Philosophy or motive?

These are exciting times for America. They are stirring times. We might even quote the great pamphleteer Thomas Paine, who was given credit for inspiring the American Revolution, when he wrote “These are the times that try men’s souls.” Were he alive today, no doubt Thomas Paine would be called a blogger.
All this excitement revolves around President George W. Bush’s nomination of Appeals Court Judge John Roberts to a vacancy on the U.S. Supreme Court replacing retiring Justice Sandra Day O’Connor.
The big question is: Will Judge John Roberts bring with him to the court a sound philosophy of the law, or will he bring with him a motive to change the law? Does he understand the deep philosophical background of the Founding Fathers that formed the underpinnings of the U.S. Constitution or does he bring with him a motive to change the law for the vacuous notion of benefitting society, thus destroying the very fabric of the Constitution?
On confirmation as an Associate Justice of the Court, will he live up to the oath he will take “to uphold and defend this Constitution of the United States”?
Webster’s definition of philosophy follows: “Love of or the search for wisdom or knowledge. Theory or logical analysis of the principles underlying conduct, thought, knowledge, and the nature of the universe; included in philosophy are ethics, aesthetics and logic.”
Now, compare this to motive. Webster says: “Motive: Some interior drive, impulse, intention, etc., that causes a person to do something or act in a certain way.”
Thomas Jefferson and James Madison, two of the Founding Fathers, were principals in the writing of America’s basic law. Thomas Jefferson wrote the Declaration of Independence, and James Madison was a principal architect in the writing of both the U.S. Constitution and with George Mason was principal architect in composing the Constitution’s Bill of Rights.
In writing the first federal constitution in the world, these men and the other Founding Fathers were sailing in uncharted waters. Their compass was a sound knowledge of the philosophical studies coming directly, first of all, from the Bible; from philosophers of the era of enlightenment such as Montesquieu, Locke and others; and particularly from Sir William Blackstone’s Commentaries on the Laws of England.
Thomas Jefferson’s reference in the Declaration of Independence to “The Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God,” came directly from Blackstone. This phrase refers to our God-given natural rights of life, property and liberty.
The fact that the Bible played such an important role with the Founding Fathers was revealed in a study of their writings which showed that of all the quotations from their sources of study, 34 percent were directly from the Bible and 24 percent were from philosophers of the Enlightenment Era.
All these studies formed the foundation of the U.S. Constitution, known to be the most brilliant work of the mind of man.
I stand to be corrected, but to my knowledge the philosophy of law is no longer offered as a principal course in America’s law schools, or at least I have never met a lawyer who remembers taking such a course.
We can only hope that Judge John Roberts will take the philosophical route of the Founding Fathers.
Associate Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg announced on appointment that she had different thoughts.
The exact words of Justice Ginsburg on the announcement of her nomination by President Bill Clinton are found in the last line of a lengthy statement she made at the time: “I look forward to stimulating weeks this summer and, if I am confirmed, to working in a neighboring Court (U.S. Supreme Court) to the best of my ability for the advancement of the law in the service of society” (emphasis added).
To translate the phrase, we turn again to Webster: “Advance: to bring closer to the present (living constitution concept).” For “the law in the service of society,” Webster has a term, “Social engineering: An effort to solve a social problem to improve the condition of society.” The statement in its entirety spells legislation, not interpretation.
Congress is charged with legislation of the law and the U.S. Supreme Court is charged with interpretation of the law as it relates to the U.S. Constitution.
The U.S. Constitution is the fundamental law or the foundation law of the United States. As such it was not intended to be changed, but to remain intact. Webster defines fundamental law as “a law or laws, as a constitution, regarded as basic, and irrevocable by ordinary judicial or legislative action” (emphasis added).
The foundation law of the United States was never intended to be advanced any more than the foundation of your home if you wish to remodel it and bring it forward to modern times. If you move the foundation, the house will collapse. Likewise, if you move the foundation law, the nation as we know it will collapse.
America awaits the confirmation of Judge John Roberts. Only time will reveal whether Judge Roberts takes a classical philosophical approach to the law or whether he is motivated to change it.