Harlan F. Stone Quote

“The law itself is on trial quite as much as the cause which is to be decided.”

~ Harlan F. Stone

1941

Ratings and Comments


Mike, Norwalk

A common law altruism (doctrine that the general welfare of society is the proper goal of an individual's actions) forming the basis of all jurisdictions, local to federal.

Waffler, Smith

Dear Mike, in your philosophic system (if I may call it that) how can LAWS, natural laws that is, ever be on trial. Would it not be simply your RULES that would be subject to this "being on trial". I give it a five and trust in humanity to know what laws and/or rules are best for their societies. I don't think one has existed that allowed for wontant murder for example, all "statist" societies develop sufficient resorces to combat such things.

Waffler, Smith

If Mike you think it is okay for a jury to nullify natural law why do you think it wrong for Congress or the statist authority to pass rules or laws that may be against natural law. In your value system you seem to place JURIES as somehow being morally superior to LEGISLATORS.

Mike, Norwalk

Dear Waffler, thank you for bringing up a point that I might elaborate. Language has been developed around religious, political, etc usage. By way of example: In English, or any other language that I'm aware of, the term government has been an appropriate term because there has always been somebody (monarchy - individual or small group) to rule or or govern over an inferior. When the representative republic was defined in 1776 and 1787, there was no word that described that scenario. Because everyone was aware of, used to, and familiar with the word government it was the term used, though it was not the concept that fit. In the same way, because the monarch or other ruling totalitarian acted as god or in place of god, what ever they said was treated and enforced as though it was law. Rule(s) of the master was the law of god. Rules in that scenario were as or, synonymous with law. That language of the past was used to keep the rabble, slaves and otherwise leasers in their place. De jure American jurisprudence was an anomaly in that it recognized a separation of the source from a defining application. It is again the lack of language that allows the Waffler worlders to fuse all in to one tyrannical chaos. You are correct, natural law cannot be tried but because the limited language does not differentiate between the two, law at times becomes synonymous with rule. Waffler, it is impossible for juries to nullify natural law. Congress can pass rules that are contrary to law. Sovereign jurors are not morally superior to legislators, they are jurisdictionally speaking, superior in authority.

RBESRQ
  • Reply
RBESRQ    9/14/10

Law is always on trial hence the vigilance of the ACLU, HRC, and other non-governmental agencies. Laws (or better still Common Law as Mike would like me have it) are meaningless when they are abused by tyrants; they have no credence or effect in the world of psychosis - just look at Mao Tse Tung, he was responsible for killing more people than Starlin and Hitler combined. Natural law can only exist in a compassionate world this why Compassion and Empathy are the two most important goals in life. All else is meaningless until these two goals are part of our daily lives.

Waffler, Smith

People, societies, juries, nullify and/or defien "natural law" all of the time. In fact there is no such thing as natural law in the affairs of men. It only exists in nature, maybe that is why it is called natural. In the affairs of men we have "moral" law and that is subject to change and interpretation. Thus the Aztecs thought it moral and right to slave thousands in one day or daily as a sacrifice to their god. Morality fluctuates and is subject to change.

RBESRQ
  • 1
  • Reply
    RBESRQ    9/14/10

    Morality doesn't change it is absolute our interpretation of morality changes. The form chair is a chair the form doesn't change (Plato said this in case you thought I did). It's like honesty, honesty as a pure form doesn't change its us that makes it deviate.

    jim k, Austin,Tx

    Forget "natural law" for a minute and let's discuss man made laws passed by the the lovely people in government, local ,state, and federal. Many are for our good, some are just stupid and some are just plain wrong. Asset forfeiture laws are a great example of laws that are wrong. When cops can take private property when no crime was committed, or even if a crime is committed, something is sorely wrong. Many small town police departments are financed with property stolen in this manner. Congress passed these laws and can and should repeal them. All this mischief done on the basis of this horrible so-called war on drugs.

    E Archer, NYC

    Sure would be nice to hear a judge say this in a courtroom today! I think it should be a 'law' (like the Miranda warning) that judges must instruct the jury with this statement every time. Trial by jury is supposed to protect us from bad laws. You can blame the American Bar Association for all the corruptions to the administration of 'law' in this land -- it has become a circus and another tool for stealing the property and labors of the common people. Lawyers earn their living by suing people, and they are always in need of more...

    E Archer, NYC

    Re: Morality, RBE has touched upon it. The natural born rights of the individual define 'right' and 'wrong.' What those 'natural born rights' are is debatable. But in America, we have made a Declaration as to what those rights are and fought against those who said otherwise. I do believe Natural Law is a self-correcting 'system' outside of human control. Interestingly, we live in a world in which everything lives off of everything else -- if living things stopped eating other living things, life would end! The respect for the lives of others is the basis of morality. Truth is truth whether we know it or not, but morality is simply the level with which one respects other living things -- even when we are eating them! Morality is defined by what we love. If our morals are not in harmony with the nature of things, Nature will correct us.

    Ron, Salem

    Unjust laws are always on trial, striking them down is another matter.

    Ken, Allyn, WA

    If anything needs to be on trial it is the law, and shortly after that those who pass unjust laws need to be on trial as well. Finally, judges who mislead juries in their duties and obligations need to be tried.

    RBESRQ
    • 1
    • Reply
      RBESRQ    9/15/10

      The greatest tragedy in mankind’s entire history may be the hijacking of morality by religion. Arthur C. Clark

      Mike, Norwalk

      Waffler, fyi - "people, societies, juries can NOT nullify natural law. Can such parties (individually or in concert) nullify gravity, physics, math, fiscal law - etc., The answer is NO! ! ! Such parties can nullify the administration or established rules of such BUT, he/she/they/it can not nullify the natural law itself. If you step off a cliff, you will abide the lawfully natural consequences that follow.

      Waffler, you did touch on a valid point. It is up to corporeal man to discover what the natural law is and how it works (outside morals, religion, etc.). Once having used logic, historical analysis, reason and understanding the specific societies traditions, foibles, mannerisms, etc., man then can use tools such as codes, ordinances, regulations, rules, statutes, etc. to organize (order as differs from the law itself) the administration of the law. For an extremely terse example: 1st degree, 2nd degree, manslaughter, etc. as it describes the individual sovereign's united agreement - is for administering the natural law concerning life. Grand theft, petty larceny, theft by deception, etc. describe a natural law administration concerning property. A de jure common law is the classification that envelopes temporal administrations, philosophies, etc. of an eternal natural law.

      jim's focus on the philosophical / corporeally applied legal positivism is a point well made and here very appropriate. When carnal man elevates himself to be equal with god or simply, to be a god in and of himself with/by an ability to make or create law (as is averse to "rule" of law) the consequences very. Those carnal/man's laws resulting in liberty, inalienable rights enhancement, prosperity and peace simply resemble natural law administrations. Those carnal/man's laws that result in anything else are antithetical to natural law - such existing within the philosophical domain of legal positivism.

      Mike, Norwalk

      RBESRQ (Robert) I smiled at your last comment here - a sort of oxymoron if you will. Morals as a stand alone topic are outside secular law and exist as a basis for religion. Arthur C. Clark would have been accurate is he had said: you morals with resulting religion is different than my morals with resulting religion. There is not one without the other.

      robert, somewhere inthe USA

      LAW IS LAW ONLY UNTIL IT IS DECIDED - THERE ARE NO ABSOLUTES - ONLY IN THE CONSCIOUSNESS OF NATURAL LAW DOES IT EXIST. MORALITY BELONGS TO NO RELIGION, NO GOVERNMENT, NO IDEOLOGY, NO LAW - IT IS ITSELF ABSOLUTE WITHOUT CONDITION.

      Mike, Norwalk

      Robert, can you tell why it is that progressive liberals need to change the meaning of words, phases, concepts etc.? By way of example: The term "liberal" today, has almost nothing to do with the meaning 250 years ago. I've given more than enough definitions of religion (legal, secular, multiple dictionaries, encyclopedia, etc.) while the newest slant seems to be changing to a political advantage for an atheist's utopia - cloaked in a socialist's (religion) administration.

      @

      Get a Quote-a-Day!

      Liberty Quotes sent to your mail box daily.