fourteenth Amendment, does not include the unborn."

That is, the unborn child is not a person and therefore has no rights at all.

As the Court stated with regard to third trimester abortions: "For the stage subsequent to viability, the State in promoting its interest in the potentiality of human life may, if it chooses, regulate, and even proscribe, abortion except where it is necessary, in appropriate medical judgment, for the preservation of the life or health of the mother."

That is, the State has the right to promote life in the third trimester by prohibiting abortion regardless of the wishes of the mother unless the mother's life or health is in jeopardy.

There are therefore two interests being weighed: (1) The mother's and (2) the State's. The fetus' rights are not weighed at all. The distinction is critical. If a particular state chose to allow 3rd trimester abortions to viable fetuses, it would not run afoul of the Constitution.

Not so. The decision was wrong, if you understand Jefferson's theory of natural rights. Right to life takes priority over right to liberty and pursuit of happiness. Therefore the child's rights must come first. Just because it is considered constitutionally legal does not mean it was the right decision. And that is why there is so much political conflict now. The courts have been politicized. Thankfully, as with the prohibition, these things have a way of working themselves out in the long term, and Heller will probably also be overturned eventually too.

The decision was wrong, if you understand Jefferson's theory of natural rights. — ernestm

The question being addressed was what the legal dispute centered around, not what you think it should center around. Your comment asserted what the debate was in fact over. My response was pointed out that it was in fact not.

Regardless, you current comment is incorrect for two reasons (at least). 1. The wrongness of Roe v. Wade is weighed by how correctly it interprets the Constitution, not by its fidelity to natural rights theory. It strikes me that you wish to impose natural law as some sacred rule of construction on the Constitution, and perhaps you even want to discard the text of the Constitution and simply infer what natural law might require. Regardless, that rule of construction is highly idiosyncratic (aka one you just sort of made up), and not one generally (aka not at all) accepted.

2. Natural law theory does not mandate any particular definition of "person." It's just as consistent with a natural law theory to accept that life begins at conception as it does to say it begins at viability or at birth.

Regardless, no one (that I am aware of) suggests that the abortion debate is just a tug of war of competing interests between two different people. That is, it's not like everyone admits the fetus is a person just like the mother, but mom has the right to kill her kid while unborn, but kid also has the right to live while unborn, so the grand compromise is to let mom have the right to kill her kid for 6 months but then give the kid the last 3 to live without fear of murder. And then to say that this result is somehow the consequence of natural law theory (to those few souls intelligent enough to understand it) is just to add an additional layer of nonsense to this discussion.

Yes, that very much expresses the gross misconception of natural rights in this country.

Would, under your interpretation of the Constitution, the state be able to force women who are pregnant as a result of rape or incest to carry their pregnancy to term?

Also, to all members of the discussion, are we referring to natural law in regards to a moral theory or natural law as a legal theory?

The point about natural law is that it arises directly from the human condition. A system of law is only as successful as the natural law it chooses to enforce. If the law is too severe, or the natural rights are not enforced sufficiently, it creates a Lockean 'state of war,' which erodes the power of the government, because it loses natural authority, causing social conflict.

The purpose of the rights are simply to avoid that social conflict. If such social conflict exists, then the human law needs to change to remove it, or the society self destructs. When the human law embodies natural law, it is successful in creating peace and prosperity. when human law is in conflict with natural law, it causes civil strife.

There is no magical recipe, or hidden higher order. In a correctly constructed system of government, the balance between restrictions and rights is self modifying and homeostatic. In an ill-constructed system, the conflict between opposing sides increases until there is civil war.

In a constitutional system, the authority of the constitution depends on proper promulgation of rights and restrictions from natural law, otherwise the government collapses. The main reason why the USA has grown in the past was because that promulgation was working.

In the last century, the promulgation started to break down, and now other superpowers such as China and Russia are slowly taking over. That's the way it is.

I agree that is a difficult question. Personally I feel that children not conceived under free will would not be accorded the same rights to birth, but I understand there are those that feel differently. Also children who are severely malformed, such as from the Zika virus, and my opinion is that the mother should have the right to choice of abortion in such cases. in other cases I cannot see a clear justification, and again there are people who disagree with that. So it should not be federally mandated and should be under the control of the States, within the broad guideline that the right to an abortion should not be automatic, but be required to be justified under some cause of duress.

Jefferson gave up on the inanity and went to France.

That is called real thought, based on real knowledge — ernestm

What?

You do know France erupted into a violent revolution which was a complete and utter failure to protect the people's liberty to such an extreme degree that they spread war to all of Europe all for nothing under an egomaniacal dictator and eventually straight up abandoned the republican project altogether and restored the monarchy just to stop the madness, right?

By the way, I'm not praising Hamilton here either. He had his own set of problems. But going to France wasn't exactly a genius move.

Also, Lin-Manuel Miranda is a racist. A great songwriter, but also a huge racist. He's like a 21st century Richard Wagner. Puts on huge impressive stage musicals constructed out of leitmotifs, and is super racist in his politics. Totally Wagnerian.

So, can the state (governing body) just dictate that women cannot have abortions unless their health is severely threatened? In other words, could all 50 states have a policy that automatically rejects abortions on the grounds of rape and incest?

T

So, can the state (governing body) just dictate that women cannot have abortions unless their health is severely threatened? In other words, could all 50 states have a policy that automatically rejects abortions on the grounds of rape and incest? — Chany

I'm Pro-Life. The media and pro-abortion activists always seem to assumr this is an irrational religious thing. That only shows they're in an echo chamber. They aren't listening or thinking.

Pro-Lifers are logical. They aren't just expressing a personal dislike of abortion as being icky or disgusting. They are reasoning from the premise that abortion is murder and that's not an extreme position in the Pro-Life movement -- that is the mainstream Pro-Life view. So they do of course want to ban abortion / murder.

Are rape and incest babies somehow less human than other babies? If abortion is murder, then no exception for rape or incest can be rationally justified. Such a thing would be logically indefensible.

You consistently do not respond to the substance of posts and use every opportunity, regardless of content, to drone on about your supposedly perfect understanding of natural rights. Have you noticed that?

Personally I feel that children not conceived under free will would not be accorded the same rights to birth, but I understand there are those that feel differently. — ernestm

I thought that natural rights theory answered the question of who a person was and who should be afforded rights? Why do you now withdraw from your all encompassing theory and present your personal opinion, as if there is no answer?

in other cases I cannot see a clear justification, and again there are people who disagree with that. So it should not be federally mandated and should be under the control of the States, within the broad guideline that the right to an abortion should not be automatic, but be required to be justified under some cause of duress. — ernestm

What does federalism have to do with natural rights? Are you now suggesting that the 10th Amendment check against the federal government is a dictate of natural rights? I understand that you believe there are areas of disagreement regarding abortion and they should be submitted for democratic decision, but I don't follow why you think state legislatures are more principled than federal legislatures on this point.

Are rape and incest babies somehow less human than other babies? If abortion is murder, then no exception for rape or incest can be rationally justified. Such a thing would be logically indefensible — BenMcLean

Good point. I agree that the legality and morality of an abortion should not be determined by the cause of the pregnancy. But if abortion is not murder or otherwise morally objectionable, then it follows that abortion ought to be as easy for someone whose pregnancy was caused by consensual sex as it is for someone who was raped.

Abortion is like every act of potentially immoral killing- it needs to be dealt with on its own. Simply calling it murder and the opposition an echo chamber is not exactly productive.

Even if abortion is immoral, it appears that a young girl who is raped into pregnancy who then decides to have an abortion is not blameworthy. There is nothing necessarily good in this case (though we can argue about that), there is nothing necessarily wrong either. Even if there is, it seems the two options: force a young girl to carry a pregnancy that was the result of rape, or allow an abortion, the abortion seems like the lesser of the two evils. Yes, it might be logically consistent to hold no abortions except in the case of adverse health effects, but it is also logically consistent to say, "lying is always wrong, regardless of the circumstances." Being that act utilitarian who kills innocent people gain one more unit of utility over not killing them is logically consistent. Peter Singer might be logically consistent when he says that moral status of personhood does not really happen in the conceptus until two years old when they start forming conscious desires, but I doubt you think of his theory as good for that.

This appears especially true in the political. Effectively, it is an overstepping of the state to say that teenage girls must carry a pregnancy from rape to term. The conception of "right to life" does not automatically trump "right to liberty". The state cannot force excessive and insane tax rates on you and the economy just because it saves a statistical life (and there are a lot of laws and policies that can be put into place that do just that). In fact, I think there might be a bit of the right to life and the right to liberty because simply existing in and of itself may not be very good. The right to life appears to cover more than just surviving- it means also having a life to live. The state cannot ruin the liberty of its citizens to the point where we seriously begin to question whether the right to life is being preserved.

As an aside, whether you like it or not, most people, even those against abortion, claim abortion is morally permissible in the case of rape. I believe that Ronald Dworkin and thinkers like him used this notion as a springboard, using it to try and reexamine why we intuitively find abortion moral in some cases and abortion immoral in others.

Jefferson wisely returned to the United States and became President after Hamilton had finished ruining the legal system by creating a totally inflexible constitution, then surrounding it with so many protections and caveats in the political process we are still arguing about who can own muskets to repress slave rebellions.

No, natural rights are definitely inalienable. There is no way of separating them from consideration of one person or another, they have to apply to everyone. Therefore, once a fetus reaches the age of 21 weeks and 5 days, at which point it can live independent of the mother, it must be accorded natural rights.