I
Rand Paul: Without change, GOP will "not win again in my lifetime"
- Status
P
powerofk
Guest
Actually, a huge portion of people who make their primary living off of welfare (at least the ones who believe that they are OWED a living) don’t vote (most of these people refuse to even register to vote), and rail against the government when it comes to anything but receiving their benefits. As for welfare paying more than minimum wage, I think this is a shared problem between both parties, and Americans in general. If we could somehow give incentives to businesses for paying people more than the minimum wage so that it would pay more to work than to stay at home and do nothing, it would go a great deal.
During the past 13 years (Bush’s 8 plus Obama’s first 5), the wealth of America has generally increased substantially on an annual basis. However, the main people who prospered during this time were the wealthiest 5% of Americans. The middle class has seen wages stagnate, and the lower 50% of Americans have actually seen take-home wages go down.
There’s a reason why Obama’s promise (though unfulfilled) of so-called redistribution of wages resonated with people. Regardless of how you view Obama, positively or negatively, Obama, like GW Bush before him, was a shrewd and extremely good campaigner. He won the nomination battle against Hillary in 2008 due to Hillary focusing too much on big primary states and overlooking small-state primaries and caucuses. It’s also the reason why Romney lost an election he should have won - Obama actually made Romney’s experience as a businessperson (thought by Romney to be his greatest strength) into a severe weakness for Romney. This was similar to the tactic GW Bush used against Kerry in 2004, where he made Kerry’s military service in Vietnam (thought by Dems to be a strength) to be a liability. . And just like Kerry, who could not initially believe that he lost Ohio (and therefore the election), Romney could not initially believe that he had lost the election, either.
If the GOP wants to win the Presidency again, they need someone who will not just be able to preach to the choir of the GOP, but be able to convince Independents and (gasp) a decent number of Dems to vote for their candidate, as well. Stop trying for a Bush-state narrowest margin of victory (where GW Bush barely won the popular vote in just barely enough states).
Nixon exhausted himself doing this in 1960 against JFK, but GOP Presidential candidates have to go into every state in the country - even so-called “blue” states and “blue” cities where they probably won’t win. I would suggest this with the Dems and “red” states and towns as well. Why? Because ignoring half the country due to that part of the country not agreeing with you only furthers the divide between the Dems and the GOP. If you only listen to people who agree with you, then you have no idea, really, how the other side thinks - and why they think that way. In order to make truly sound arguments and make truly sound decisions, you need to understand the other side!
Dems in their bubbles truly believe that the GOP and the Catholic Church are waging a “War on Women” because of the fight against the HHS mandate (among other things). Why? And of course, the GOP and the Catholic Church believe that the HHS mandate is an infringement of religious liberties. Why? If we just scream at each other back and forth, no understanding takes place. I personally believe that both accusations have gone slightly overboard. There is no “War on Women” in the GOP or Catholic Church, not really - yet, at the same time, though the HHS mandate does infringe on religious liberties, I don’t believe that that was the actual intent.
Though Kathleen Sebelius is technically Catholic, I doubt she truly understands the Church’s reasonings and that the Church teaches that even indirectly paying (which is what insurance is - the group or individual pays for the insurance, and then the insurance pays the medical costs) for someone else using contraception (which of course, is considered to be immoral by Church teaching) is indirectly condoning the use of contraception, which would be the Church indirectly condoning sin, which it cannot do. Her thinking (and Obama’s thinking, and the thinking of most on the Left) is - you’re not doing using the contraceptives yourself, so what’s the problem? Why are you trying to enforce your religious beliefs on your employees? And yet, on the Right, the response is “This is immoral, we can’t do it! You’re trying to stop us from practicing our religion!” Unfortunately, because there is no real dialogue between the parties, there’s no understanding, and simply distrust. It’s gotten to the point that if the GOP proposes something, and Obama actually likes the idea, the GOP no longer likes the idea, because it must be “too liberal”.
The only cure for the disease is to listen to people who disagree. Otherwise, each election just becomes a turnout battle between two bad options - and becomes “Us” versus “Them” - with “Us” being the “Good guys” and “Them” being “Bad Guys”.
During the past 13 years (Bush’s 8 plus Obama’s first 5), the wealth of America has generally increased substantially on an annual basis. However, the main people who prospered during this time were the wealthiest 5% of Americans. The middle class has seen wages stagnate, and the lower 50% of Americans have actually seen take-home wages go down.
There’s a reason why Obama’s promise (though unfulfilled) of so-called redistribution of wages resonated with people. Regardless of how you view Obama, positively or negatively, Obama, like GW Bush before him, was a shrewd and extremely good campaigner. He won the nomination battle against Hillary in 2008 due to Hillary focusing too much on big primary states and overlooking small-state primaries and caucuses. It’s also the reason why Romney lost an election he should have won - Obama actually made Romney’s experience as a businessperson (thought by Romney to be his greatest strength) into a severe weakness for Romney. This was similar to the tactic GW Bush used against Kerry in 2004, where he made Kerry’s military service in Vietnam (thought by Dems to be a strength) to be a liability. . And just like Kerry, who could not initially believe that he lost Ohio (and therefore the election), Romney could not initially believe that he had lost the election, either.
If the GOP wants to win the Presidency again, they need someone who will not just be able to preach to the choir of the GOP, but be able to convince Independents and (gasp) a decent number of Dems to vote for their candidate, as well. Stop trying for a Bush-state narrowest margin of victory (where GW Bush barely won the popular vote in just barely enough states).
Nixon exhausted himself doing this in 1960 against JFK, but GOP Presidential candidates have to go into every state in the country - even so-called “blue” states and “blue” cities where they probably won’t win. I would suggest this with the Dems and “red” states and towns as well. Why? Because ignoring half the country due to that part of the country not agreeing with you only furthers the divide between the Dems and the GOP. If you only listen to people who agree with you, then you have no idea, really, how the other side thinks - and why they think that way. In order to make truly sound arguments and make truly sound decisions, you need to understand the other side!
Dems in their bubbles truly believe that the GOP and the Catholic Church are waging a “War on Women” because of the fight against the HHS mandate (among other things). Why? And of course, the GOP and the Catholic Church believe that the HHS mandate is an infringement of religious liberties. Why? If we just scream at each other back and forth, no understanding takes place. I personally believe that both accusations have gone slightly overboard. There is no “War on Women” in the GOP or Catholic Church, not really - yet, at the same time, though the HHS mandate does infringe on religious liberties, I don’t believe that that was the actual intent.
Though Kathleen Sebelius is technically Catholic, I doubt she truly understands the Church’s reasonings and that the Church teaches that even indirectly paying (which is what insurance is - the group or individual pays for the insurance, and then the insurance pays the medical costs) for someone else using contraception (which of course, is considered to be immoral by Church teaching) is indirectly condoning the use of contraception, which would be the Church indirectly condoning sin, which it cannot do. Her thinking (and Obama’s thinking, and the thinking of most on the Left) is - you’re not doing using the contraceptives yourself, so what’s the problem? Why are you trying to enforce your religious beliefs on your employees? And yet, on the Right, the response is “This is immoral, we can’t do it! You’re trying to stop us from practicing our religion!” Unfortunately, because there is no real dialogue between the parties, there’s no understanding, and simply distrust. It’s gotten to the point that if the GOP proposes something, and Obama actually likes the idea, the GOP no longer likes the idea, because it must be “too liberal”.
The only cure for the disease is to listen to people who disagree. Otherwise, each election just becomes a turnout battle between two bad options - and becomes “Us” versus “Them” - with “Us” being the “Good guys” and “Them” being “Bad Guys”.
S
Skadi
Guest
Well the majority of people in general don’t vote, voter turnout in the US is outragiously low. But even withoughtthe votes bought through welfare it gives the Dems a perceived moral high ground. Now I disagree sense I find forcible redistribution of wealth absolutely disgusting but your average American just thinks “oh gosh those people should get help, let’s get the government to do it.” The Dems over the past few decades have shown how incredibly better at PR they are then the GOP. All the things which the republicans are accused of, like Racism, Sexism, hatred of the poor, and even to an extent rligious fanaticism (in the Dems case athiesm) are far stronger in the Democratic Party. Who groups blacks together and derides and non democrat black as a sell out? Who pushes not for sex equality but female favoritism (and minority favoritism)? Who traps the poor with welfare while bailing out banks and injecting stimulus? Who shreds the right of religious freedom in public places?
But otherwise I agree with your analysis
R
Ridgerunner
Guest
Interesting ideas, but let’s talk about them a little.
The only real Incentive of business people to pay more for labor is to increase the demand for labor. You can’t, by government action, cause the price of labor to go up anymore than you can, by government action, cause the price of one particular brand of corn flakes to go up without hurting the demand for that particular brand.
If you look at the top 5% of earners, you’ll find they’re also the main owners of capital and the ones with the greatest access to credit. Capital earns income as well as labor does. The relationship between labor’s percentage of national income and that of capital has not changed significantly since 1929. If one moves up, both move up. If one stagnates, so does the other, though labor’s percentage is always highest at full employment; the reason being that, at a point, further infusion of capital does not increase return. But no matter what, those who have capital fare better than those who don’t when it comes to income.
But capital, in the sense of “free and clear” capital, has not fared all that well either in the last five years. If one looks at the stock market, one sees what seems like a lot of capital generation. But since so much of it is the effect of money borrowed at artificially low interest rates, one can be misled. “Retail” trade (ordinary people) brokers will tell you, is moribund. People with cash can’t get any return on it to speak of.
So, the people who already were in the market in 2009 and didn’t panic and jump out, as well as those who have, in the meantime, borrowed money to invest in the market, pretty much constitute the whole market. People with steady nerves and speculators have been the principal gainers since 2009.
What, perhaps other than cost-cutting, which major corporations have definitely been doing, can put more reality into the market? Well, greater demand for goods and services. But that won’t happen while so many are endlessly mired in unemployment or underemployment.
But it wouldn’t just be the market that would benefit for higher employment. Those already employed would benefit as well, as the demand for their labor got tighter and tighter.
Therefore, comparing the incomes of “top 5%” to everyone else can lead us to think there is some kind of social inequality problem when the big problem is really lack of employment.
It has to be said that governmental policies of the last five years have suppressed employment. The government stifles energy production, reducing jobs in that area and making the cost of living higher. The government over-regulates, causing employers to back off projects that might employ people. The government imposes policies like Obamacare that very clearly destroy jobs. And what, exactly, does the government trot out as a remedy for unemployment? Well, shoving borrowed money out the door that simply vanishes into thin air.
Returning to topic, while not everyone articulates all of the above to himself/herself, there really is a strong sense on the part of the public that strong employment really is the key to a better economy and a widespread better life. The Democrats have utterly failed in that objective, and everybody knows it. It does not seem to me the Repubs are going to win the presidency in 2016 on arcane arguments about constitutionality. Nor are they going to win by arguing about the virtues of the marketplace or how some CEO deserves his millions. Nor are they going to win by pushing some watered-down open immigration policy. People care more about having a job, keeping a job, getting better pay, than they care about any of that.
And Repubs will gain nothing by agreeing with Dems on the policies that have caused so much unemployment and underemployment, and should, if anything, distance themselves from it even more.
I don’t think you give Kathleen Sebelius enough credit. She isn’t stupid. She knows exactly what she’s doing…the will of Obama and his group, (which corresponds to her own) and she fully intends what she does.
I
ishii
Guest
In his speech at cpac, Rand Paul was careful to say about the Democrats and Obama: “I don’t question their motives.” Well I do. I think their motivation is to fundamentally transform America into something very different from what our constitution says. While I think candidates need to be careful with what they say, I do think sometimes they are too gentle with the secular left. It is time, I think, to start calling them what they are.
Ishii
meltzerboy
New member
What exactly do you believe they are: socialists, communists, anarchists, atheists? Are you all right with the motivation of libertarians, such as Rand and Ron Paul, who want to take us back to an isolationist foreign policy, which no doubt our first President would have approved of?
P
powerofk
Guest
And I like to give people from both parties the benefit of the doubt. I voted for both GW Bush and Obama. Seriously. Actually, I think questioning motives is a huge symptom here of what’s going on. GOPers don’t trust Dems and Dems don’t trust GOPers. I do think we need to be careful of the extremist elements alive on both the Right and the Left - and the more the parties distrust each other, the more sway the extremist elements have over the parties. Don’t delude yourselves - the paths of both the extreme Right and the extreme Left lead to totalitarianism. The countries where most of the persecuted Church lives today are primarily either extreme right-wing Islamist governments or extreme left-wing secular governments.
I
ishii
Guest
That is a fair question. I am more comfortable with a quasi-isolationist guy who also believes in the constitution. I don’t believe Obama really believes in America or the constitution. He sees it as a hindrance - a roadblock to blessing us with the wisdom of his policies. I think he believes he is above the constitution, and that makes him a very dangerous president. I would also point out that Rand is probably less “isolationist” than his father. While I don’t consider myself an isolationist, I believe our country’s biggest problems are not from without but from within, and not so much material but spiritual and moral, and decades in the making. I think we can find a middle ground between a idealistic foreign policy that engages in wars around the world, and a foreign policy that believes in a “fortress America.” There are limits to what we can do around the world. We might think we’re doing good but in the long run we are making things worse. I am the least comfortable discussing foreign policy issues. During the cold war I pretty much had things figured out, but now I’m not so sure. I do believe in a strong defense, however.
I reject the moral equivalence argument you seem to be making. One of the biggest mistakes the GOP made was in not telling people just who Obama is and what his agend was. Of course, they probably were not able to do that in 2008. In 2012 I think they could have, but did not do so because they were afraid to. I think your argument about the so-called “extremists” on the right is based on a false premise, because the right in America is based on belief in the constitution which guarantees liberty! The logical result of constitutionalism is a guarantee of liberty and freedom. It is not some kind of Christian sharia type government which you seem to be implying. I don’t think the tea party wishes to institute an Islamic government
Ishii
P
powerofk
Guest
The “Tea Party”/“Libertarianism” wing of the GOP is NOT the extremist part of the GOP. It’s the Karl Rove/Dick Cheney wing that we have to worry about. It was this wing of the GOP that used 9/11 to push the USA PATRIOT Act, pushed for the war in Iraq, etc. Part of the reason why Obama won in 2008 was due to his running against this faction of the GOP. Of course, he turned around and decided that he was not only going to keep most of GW Bush’s programs - he expanded most of the programs. Unfortunately, it’s extremely difficult for the GOP to run against these security programs (which diminish liberties and are no doubt unconstitutional, yet are nearly unchallengable due to how they are written - and how hard it is to prove that your own private information has been collected) because the GOP instituted these measures in the first place. This arm of the GOP, however, is able to manipulate the other parts of the GOP into believing that they share the same values, when that really is not the case.I reject the moral equivalence argument you seem to be making. One of the biggest mistakes the GOP made was in not telling people just who Obama is and what his agend was. Of course, they probably were not able to do that in 2008. In 2012 I think they could have, but did not do so because they were afraid to. I think your argument about the so-called “extremists” on the right is based on a false premise, because the right in America is based on belief in the constitution which guarantees liberty! The logical result of constitutionalism is a guarantee of liberty and freedom. It is not some kind of Christian sharia type government which you seem to be implying. I don’t think the tea party wishes to institute an Islamic government
Ishii
As for the “Tea Party” wing of the GOP, up until now, the GOP has only controlled the House during the Obama Presidency. It is easy for them to currently run on opposing Obama because most “Tea Party” members of Congress currently come from states and districts where Obama has never been popular. But, pretty much, their only platform has been to be against whatever Obama is for. The real problem with the “Tea Party” is that, once the GOP wins the Presidency again (whenever that happens - maybe 2016, maybe 2020, maybe 2024, who knows, but it’ll happen eventually) is that they will be forced to truly govern - and by doing so, will be forced to lose their ideological purity. Remember, Obama the candidate was always more appealing than Obama the President. If the GOP President pushes for items that are unconstitutional, will the “Tea Party” wing be his/her conscience and oppose the measures? Or will they be like the Dems with Obama, who opposed GW Bush’s unconstitutional measures yet support Obama’s unconstitutional measures because he is one of them?
I
ishii
Guest
Sorry, powerofk, but you’ve confused me even more. So if I understand you correctly, the George Bush/Dick Cheney represent the “extremist wing” of the GOP which, if we’re not careful, will end up instituting totalitarianism on par with the Islamist “right-wing” governments which persecute Christians?
Actually, Dick Cheney and Bush represent the establishment wing of the GOP. They are not really constitutionalists, but neither are they some kind of radical right-wingers either. They supported an active foreign policy in response to terror attacks and believed spreading democracy to be a strong antidote to terrorism. They went to war with much bi-partisan support, including from such traditional Catholic candidates as Rick Santorum. They also believed that expanding government bureaucracy in the form of a “department of homeland security” to be another important step in fighting terrorism. I personally think we have to strike a balance between our personal freedoms and convenience and helping ensure safety at our airports, etc. I don’t mind removing my shoes before I board a jet.
You rightly point out that campaigning and governing are two different things. That said, I will take the governance of a Rand Paul, Chris Christie or a Marco Rubio over Hillary or whoever the Democrat happens to be. Perhaps what you don’t understand about the tea partiers is that they are not for an activist federal govt. That is why they might come across as being against everything Obama is for. The constitutionalist position does not give much power to the federal govt - leaving most power to the states, etc. The answer to activist, statist policy is not “less activist” policy but returning power to where it belongs: to the state and local levels. This, btw, is in keeping with the Catholic principle of subsidiarity.
Ishii
P
powerofk
Guest
The reason why I don’t consider the Tea Party to be the “extremist” wing of the GOP is because I don’t consider “Libertarianism” to be on the left-right spectrum. There are libertarians on the “Left” AND on the “Right”. Generally, the “libertarians” on the “Right” focus on economics (believing that the market should be as free as possible), while “libertarians” on the “Left” focus on social issues (believing that all drugs should be legal, free sex with anyone, etc). I actually consider the “Tea Party” and the shorter-lived “Occupy” movement to be flip sides of the same coin. This may seem strange to others, as one movement seemed to be from the “Left” and the other from the “Right”, and the two groups used different tactics. But both were set off by groups of people who were infuriated at the same current situation, primarily the stagnating economy. Tea Partiers blamed Obama, government intrution, the secularization of the culture, and undocumented immigrants. Occupyers focused on “the 1% vs. the 99%” and the such. Both groups were vehemently against the “TARP bailout”.Sorry, powerofk, but you’ve confused me even more. So if I understand you correctly, the George Bush/Dick Cheney represent the “extremist wing” of the GOP which, if we’re not careful, will end up instituting totalitarianism on par with the Islamist “right-wing” governments which persecute Christians?
Actually, Dick Cheney and Bush represent the establishment wing of the GOP. They are not really constitutionalists, but neither are they some kind of radical right-wingers either. They supported an active foreign policy in response to terror attacks and believed spreading democracy to be a strong antidote to terrorism. They went to war with much bi-partisan support, including from such traditional Catholic candidates as Rick Santorum. They also believed that expanding government bureaucracy in the form of a “department of homeland security” to be another important step in fighting terrorism. I personally think we have to strike a balance between our personal freedoms and convenience and helping ensure safety at our airports, etc. I don’t mind removing my shoes before I board a jet.
You rightly point out that campaigning and governing are two different things. That said, I will take the governance of a Rand Paul, Chris Christie or a Marco Rubio over Hillary or whoever the Democrat happens to be. Perhaps what you don’t understand about the tea partiers is that they are not for an activist federal govt. That is why they might come across as being against everything Obama is for. The constitutionalist position does not give much power to the federal govt - leaving most power to the states, etc. The answer to activist, statist policy is not “less activist” policy but returning power to where it belongs: to the state and local levels. This, btw, is in keeping with the Catholic principle of subsidiarity.
Ishii
S
Skadi
Guest
Two things,
1, the connection between libertarians and the tea party is somewhat false. While libertarians initially supported the group most (including me) found the tea party far to Neo-Conservative favoring things like the war on drugs and opposing gay marraige. Allot of us have disassociated ourselves from these folks.
- Libertarianism isn’t on the left-right spectrum your right. The party’s and media in the US use the left-right spectra to support the two party system. A true political spectrum is 2D like this…
…Social Conservative
…(Stalinism)…/.(Nazi Party)…(theocracy)
…|
…Communist…|…Republican
…|
Fiscal liberal <--------------------------------->Fiscal Conservative
…|
…Democrat…|…Libertarian
…|
.………/
…(left anarchism)…Social Liberal…(right anarchism)
R
Ridgerunner
Guest
Historically, this has not been true as regards personal morals. Since religious (and some philosophical systems) beliefs are a competing basis for human thought and action to the mentally totalitarian aspect of communism, communist systems have tended to be quite libertarian when it came to personal morals. Soviet Russia, for example, embraced birth control, sexual libertinism and abortion long before the West did. Those were not the only ways in which communism has tended to be “libertarian”, but they were significant ones.
In other ways, of course, communism tended to be extraordinarily “libertarian” at first, inciting virtual “feeding frenzies” of personal opportunism. But they became iron-bound conservative once party power was established. Stalin was perhaps the most accomplished employer of this; alternately opening the field to enormous opportunistic license, then slamming it down and doing away with those who took advantage of it.
G
Geist
Guest
Unsure about abortion in the USSR, but homosexuality and producing/possessing pornography was a one way gulag ticket in the USSR.
The very first depiction of female breasts in Soviet cinema was in 1984.
Libertines they were not.
C
Cirdan_XII
Guest
Strange idea this.
I don’t see why the color of one’s skin determines one’s political outlook, and why people who aren’t white shouldn’t be sympathetic towards conservative and / or libertarian ideas.
Basically you’re saying that because there aren’t many non whites in those areas now, you extraplate that their never will be.
Unless you can demonstarte that those points of view are genetically determined, this is completely illogical.
G
Geist
Guest
Because…they’re not.
One need only watch a section 8 or food stamp riot and see the color of those demanding more government money to see this is never going to change.
Government is addicting by design, and as LBJ guaranteed the Democratic party owns blacks lock, stock, and barrel.
Latinos are similarly inclined for government dependency, hence the unending Democratic push to get them to vote:
americanthinker.com/2012/07/forget_immigration_its_big_government_hispanic_voters_want.html
.
Nope. Generational welfare dependence is a very real thing.
Can you demonstrate where I said it was “genetically determined”?
It’s quite cultural, the freedom from government outlook (was) the product of the British outlook on personal freedom.
One need only look at the French or Spanish dependency on the state to see it is not genetic (they’re white Europeans too after all) to see it’s not “genetic”, but cultural.
R
Ridgerunner
Guest
Abortion and contraception were legal from the beginning in the Soviet state. Divorce was made legal and easy. In 1936, Stalin banned abortion, being concerned about the number of workers and soldiers needed for the state. Abortion was legalized again in 1955.
The early Soviet Union’s focus was "revolutionary morality’ and it deliberately tried to suppress competing religious views of morality in many ways, including sexual mores as well as family authority structures.
The whole system of Cheka/NKVD/MVD/KGB terror, and particulary in the prisons and gulags, was a sewer of sexual predation and immorality on the part of both sexes. “Revolutionary morality” was focused on service to the state, and not much else.
C
Cirdan_XII
Guest
The British outllok on personal freedom wasn’t handed down from the mists of time. It is something that was determined and created by history. Think of the Magna Carta and Habeas Corpus and the relative roles of the different bodies of British government up until the Tudor Period (privy council, parliament) and how this led to a legal system that was in essence a combination of Common Law principles with legal precedents effectively becoming law. Compare this to much of the rest of the world which went directly from feudal autocracy to Napoleonic Code, essentially a reinvention of Roman Law with much more recourse to the concrete letter of the law rather than its situational interpretation, and hence requiring a strong state to create the level playing field which a singular interpretation required.
Does coming from a country whose laws build on the Napoleonic Code mean that you must forever crave for the Napoleonic Code and that your children and grandchildren will do likewise? If this were genuinely the case, then immigration should get an urgent re-think as surely it would be political suicide to seek to integrate people who have a fundamentally different outlook on freedom and are unable to change that view. But fortunately I don’t believe that is the case. I have met countless people from Napoleonic Code countries who clearly saw the limits of the Napoloeonic Code and wished for a different interpretation of their freedom and rights. I don’t think there is any fundamental lock-in in the Napoleaonic Code. The moment the money runs out and there cease to be free handouts (the panem et circenses of the modern age), or preferably well before that, even the most dependent people will wake up and realise that the system they were banking on wasn’t sustainable.
If the Dems honestly believe they can build their power and destroy all opposition by forever bribing the majority of the population into letheargy and vegetalism, they may have a rude awakening coming.
C
Cirdan_XII
Guest
This is precisely one of the scratched records the Reps are going to have to change.
I admire and agree with much of what Ron Paul says, but the moment he mentions socialism or Keynesian economics, he loses me. It’s not the socialists or Keynesians who are responsible for the mess we are in today (there are far too few of them for a start) but the mainstream following the path of least resistance. Calling people such names doesn’t address the problem but is just intellectual laziness.
R
Ridgerunner
Guest
My understanding of the origin of the Common Law of England is that when William the Conquerer conquered the Saxons, he still had a significant job of pacification ahead of him in a still-feudal world. One of his measures to mollify them was to declare that they would henceforth still be ruled by the laws in place when Saxon king Edward (the Confessor) “was both alive and dead.” Therefore, Saxon precedent had to be followed even in incorporating new laws. However, Parliament later assumed the power to change any of the laws of England, and can do so without restraint of precedent or anything else.
In the U.S., of course, most states adopted the Common Law of England, but it was subject to acts of legislatures, and, over all, the Constitution.
I am not sure of this, but I believe Louisiana is the only U.S. state that adopted the Code Napoleon as its seminal body of law. But it can be changed by the legislature subject to the Constitutions of Louisiana and of the U.S.
- Status