[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/lit/ - Literature

Search:


View post   

>> No.11067078 [View]
File: 56 KB, 682x455, yx2qynoc9dmx.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
11067078

>>11066902
Here in the U.S. I don't see Catholics as generally better, but they continually bring up God and concerns about abortion, that's a positive indicator. They are hated ITT because not being a relativist is seen as backward. It is rather the intellectual relativists who are killing intellectualism. Art, philosophy, literature, none of the humanities are safe from relativism

>> No.11035702 [View]
File: 56 KB, 682x455, yx2qynoc9dmx.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
11035702

>>11035698
mean what makes a nation what it is as distinct from other nations, and which written constitutions can only reflect). "Rule of law" is a phrase which means that the state is *subject* to the law, rather than above it. This theory of the state is extremely important for conservative support of revolutions, such as the American Revolution: what justifies this Revolution in the Anglo-American perspective), is that the British government broke the law: British parliament had no jurisdiction over the colonies, they were a foreign state. The British king did, but his authority was limited to what was stipulated in the colonial charters, and in British law the king cannot tax without parliament; rather than going through American assemblies to approve taxes, however, the king went through British parliament. Many Anglo-American conservatives saw this as a violation of the law, which justified revolt. John Adams, for example, held rule of law to be of the highest importance (he took great pride in being the successful legal defense for the British soldiers who perpetuated the "Boston Massacre"). Constitutionalist conservativism leads to a major conflict with progressivist legal theory in the United States: in William Blackstone's jurisprudence (which was accepted by all legal proponents of the American Revolution, and which was what the U.S. Constitution presumes), when judging equity ("equity" means what is not covered by the letter of the law) a law is to be interpreted according to *the reason it was made*. This is referred to as "Originalism" (contrary to popular belief, "Originalism" does not mean "only covering situations existing at the time the law was written", and Blackstone stresses this: the reason the law

Navigation
View posts[+24][+48][+96]